1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Wonderful. Good variety, coverage, application. 2: The reading list was well-chosen, thoughtful, and extremely helpful. 3: Pre-course readings were extremely useful. 4: Extremely useful. 5: Very useful. They provided intensive background, very complete, on all aspects of the course. The choices covered a wide range of writing styles. I enjoyed the variety. 6: Very useful. 7: Very useful - some were historical overviews, others were more technical and dense, but helpful once class began. 8: Very useful. One of the books (Johanna Drucker) might have been replaced by a couple of articles on the subject. 9: Very useful, completely appropriate. 10: Excellent, though I felt at times that some things in the class were a repetition of the reading (but not everyone had done the reading). 11: Very useful. They were interesting and completely spanned the scope of the course. 12: Very. 13: Extremely useful.

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: After an initial glance/reading, I didn't refer to them again. And I don't think I missed anything by not doing so - but would I know? 2: The course syllabus was extremely helpful. Our class was supplied with a preliminary reading list and an exit reading list - both extremely valuable. Study materials distributed in class were similarly well-chosen. The daily schedule would have been a helpful preliminary. 3: Materials were both appropriate and useful. I will continue to use them, and will find the exit reading list helpful as well. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. I will return to the books. My only caveat is to find articles that condense what the books say. For example, three articles instead of a book. They would be more current, perhaps, and cheaper as well. 6: Appropriate and useful. 7: Yes - I plan to review. 8-10: Yes. 11: Yes. We had suggestions for further reading, and a wrap-up discussion on researching further in special interests that were very helpful. 12-13: Yes.

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

1: Appropriate to me? Yes. 2: Yes. The course content was geared to, but not limited to, the reading lists and included ancillary discussions, as well. 3: Yes. It's difficult not to want more depth on everything, but this is a survey course and on the whole I thought the instructors did well, covering a huge amount of material in a week. 4: Difficult to answer. I think it was appropriate as an introductory course with quite diverse students. I would prefer to be challenged a bit beyond the reading with detail and facts, but this was an introductory course and so it was a good introduction for more in-depth study. 5: Yes. I never felt condescended to. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, perfect. 8-9: Yes. 10: For the class as a whole, very appropriate, even though some things were quite basic for me. But then, I did do the reading. 11: Yes, the instructors consistently made sure that everyone understood the terms, themes, &c. I don't think anyone felt overwhelmed or left behind. 12-13: Yes.

4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: More, more, more. It was invaluable, in spite of several mix-ups in pulling stuff. 2: Visits to Special Collections were extremely useful in reinforcing readings and class lectures and discussions. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. I would vote for more details about each book and less books. I'd like time to learn more specifics about each object. 5: Yes, these visits were very enriching. 6: Excellent use of time. 7: Very well spent - we looked at and discussed many wonderful books. 8: Yes. 9: Absolutely. 10: Excellent, though sometimes we seemed to be looking at things too quickly. 11: Yes, it was excellent, and very helpful in illustrating what we were studying/discussing. 12: Yes, looking at books was very important and made lectures more meaningful. 13: Yes.

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: Yes. 2: Yes. The course content was faithfully described in the Expanded Course Description and brochure. 3-4: Yes. 5: Yes, completely. 6-11: Yes. 12: Yes, every subject listed was covered. 13: Yes.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: The survey approach - a dash through 1500 years - was what I needed. But what I liked best was the team teaching approach - a great mix of interest, strengths, styles - and the easy yet controlled atmosphere that encouraged participation. 2: I liked the diversity of presentations and the pacing of the daily presentations. The synergy and compatibility of the instructors was evident and their combined perspectives was an enhancement. 3: It was great having two instructors. The difference in teaching styles made the class time more interesting. I particularly liked it when EH and ST exchanged ideas, or both commented on a topic. The two complement each other. The opportunity to not only discuss, but to see, what we were learning was invaluable. The summaries of long periods of time - the synthesis of our readings - was extremely helpful. 4: Very good reading lists before and after class. Knowledgeable, personable faculty. Very friendly, curious group. Well-organized. EH and ST were very, very good about helping us with areas of special interest. Great enthusiasm. 5: There was an easygoing approach on the part of both instructors that made difficult material, and new material, fun and accessible. Both also made themselves and their knowledge accessible. 6: Scope of the information. 7: The instructors were knowledgeable and presented in a friendly, easy to understand way. Lots of enthusiasm, too - infectious. I loved going to Special Collections and being taught what I was seeing. It wouldn't have been the same on my own. 8: Examining books in Special Collections. Variety of topics covered. 9: The steady, even pace of instruction. We covered a great deal of material evenly. Bill Royall's Linotype demonstration was a real gem. Ditch the snot-nosed printer, though: he ain't that funny. 10: The instructors were great, they did an excellent job presenting things in an interesting manner. I really liked having two people teaching: they both had different areas of expertise. 11: The instructors and the interaction with classmates, who all had perceptive comments and high enthusiasm. 12: Team teachers -- they complemented each other. Balance of lecture, looking at material. Depth of knowledge of each instructor, willingness to say "I don't know." We asked tons of questions. 13: The content and the way it was taught. The instructors were great!

