63: Introduction to Special Collections Librarianship [L-10]
12-16 July 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: The pre-course readings are essential in order to not waste time bringing everyone to the same level. The readings are informative and easy to digest. 2: Pre-course readings were very useful because they gave the class a common background and vocabulary from the beginning. 3: Very useful, especially Carter’s ABC for Book Collectors! 4: By and large they were useful. A broader range of issues addressed by the readings would have been good. 5: Readings were useful because they set the basis for many of our topics. 6: They were a solid foundation to the course. 7: Carter was quite useful, not only for the course, but for general knowledge. 8: They were a good introduction, although maybe some more recent articles could be included. 9: Useful as background, not needed for course discussion. 10: They provided an adequate overview of the field, and definitely helped in facilitating discussion both in and out of class. 11: Quite useful in setting the stage for discussion. 12: The readings were very helpful, particularly Carter.
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: Both useful and easy to access (web-related materials). The bibliography seems superb. 2: The syllabus was very useful as a reference point for discussion and will be an excellent resource for ongoing consultation. 3: Yes, very complete packet of information. Will definitely be a future resource. 4: Yes, the bibliography is especially appreciated. 5: Yes, the materials were useful, and I will refer to them after returning to work. 6: Yes. 7: Absolutely! 8: Highly useful package – I will find it very helpful back at my job. 9: Yes. 10: Yes – I can see them being useful for years to come. 11: Yes, I expect I will utilize the sources cited regularly in my career. 12: Yes, they were helpful.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: Copyright. The intellectual level was appropriate. 2: Because this was an introductory course, all aspects of the course were relevant. The level was appropriate. 3: Each part had its value. Yes, the intellectual level was “comfortable,” not especially challenging, though. (This is not really a negative, though). 4: Donor relations, some aspects of collection development, archived processing (I wish we could have spent more time on this). 5: The introductory/survey approach to our topic was useful. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate. 6: Preservation, conversation, and the role of Special Collections. Intellectual level was very good. 7: It was all relevant, although I think the collection development and public services aspects will prove most useful in my job. Yes. 8: It is hard to pick a topic – although I found cataloging useful and the work we did with physical books. Intellectual level was appropriate, but could have found a bit more detail helpful. 9: Greatest interest in digitization discussion and cataloging (wish we had had more time for cataloging). Could have spent slightly less time on presentations. The level was great, although personally, only about 50% was new. 10: The examples/situations discussed in class were particularly illuminating. It’s nice to hear how other institutions deal with certain issues. 11: Intellectual appropriate for an “Introduction” class. The actual physical description parts – i.e. this is a quarto... Also content about processes in various institutions. 12: I really have no experience with rare books, so it was all relevant. I feel like we covered a great deal of information.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: No visits. 2: N/A. 3: Not able to do so this year due to construction/moving. 8: N/A 9: We did not BUT it does seem poor planning to have held this course at a time in the year when we could make no visit to the “old” or the “new” Special Collections facilities. [Well, yes. When this course was announced last year, UVa’s new special collections building was scheduled to open in the spring of 2004. But then along came Hurricane Isabel.... Ed.] 10-11: N/A.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The instructor – she was quite fluid in her discussions and able to respond to all questions – she was extremely well-prepared. 2: The outstanding instruction. The introductory/survey approach to our topic was useful. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate. We were led through an enormous amount of material in a masterly manner. 3: Good mix of information presented; nice mix of participants, also! Very interesting backgrounds of participants. 4: The instructor and being able to share experiences with classmates. 5: My fellow students! I learned so much about other collections from them. It really broadened my understanding of the field. 6: The instructor; she is intelligent, articulate, and very accessible. 7: AS’s style and organization, as well as hearing so many other perspectives and experiences from classmates. 8: A great deal of interaction. I found this refreshing and useful. 9: AS! She is wonderful, energetic, knows her stuff! 10: The range of professionals in the course. We had people from a wide variety of institutions and backgrounds. 11: Interaction with AS and class – so polite and so nicely handled. Very positive learning environment. 12: AS is a great instructor, and she helped make the curriculum accessible to all of us.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: The course can very easily be taught as two – one for Special Collections in an academic setting, and Special Collections within a private setting (non-academic). 2: The classroom was so far away from RBS that we quickly gave up to-ing and fro-ing, so we did not interact much with other RBS students on a daily basis. 3: Perhaps some more interactive components, like the case study (to get the blood a movin’). 4: I liked the presentations, but they ate up a lot of class time. We might have been able to cover more material more usefully without the presentations. 6: We were one full day behind – wish we had covered what was on the syllabus. 7: The only thing that might have been a good addition would have been a tour of the Harrison/Small Library, but that wasn’t possible, unfortunately. 8: It would have been nice to split up the lectures with a little more hands-on activity. 9: Trip to Special Collections facilities (see number 4). 10: The assignment, while interesting on a personal level, was not the best way to spend a half day, especially when we weren’t able to complete the syllabus. I would have liked a shorter (and enforced) time limit or no assignment at all. 12: If it were longer. Maybe shorter breaks?
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS 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: Care was always taken. 2: N/A. 3: Seemed fine. 6: None. 10: Everyone was very careful with the materials.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Both lectures are worthwhile. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, different topic than covered in class, so this added extra dimension to the experience. 4: The Monday night lecture was especially interesting. Mirjam Foot achieved the perfect balance of scholarly rigor while keeping the topic appropriately introductory. 5: Yes. 6: Absolutely. MF was a once in a lifetime lecturer. 7: Yes. 8: I found both lectures very interesting and welcoming. 9: Definitely – not only part of the experience, but the kind of lectures that are hard to come by elsewhere. 10: N/A. 11: Yes. 12: Yes, both were very good.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1-2: Yes. 3: Yes, fascinating items and exhibits. Staff was excellent during these times! (I enjoyed the background music as well.) 4: Both nights were very interesting. 5: Absolutely. The items on display both evenings were things not available all in one place elsewhere – that’s of great value. 6: Yes. 7: Very much so. Museum Night was great. I’ve never had the chance to see so many different bibliography items in one place before. 8: Yes, definitely. An excellent learning experience. 9: Yes – a bit more “instruction” at each station instead of just “poking around” would have been welcome. 10: Museum Night was very interesting. The materials that I saw there are certainly not things I come across in our collection! It’s nice to place a name with the actual item. 11-12: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1-2: Yes! 3: Yes, a future course would definitely be a possibility! 4: I don’t know how I would evaluate it if I paid for it. I got my institution’s money’s worth. 5: This was a once in a lifetime experience. Thank you! 6: Yes. 7: Yes. I would only say that this course is good for those embarking on a Special Collections career, or those like me who have worked in a Special Collections environment for a few years, but have never had any formal instruction, or who simply need to know they’re on the right track! 8: Yes – mostly. Again, maybe a bit more detail and some hands-on learning activities would have been helpful. 9: It was thoroughly worthwhile, and I would certainly consider another RBS class. 10: Definitely. I’m looking forward to returning next summer! 11: Money’s worth – yes. Suggestions? No. 12: I definitely feel I got my money’s worth. I would highly recommend this course!
Number of respondents: 12
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
83% 75% 75% 75%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
8% 25% 25% 25%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
9% 0% 0% 0%
There were one rare book librarian (8%), five archivist/manuscript librarians (42%), two general libraians with some rare book duties (17%), one general librarian with no rare book duties (8%), two full time students (17%), and one library administrator.