11-15 June 2007 in Charlottesville

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very useful; might have been better to have also required some basic readings in elementary bibliography. 2: Completely useful. We didn’t discuss specifically all of them, but the set-up for our in-class conversations was perfect. 3: Quite useful; although I wish we had discussed them in class just a bit more. 5: They were useful in terms of my own planning, but not really referred to much or discussed in the course; wish they had been. 6: Mostly useful. 7: Helpful; but we did not discuss them very much during the week. Also, many, many additional reference sources were mentioned in class that were not included on the reading list – the instructors said they would provide this on a website/wiki for us. Thank you! 8: The readings were quite useful, especially AH’s edited anthology. I think it would have been useful for this group to have read a basic book history survey like Warren Chappell’s Short History of the Printed Word.

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: Yes. 2: Yes. Some things were delayed in the copying process, but AH and DT worked well with accommodating that disruption. The descriptive bibliography materials would have been nice to see. 3: Yes. 4: Extremely useful. 5: I do not think these were so useful; I wanted more information, more concrete ideas and lists and such to take back to my classroom. 6: Very useful. 7: Yes, of course! 8: The syllabus was fine during the class, and my notes will be useful back at work.

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: The group was diverse; from novices to the very experienced. The instructors did a good job negotiating this pedagogical challenge. 2: I liked both the general theorizing about what a Teaching the History of the Book course can/should do, and the specific suggestions about readings and assignments. The intellectual level was totally appropriate. 3: The do-it-yourself method of gathering teaching materials, and tools for use with students. Yes. 4: The RBS teaching collection. Yes. 5: (a) Anything that dealt directly with the teaching of this subject; ideas for assignments and resources. (b) This was a difficult level to achieve; I felt it was either far too general or far too specific. The theoretical element wasn’t enough to sink your teeth into, and the practical “hands-on” element not tailored to the needs of the teachers here, I felt. 6: For the most part the discussion was very stimulating. 7: The time we spent using the RBS teaching collection and the UVa stacks in Alderman Library! The intellectual level of the course was a mix because of to the topic, and at times the lectures and class discussions were a bit heavy and Ivy-academic and other times extremely practical and helpful. 8: Assignment ideas, and new ways to approach/teach the material. Techniques for presenting materials to both one-off and survey courses.

4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: The SC time was excellent; DT proved enormously knowledgeable and informative. 2: Yes. 3: Yes; getting “set loose” in Lower Tibet [where some of RBS’s teaching collections are housed] to locate resources on our own was empowering. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, but I found myself looking for more specifics, e.g. here are the materials you might use, here are ways to teach them x- y- z, &c., here are the kinds of questions your students might have, let’s discuss. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, thank you for making these arrangements. The two [outside] speakers, Erik Delfino and Barbara Heritage (on Jane Eyre) were wonderful additions to the week. Terry Belanger’s demonstration of the Linotype was also incredibly informative and helpful. Thank you! 8: SC presentations and trips to Lower Tibet were all worthwhile. It was difficult to do everything in the time we had.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: The instructors created a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, in which all felt free to participate. 2: I feel like I have a better grasp on the course I’m creating for the fall; I have readings, exercises, and colleagues to consul! It was a good communal learning experience in which people shared knowledge, and ignorance; both without feeling uncomfortable. 3: The rare and medium rare books, of course; and the hands-on-nature of it. Also this particular configuration of librarians, academics, and print folk in the class. 4: the discussions as they involved the insights of such a diverse group. 5: In addition to the practical advice on teaching, I liked hearing the diverse perspectives of the student-teachers in the course; and DT’s comment about the loose type - Natasha running away with the ink balls. 6: The interaction between the teachers. 7: I am pleased that the instructors were not reluctant to include the other class members who have taught the history of the book into our discussions. It would have been nice to have a few more concrete examples of class assignments or in-class lessons rather than just discussions of why it is important to have a class at our institution about the history of the book. It was also a bit heavy at times on the wow and why factor for showing “stuff” to our students instead of the how-we-do-it and when-we-do-it in the class. 8: Gaining different perspectives both from people in my field (other librarians), and others (English faculty). Many of the class discussions were invaluable; much of the instructor input was extremely useful.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: Tighter focus; staying on agenda; practical demonstrations of teaching particular skills and concepts. 2: I’m not sure. There were some tensions with different points-of-view from some participants, but I think their tension ended up being fruitful (if annoying). 3: I would really liked to have gone over specific syllabi; worship them, if you will, more than we did. Also, I would have liked more discussion of the readings. 4: I would have loved to make an impression on the handpress on the second floor of the east wing of Alderman Library. 5: (a) More discussion: I want to hear how and what other people have taught on this subject; I would like more readings-based discussions, and more group problem-solving of specific classroom topic situations, e.g. here’s how I’ve taught papermaking, I did x-y-z, had students do x-y-z, checked out these x-y-z resources, here’s what others have done, &c. I feel like I know, more or less, how to look at books – I want to know what has worked for teaching students to learn how to look at books. (b) More organization: the syllabus was very loose, DT (sorry) tended to ramble. 6: If anything, this course was a bit much in terms of information load; need time to digest. 7: It is my sense that as these two instructors work together in the future their timing will improve. It was clear that this was their first time and they were working out many issues. A few times it felt as if they were having a conversation with each other instead of with the class; but as the week progressed this improved. I think they both included other class participants expertise beautifully. If could have been awkward; but it was not. 8: Perhaps by giving the students more preliminary background materials to allow everyone to have the same basic information, if needed.

