Bethany Nowviskie and Andrew Stauffer
L-65: Digitizing the Historical Record
17–21 June 2013
Detailed Course Evaluation
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?
1: Pre-course readings provided a good foretaste of the discussions throughout the week. We did not read through them painstakingly, but alluded to them here or there where fitting. The readings are helpful in terms of the vocabulary we employ throughout the week. 2: Very useful. Some were a bit over my head before the course (the technical ones), but I reviewed them during the course and they were spot on. 3: The pre-course readings were thought-provoking and helpful, though a few were too technical—I may go back to re-read them—now that I’ve had the course they will likely make more sense. 4: Very useful, well-chosen readings. Yes, general background readings around my own interests. 5: Yes! The pre-course readings were very helpful for a general overview of key issues. I have had the companion to DH on my shelf for some time, but the course provided welcome incentive to read it closely. 6: I wish the readings could have been provided as a bound volume and provided before the class met. 7: They were useful. No additional preparations. 8: Pre-course readings were very useful, and cogent to all of our discussions. 9: I didn’t do the recommended (extra) readings. I wish there had been example websites or videos to watch before the course began (like the Tim Sherratt talk, which I watched mid-week). 10: The readings served to cover a wide swath of the digital, cultural heritage landscape. Very useful as both an overview and a quick intro to some new ideas.11: Pre-course readings were a good key to what would be covered in the course. I read some suggested readings. 12: Yes, they were very helpful. I read as many as I could, five out of six. 13: Useful! The XML article may have seemed opaque to people with no coding experience. 14: Very wonderful. I also read some of the materials for other courses (textual editing, XML) as refresher and/or background.
2) Were the course workbook and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: I had the texts available electronically, but the workbook is a good record of the course and will be a good way to return to the content when I return home. I will discuss and share with my home department and institution. 2: Appropriate, useful and generous. Excellent reference tool for the future. 3: The workbook was useful but I had already printed out the readings so I had most of them—maybe let the class know further in advance that these will be provided. 4: My workbook and notebook are heavily marked, annotated, scribbled and drawn on, and will become a sort of template on reader’s guide for the next stage for my project. And URLs bookmarked on my iPad! 5: Yes, these materials are and will be useful as a bound collection. Thank you! 6: The workbook was useful. Other material provided by a guest speaker would have been more useful with the workbook. 7: They are appropriate and useful. 8: The course workbook and hand-outs were very helpful, and I will refer to them when I’m back at my desk. 9: No. 10: Yes I look forward to revisiting and sharing some of the articles. Although, for the most part, the workbook was only print-outs of the pre-course reading. Perhaps that wasn’t necessary. 11: Yes, on both counts. 12: I will be referring to and re-reading them again! 13: Yes. 14: I will probably retain only the digital version.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: Yes—previous course was Analytical Bibliography with Steve Tabor. That course was very interested in printed books and methods for studying their production. This course is less interested in studying the physical artifacts, and concentrates more on the concepts and ideas attending the practice and process of digitization. 2: N/A. 3: A very different direction than what I’ve previously taken but about the same level of work and prep time. 4: No—this is my first. I expect and hope to return. 5: This is my first course. 6: No. 7: No. 8: No previous RBS course work. 9: No. 10: No. 11: NO. 13: Yes. Difficult to compare because the content was so different. This course may be unlike other courses in the extent of the issue covered: the focus is diffuse, but it allows students to think both broadly and deeply about the issue raised. 14: N/A.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: I benefitted most directly from the segments on graduate training, the “hard cases” that provoke thinking about digitization; Jeremy Boggs’ comments on design in the Scholars’ Lab; and BN and AS’s detailed advice on the current project I am working on. 2: EVERYTHING. 3: Information about what a large research library can do in the realm of humanities computing was fascinating and exciting. 4: I can’t separate out any one or several aspects—the instructors were superbly prepared, thoughtful, relevant, attentive, suggestive. Equally, by fellow students were bright, engaged, wonderfully accomplished. The books and materials, guest speakers—the entirety of the course fed my mind and preparation of my project. 5: The discussion of interoperability, combined with lined open data presentation and presentation and deep discussion of NINES, ARC, and GIS were terrific. Also, the anecdotal pieces: BN’s work on NINES, Rossetti, and Swinburne, and AS’s work with Medium Rare Books were invaluable! 6: The course content regarding the development a user interface was most helpful. It allowed me to see the scope needed for such a project and how to develop out all of the necessary components. 7: Talking about digitizing “hard zones,” digitally interpreting marginalia, showing differences within editions, and geo-temporal interpretation. 8: All course content was interesting, and all was relevant to some aspect of what I’m doing or will do or should be doing. 9: 1. Discussion of specific projects happening through the Scholars’ Lab, including open software being developed. 2. History of this work (i.e. how digital humanities has evolved and implications for future development. 10: The day we spent on GIS will have impact for me in the near future. 11: Planning and mapping of digital projects and the availability of newer digital books. 12: All of the presentations for presenting data was wonderfully overwhelming. 13: I like the combination of wide varying discussions about theoretical, institutional, disciplinary issues combined with introductions to specific techniques for representing knowledge. 14: Discussion of theoretical issues involved with digitization.
5) Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: Intellectual level was appropriate, and the readings set this tone already. The ratio of librarians to scholars was rather high, and I’d like to see this course have a more equal ratio, perhaps, so as to provide a conversation of greatest utility to the librarians, technologists, and scholars involved in digital projects. 2: Yes. Intellectual level was challenging at times, but that’s the nature of real learning. 3: Yes—perfectly appropriate. 4: I think they did (and I hope they would agree). The categories of thought and practice have shifted and have enlarged. I loved this intense week—thought, discussion, demonstrations, work-time, and my fellow classmates. 5: Yes, BN and AS were extremely gracious, generous, and supportive in sharing their knowledge and by inviting speakers to present various tools. 7: Yes. Yes. 8: The intellectual level of the course was spot on for me. I felt comfortable enough to inquire about what I didn’t know or understand, confident that I was also contributing. 9: BN is very gifted at explaining technical parameters of digitization in an accessible, graspable way. AS evoked the humanistic spirit that suites digital humanities beautifully in his presentation in day two. I don’t think I have new skills, but I do know how to move forward and acquire the skills I need (which is better, in my opinion. The level was okay—could have been more rigorous: re: conceptual issues with doing the work. 10: The instructors were uniformly wonderful. BN and AS have excellent chemistry and complement each other well. The intellectual level was just right. 11: Yes, I acquired way beyond what was promised and/or expected, the intellectual level was perfect. 12: The instructors were fantastic! As were my classmates, we learned lots from each other. 13: Yes. 14: Intellectual level of the course was intense and wonderful. I learned about additional skills I will need to acquire to accomplish my goals in digital humanities.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: I liked the discussions with librarians at a variety of institutions. It was wonderful to learn about so many new and interesting projects. This was the best part, coupled with learning about the latest developments in this field and at UVA from BN and AS. Great team-teaching. 2: Integration of theory and practice; introduction to new tools and the strategies and possibilities of those tools. The stress on building communities of interest and seeing various examples of Digital Humanities projects was extremely inspiring; hearing about the range of work and backgrounds of content creators was great. 3: The tour of the scanning facilities, the demonstrations of the Scholars’ Lab projects. 4: This sounds almost silly: I loved the entirety of the course: instructors, classmates, the problems and content, the intensity (and laughter), and our fellowship. 5: The format was my favorite part of the course. I enjoyed the discussion, the hands-on with books, presentation of tools, and the project. 6: The practical advice and consideration of how to approach a digital history project. 7: Presentations on maps and Neatline, storyboarding, presentation on uses, requirements, and discussions on practical aspects of digitization. 8: The instructors worked well with one another and shared their intellectual capital with us in very accessible ways. 9: 1. Rapport between instructors was a thing to behold! 2. Variety at activities kept things interesting. 10: The diversity of the group was at the core of the class’s success. 11: There isn’t time nor room to list everything. This was a fantastic experience on so many levels. 12: The discussion and sharing of ideas, the demo of tools and the use of physical examples, well—everything! 13: The presentations from the Scholars’ Lab and the conversations in class about specific cases. 14: Collaborative, constructive atmosphere of discussion and representation from a variety of different perspectives.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: As I hinted before, this course could benefit from a more equal ratio of librarians to scholars. 2: Can’t think of anything. Both teachers were extremely well-prepared, approachable and astounding. Their depth of knowledge, scope of experience, and unpretentious manners made learning a deep pleasure, even if my brain ached at the end of the day. 3: Not sure—I was going to say a more focused encoding exercise—I don’t feel like I came away with an understanding of that but maybe it’s just me. 4: I don’t think—considering all I gained—that it could have been improved. I hate to see it end; equally, feel packed with new knowledge and high excitement. 5: Brief formal time—twenty minutes for project consultation and advice. 7: Assign a reading on designing and storyboarding websites. 8: N/A. 9: I wish there had been activities besides our case study, the hard cases, and book work. Breaking into small groups to discuss theoretical and ethical questions would have been interesting. Even to have the larger conceptual issues formalized in a lot of queries would have helped. 10: I think we could have maybe talked about more about advocacy for digital projects, but that is only a minor quibble. 13: I would like to learn more specific skill sets, but it would be hard to fit more into this course. 14: N/A.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–8: Yes. 9: Yes, and no. I have a sense at the landscape for digital humanities, but I thought we would delve into far reaching conceptual questions more. We touched on some questions regularly, but not in great depth. 10–11: Yes. 12: Yes, and so much more. 13: Yes. 14: Yes. I expected the course to be more hands-on and less intellectual. Pleasantly surprised.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: Yes. I have a good game plan for my project and skills for collaborating further with librarians and technologists. 