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: 1) It could have lasted longer. 2) Skeletal outline of lecture sessions with key names/terms to cut out writing on the white board. 2: The course was a superb introduction to the history of the book taught by two excellent instructors. I would be hard pressed to find a deficit anywhere. 3: After saying it was helpful to see things, I hope it doesn't seem contradictory to say sometimes we saw too much. A couple of times on our visits to Special Collections, I would have liked to see each book discussed in more depth, and to look at fewer examples. 4: Not sure. It got better as the week progressed, I thought. 5: I would like more resource materials for the uninitiated on the many topics covered. Also, a little less lecture - a little more room for discourse. Too much material, too little time. 6: In my opinion, the course was excellent as it stands. 7: Longer? There was so much! 8: As a survey course, it has been just the right combination of lectures, demonstrations, and looking at selected materials. 9: Don't let DesBib have all the good Museums. 10: N/a. 11: Make it longer. The course is what it is, so you know you'll be covering 1500 years. It's perfect for developing your interest in further, more precise study. 12: Discuss less in more depth. Choose fewer examples and discuss them in detail. 13: I would not change it.

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?

2: The instructors were diligent about the handling of the materials. The degree of handling was appropriate. 3: Require pencils. 4: Well done, as is. 5: None. Well done. 6: Students were permitted to touch - when necessary, and where. 8: Gloves? 9: I would suggest maybe a written description to accompany particular books being passed around. Sometimes the instructors had already talked about another three or four books by the time the item reached around the table. 10: Remind people to wash their hands before going into the classroom or Special Collections. 11: None. 13: No suggestions.

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: Evening lectures - why not start at 5:30? Bookseller Night - great for us, dealers, and program. 2: Evening lectures, Bookseller Night, demonstrations and tours were all well presented and highly beneficial. 3: I would have liked a better sense of the content of the lectures before I went - a brief abstract in the Vade Mecum would have helped. Tuesday Evening Bookseller Night was great. 4: All very good and enjoyable. 5: Lectures were not as educational as the class. I was disappointed. 6: A well-rounded program, and all RBS activities tied in very well with the course. Hand-press demonstration gets a gold star for 1) demonstration, 2) audience participation. 7: The hand-press printing demonstration was very enjoyable, the Rotunda exhibition was interesting, and the lectures were enlightening. 8: I attended all three lectures and found them very interesting. 9: Bookseller Night was worthwhile. Provide massive doses of caffeine before the lectures. That might help. 10: Everything was wonderful, but I think that having three different lectures was excessive. 11: One of the lectures was very much over my head, but interesting, nonetheless, in introducing me to a field I knew nothing about. Bookseller Night is a good way to get students out together and away from the Grounds. We didn't tour the Etext Center - might have been interesting. 12: Bookseller Night was great - appreciated the van. John Bidwell was too difficult, needed to talk about this interesting issue, not read in a scholarly manner. 13: All excellent.

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

1: Emphasize that this is a basic introduction: great for some, too elementary for those with any background. Absolutely - it was worthwhile. 2: RBS is without exception the best program of its kind. It was all well conceived, well paced, and a critical element of my professional development. I got far more than my money's worth. 3: Definitely got my money's worth. 4: Enjoyable. Come. 5: Yes - great care was taken - a lot of work - I was impressed. 6: Definitely got my money's worth. Be advised that this is a very INTENSE five days. 7: Yes - money well spent. 8: I would recommend this course to anybody interested in the survey introduction to the subject. 9: Expect to learn a lot quickly. This course is fast, yet very well organized. A good introduction. Yes, I got my money's worth. 10: EH and ST were excellent instructors. I learned a lot from them and feel that the money spent was well worth it. I will leave here with greater enthusiasm for the topic and continue to search out opportunities to learn more. 11: Yes, I definitely got my money's worth and would recommend this course - and RBS as a whole - to anyone I know who cares about books. 12: Yes, the program is great, the instructors are knowledgeable. The entire staff works hard to make things run smoothly. Everyone is helpful and it shows that there has been extensive planning. 13: I enjoyed it very much and will be back.

Number of respondents: 13

There were two general librarians with some rare book duties (15%), two full-time students (15%), one rare book librarian (8%), one general librarian with no rare book duties (8%), one teacher/professor (8%), one antiquarian bookseller (8%), one conservator/binder/preservation librarian (8%), one book collector (8%), one from a family of collectors (8%), one lawyer (8%), and one television producer (8%).

* One student did not report this category.

** One student's institution paid "what is affordable, I will pay the rest."

*** One student's institution paid "some."

RBS Home