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: None; collections were accessible, but very carefully treated. 3: As I’m not a trained librarian or collector, I’m not familiar with all of the ways to properly handle rare books and materials. Overall though, I felt my fellow students and the instructors were knowledgeable and respectful. 5: Let us please touch the books! 6: I think books were handled appropriately and carefully, yet without unnecessary piety. 7: This aspect of the course was fine. It was a wonderful opportunity to be able to view items from UVa’s Special Collections. I absolutely loved the examples from RBS collections used in the class, and when we were given the wonderful opportunity to browse the RBS collections in Lower Tibet, and to use our imagination and lessons given in class to inform our future decisions of using examples of “stuff” in our own classes. 8: I observed the materials being respectfully treated. If anything, I think students should be encouraged to interact and handle the materials more.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Went to 3 lectures: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday; all worthwhile. 2: The Sunday lecture was okay; the Monday and Tuesday ones were very interesting. 3: Yes, absolutely. I would have liked question and answer sessions after the lectures, however. 4: N/A 6: The movies were so-so; the lectures were quite interesting and informative. 7: Yes, all the evening events added to the value of this course and this experience. 8: The lectures were okay. I really enjoyed the second lecture by Michael Suarez. I did not find the first one particularly compelling, although I’m sure that others did. It is a little hard to get in the mood for a lecture after spending all day in a classroom.

9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: Yes. Reading and planning, and thinking before you come, will help you get much more from the course, especially if you have not taught book history before. If you have taught it at least once, reflect on your practices and come with questions! 2: I totally got my money’s worth. 3: Yes; try to get out for a brisk walk or some yoga in the early morning before classes start for the day. It will do wonders for your stamina. Also, I wonder if it would be possible for the classes to get together as a whole, towards the end of the week, to share in more formal circumstances what each has been working on and/or discussing? I’ve been so curious, especially after informal conversations and meals with students in other classes. They’ve been giving me ideas about further courses of study/research I might want to follow. 4: Absolutely. AH and DT were an exceptional team. They complemented each other in their pacing, teaching styles, and the information they shared with the class. I would take another class with either one or both of them if offered. I would also be very interested in taking a class with Michael Suarez if he were to offer one. 5: I tend to think of time, not money, and I do not feel that I’ve come away having used this week in the best way possible to prepare for my courses. I think a one- to two-day seminar would be a better format, with a clearer outline of what, exactly, the course would cover. AH and DT: you’re both great, and please don’t take this as a personal critique! 6: I am very satisfied with my experience at RBS – thank you. 7: Yes, I did get my money’s worth. I really appreciate the thoughtful planning and hard work of everyone involved in RBS – from the director’s vision to the assistants that graciously provide nourisment, and the instructors who share their experiences, wisdom, humor and lessons learned with their students. I’m very appreciative of the text Teaching Bibliography edited by AH that came out of this RBS course. She is clearly committed to the topic and is keen to share and work diligently with her colleagues to provide an excellent resource for librarians and faculty who find themselves, or put themselves in positions of teaching the history of the book. Thank you! 8: I definitely got my money’s worth. This course was exactly what I had hoped for. AH and DT were a fantastic team!

Number of respondents: 8

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

63% 75% 75% 63%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own

tion time tion myself own housing travel

0% 0% 13% 13%

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 scholarship home

38% 25% 13% 25%

There were 5 teachers (63%); 1 rare book librarian (13%); 1 archivist (13%); and 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (13%).