No. 42: The Use of Physical Evidence in Early Printed Books
3-7 August 1998
|
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: They were very helpful. They helped me understand some of the topics discussed in class and some of the more complicated articles were later explained in class. They complemented the course very nicely. 2: Very. 3: Very useful reading, al-though some were obscure and hard to obtain. 4: The readings were excellent. It really helped to have read them prior to the course. 5: They were both useful and interesting. 6: Very useful; provided adequate groundwork for all subsequent dis-cussion. 7: Very useful. 8: Very useful, particularly Goldschmidt. 9: Extremely. 10: Fitted the course well and completely. 2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)? 1: The handbook distributed will be very helpful. 2: Yes, though it would be good if the instructor could upgrade some of the photocopies. 3: Yes, a reference book in it-self. 4: Yes; yes. 5: Yes, although I wish we could have gone over each page in great-er detail. There was simply not sufficient time. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, although we did not look at every-thing in the workbook and some pages are not identified, limiting its usefulness. 8-9: Yes. 10: Very useful; glad to be able to have such a booklet at home. 3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. It was challenging without being overwhelming. 2: Yes. 3: Very high level was ap-propriate for tough material. The class members matched the level quickly, and it rose steadily. 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes - everyone seemed stimulated at all times. 8: Yes. 9: Very. 10: Yes. 4) If your course had field trips, were they effective? 3: We had a roomful of incunables and we spent a lot of time handling them. 5-7: N/A. 8: The visit to Clemons 201 to view the ISTC was beneficial. 10: N.A. 5) Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations? 1: The description was a little vague and could be more informative. 2:Yes. 3: Yes, exactly. 4-6: Yes. 7: To a large degree, yes. We did not investigate areas of copy-specific information (bindings and provenance) as much as I had hoped. 8: Yes, although more time was spent on catalog description than I expected (not a complaint). 9-10: Yes. 6) What did you like best about the course? 1: I enjoyed it so much that it's hard to be specific. I learned how to think about incunables in a different way. I liked evaluating references. I enjoyed the history. Most of all, I appreciated PN's ability to discuss issues and not lecture about them. His sense of humor is delightful. 2: The chance to see an incunabulist working and talking about his work. The chance to actually handle early books - this did not happen in Nicholas Pickwoad or Mirjam Foot's classes. Caroline Breashears was extremely helpful in managing our specimen books. 3: 1) PN's immense knowledge, teaching skill, and open-ness to questions, even dumb questions. (There's no such thing as a dumb ques-tion.) 2) Getting our hand on the books rather than watching slides. 4: The depth of PN's knowledge of the subject, the chance to learn from direct examination of the very interesting (and rare) materials. I particularly liked the way that the history of the study of incunables was taught. 5: The instructor and being exposed to the techniques of observation that he has developed. 6: Examination of incunables and PN's expert commentary. 7: Two things: the opportunity to be exposed to PN and his encyclopedic knowledge of incunables and the participatory nature of his teaching method. Although primarily a lecture format, the class included a few group exercises. The fact that class members represented a diverse range of disciplines contributed to the rich experience. 8: Close examination of materials was very beneficial, as was watching PN solve little problems related to a text in front of us. 9: The instructor - extremely learned and brilliant, but wears his learning lightly. We covered a great deal of material in a very pleasant manner. Instructor responded well to all student questions and turned irrelevant (seemingly) questions into relevant ones. PN worked harder than the students - devoting break times to finding materials to answer our more recent questions. 10: I appreciated the patience of the instructor, his untiring willingness to accept and provide detailed answers to questions. 7) How could the course have been improved? 1: By adding a second week. 2: PN has a tendency to get involved in intriguing minor questions and pick up a reference work or check a database, during which time the class grinds to a halt. This is the way he is, but maybe a bit less. 3: We needed a basic reference text, handbook, guide, pamphlet, something to provide a base of dates and vocabulary. 4: Better lighting in the Taylor Room would have made examining the incunables much easier. 5: Only by being longer. 6: I don't see any way the course might have been improved. 7: Lighting in Taylor was a problem for examining watermarks, &c. Supply the class with little floodlights! I don't know what they're called, but they might be a solution. 8: No suggestions. 10: I do not see any room for, or need of, improvement. 8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa's Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week? 1: None. Our handling was appropriate for the course. 3: Our course was aided by not having the burden of heavy surveillance or nagging. CB helped a lot. 4-5: No suggestions. 6: Greater use of book cradles and side tables might be in order. 7: Better light. See above. 8: Everyone handled incunables, and I saw no signs of bib-lio-abuse. 9: Our class handled materials appropriately. 9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, &c. 1: I broke my foot, so I wasn't able to do much except attend a couple of evening lectures. 2: Evening lectures were good, but the hour between the end of classes and their start was an awkward time, hard to fill profitably. 3: Excellent Malkin lecture. 4: Very good lectures; Bookseller Night was difficult because of the lack of schedule for the van. 5: All RBS activities are high quality and thoroughly enjoyable. 6: All activities were a pleasant diversion from classwork. However, it might have been nice to have guided tours of the exhibitions currently mounted at UVa. 10: All the activities I attended worked out well in quality, and I immensely enjoyed the opportunities they presented to meet and talk with people of both related and unrelated interest and occupations. 10)Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: I got more than my money's worth. 2: Yes, I got my money's worth. 3: This course is worth two years of heavy reading. There is no substitute for complete immersion with an expert and the real materials. 4: A superb course. Really a pleasure to take. 5: No. Yes, indeed. 6: The course is absolutely worth taking; now, it's almost impossible to look at an incunable without keeping the Needham method in mind. 7: Tell class members to bring Magic Markers and rulers. 8: Great course, very worthwhile, and PN has a wonderful, relaxed manner. Very much worth the money. 9: Yes, I got my money's worth. 10: Anyone in a related area should take this course, if possible. Number of respondents: 10
There were ten students: five (50%) were rare book librarians, one each (10% each) was an antiquarian bookseller, a general librarian with some rare book duties, a media con-sultant, a retiree, and a part-time student. * One student was given tuition as a birthday present. |