No. 17: Implementing Encoded Archival Description

12-16 July 1999

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Pre-course readings were helpful for the most part. My level of understanding at the outset was quite low, so some of it was a stretch for me. 2: They gave a good overview. 3: Didn’t get to them. 4-5: Very useful. Will re-read some (course put readings into clearer context). 6: They were useful and gave good background. I will now go back and re-read some of the articles, and I expect that doing this will reinforce what I have learned. 7: Readings provided useful information for the course. 8: Very helpful as a background. 9: Very useful; gave me a good overview and familiarity with what was covered in class. 10: Useful, but theoretical concepts did not become clear until after practice. Would probably be more useful now. 11: Pre-course readings were very important to follow the class. 12: Very helpful if somewhat complicated.

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 material provided - in paper and electronic form - is abundant and was/is/will be extremely useful. 2: Yes, they will be useful later on for reference. 3: Very relevant, but many things are available on the Internet and I was able to print them out. 4: Appropriate. 5: Both appropriate and useful. 6: I expect to refer to the class materials again in the future. They will help me as I begin my own EAD projects. 7: Course syllabus will be particularly useful to review. 8: Very! 9: Yes. 10: Yes. Excellent materials. 11: They should be very useful for practicing and reviewing. 12: Yes.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: Definitely. 2: Yes, it was appropriate and also stimulating. 3-4: Yes. 5: Yes, felt appropriately stretched. 6-12: Yes.

4) 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: Yes. 2: Yes, there was a good connection. 3-12: Yes.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: DP is, aside from being extraordinarily knowledgeable about all aspects of EAD, an enthusiastic and energetic instructor. Learning EAD from him was truly a joy. No question was too arcane or too stupid - no problem too sticky to solve. And his sense of humor kept everyone chuckling. 2: The instructor was very engaging and responsive to inquiries. His observations on both the technical and sociological aspects (eg process of standards-making, community building, politics of grants, &c.) were very valuable. A wry and droll manner of presentation made for an enjoyable course. 3: Hands-on experience with coding. 4: Chance to learn from one of the key developers of EAD. 5: Hands-on opportunities and the combination of "lab" and "lecture." Instructor’s presentation, patience, and humor. 6: I enjoyed the instructor’s sense of humor! He is also skilled at explaining difficult concepts. I feel more prepared to tackle EAD projects now than I did a week ago. 7: The instructor was patient with explaining the material. 8: The hands-on tagging experience with real time, over-the-shoulder advice and comments. Also, the big picture of managing a project and putting all the respective pieces together is now much clearer to me. 9: The hands-on experience with EAD, and being able to "live" with EAD for a whole week. 10: Putting theory into practice - having time to actually encode our own finding aids. DP is an excellent instructor, and took the time to answer questions both accurately and completely. The course was well-designed and the presentation was appropriate for various levels of computer experience. 11: Teacher’s pedagogy. 12: The practical exercise of encoding our finding aids.

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: The classroom situation could be improved. The sci-tech classroom had terribly inconsistent air-conditioning, and the room was extremely cramped with 13 people. Also, it’s less fun to be in RBS so far from the center of the social scene. 2: No major concerns. A very few technologically inspired lulls made for a little downtime, but nothing that wouldn’t be expected when working with computers for a week. 3: Abbreviate initial discussion slightly so we have more time encoding, and then more time to work with style sheets. Offer an advanced version, and make it two weeks; first week similar to this, second week more encoding plus work with style sheets. A different classroom would be better (cooler). 4: The course was well thought out and well delivered. Any criticism would be nitpicking. 5: Possibly a bit more attention to style sheet creation and implementation. 6: It would be helpful if there could be an assistant to help answer students’ questions during the times we were working on our own finding aids because so many of us needed help at the same time. 8: It would have been good if our class was physically located closer to the rest of the RBS classes. 9: The instructor did not always have ample time to answer everyone’s questions. He often got hung up with one person’s problem, intensely concentrating on it, while neglecting others. He might try being more aware of each participant. The Electronic Classroom in Clark needs improved air conditioning. 10: Can’t really think of a way to improve it. 11: More time. 12: The classroom in Clark could be brutally warm.

8) 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.

2: Outside activities were fine - a good mix, as usual. 3: Sunday dinner was a lot of fun - good way to start off the week by talking with people from different classes. Tuesday Bookseller Night: we need bookstores to stay open later. 4: I would have been happy if there was an extracurricular event pertinent to EAD technology. 5: Tour was helpful for orientation. Dinner and videos a good way to start the week. Lectures: informative. Bookseller Night: an added bonus. 6: All were enjoyable! 8: Evening lectures and receptions were very well-done and enjoyable. 9: I did not necessarily enjoy the outside activities. Since there seemed to be some pressure to attend, however, I did so. They were OK. 10: Very enjoyable, especially the evening lectures. Pleasant to move back into the book world after a long day of encoding! 12: Particularly enjoyed the Bookseller Night. It was good to see a bit more of the town.

10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

1: I highly recommend this course. 2: Highly recommended. 3: Definitely got my money’s worth. 4: Yes, it was worth the money. For me, it was the right training at the right time. 5: I got my money’s worth. Would recommend class to those contemplating EAD implementation. 6: I would stress the importance of completing and absorbing a significant portion of the recommended readings. I got my money’s worth and hope to return another year. 7: The course provides a good overview and practical application of EAD. Although my experience with computers is largely limited to WordPerfect, I was able to follow along fairly well. 8: I would emphatically recommend this course over the SAA’s 2-day EAD training. Having a full week was extremely valuable and I feel much, much better about forging forth into SGML/EAD now! 9: No [final thoughts]. Absolutely [got my money’s worth]. 10: Strongly recommend it for people considering implementation of EAD. You need at least a week to grasp concepts and gain some experience putting them into practice. Well worth the money. 11: The class really expands our horizons in discovering more about SGML and its practical application to EAD. It is taught with efficiency, care and passion. A great educational experience which I would recommend. 12: I think that others considering taking this course would be well served to have some understanding of SGML. Yes.

Number of respondents: 12

There were four rare book/special collections librarians (33%), five archivists (42%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (17%), and one general librarian (a digital conversion specialist) with no (?) rare book duties (8%).