2: Yes. I think the course should be called Digitizing the Cultural Record. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, and new avenues of exploration and practice. 5: Yes! 6–13: Yes. 14: Yes. I thought I’d be learning to encode; I learned that I need to find other opportunities to learn TEI and other skills, and I learned some places where I could learn this.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: I will give a report for my department and a digital initiative forum at my institution about my week in this course. The vocabulary I’ve been able to strengthen and the topics we’ve covered will allow me to make more useful contributions to these communities. 2: Yes. I learned more than I thought I would—the continued connecting of ideas, context of actions was A+. 3: I plan on meeting with my digital projects committee to give a presentation on what I’ve learned this week. I will also be looking more closely at a project I’ve had in mind and exploring the possibility of getting it funded. 4: I am working now on a digital publication—it will be much improved after this. 5: I feel much better prepared to take my project to the next level and seek partners as I move beyond collection and encoding. 7: Digitization project at my institution. 8: I’ll use the language I learned this week to “speak up” more confidently at my institution. I’ll refer to the many resources we looked at to plan my work for the next three years or so. 9: I want to continue to develop the project I worked on in the course and reach out to other scholars and members of the digital humanities community. 10: I see these skills as having immediate impact. We already use Omeka, and thanks to this course, I now know of great and easy tools to add on. I also realize now that before we start any new digital projects to ask the right questions, which we often don’t do, e.g. what am I trying to say? 11: I will go back to work armed with the beginning of a plan for my digital project, and the knowledge to take it to fruition. 12: Apply this to a digital project and other digital projects as they arise. 13: I hope to use them to convince someone to give me a job! 14: To build an open-access web edition of the Old English Solomon and Satan dialogues, to persuade institutions to which I belong to move faster in digitization of records and artifacts.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: Trip to Digitization Services was fantastic. It was very exciting to learn about the workflow and projects, and I look forward to following their activity through social media. 2: N/A. 3: Yes—very much. 4: Yes—the digital imaging room at SC. (I sigh for access to their skills and technology). 5: Yes! Great and informative trip to both digitization lab and Scholars’ Lab! 7: Yes. 8: Time to go and tour areas was very well spent. Staff was happy to see us and answer our many questions. 9: We did, and that time was very interesting. It was especially neat to spend time working in the Scholars’ Lab. 10: Our mini field trips to the digitization office and Scholars’ Lab were definitely time well spent. 11: Yes. 13: Yes. 14: Trip to digitization lab was interesting, but not as effervescent as the rest.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: RBS Lectures were both well-worth attending. Jerome McGann’s talk was very much in keeping with the content in our course. Booksellers’ Night was fun, and Thursday night is a good night. Did not attend other events. 2: Both lectures were excellent. Our presentations were due on Friday in the morning, so I couldn’t go to Booksellers’ Night. 3: Yes—both lectures were interesting and worthwhile. 4: Yes, indeed. 5: Lectures were wonderful and added greatly to the week’s activities. 7: Lecture and RBS Forum—yes. Video Night—no. 8: I attended them all (!) and was grateful for the opportunities to use every minute of my RBS week absorbing experiences. 9: N/A. 10: After class events can be tough because I frequently felt overloaded with information at the end of the day. 11: I attended the lectures and enjoyed both. 12: Yes. 13: Yes.
13) 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: The books were stored in the room safely; there were both cradles and snakes available. No complaints, although it was best for the instructors to walk the books around the room, rather than students holding them up. 2: Both teachers were mindful of how each student handled the books. Cradles, &c. were used. All were very cautious. 3: Larger surface space. There wasn’t enough room at our tables for a few of the larger books. Also make sure there are enough larger wedges. 4: N/A. 5: Our class handled materials briefly, and I think our instructors advised us well (if we didn’t know) about handling materials. 6: All adequate procedures. 7: No suggestions. 8: We were all aware of handling best practices, and I’m confident BN and AS would have spoken up if necessary.10: Not everyone in class knew how to handle rare books. A quick primer for those students might have been nice. 11: None.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Absolutely. I will certainly recommend this course to colleagues, librarians, and faculty at my institution. BN and AS have great insight into the developments in the humanities today, and it has been very valuable to listen to them, to ask questions, and to receive their advice on things that deeply concern my research and the initiative I am representing. 2: Absolutely. I wish I had an institution right now to make use of my learning, but I will find or make an opportunity. 3: Yes. Yes. 4: Yes, and yes, in a heartbeat. 5: Yes! Excellent week! I would very much like to return again. 6: Yes, I will highly recommend the course. 7: Yes. Yes. 8: RBS is a worthy investment of time and resources. I highly recommend it for anyone who may be interested in the subject matter of a course. 9: Yes, and yes. 10: Absolutely. I feel so lucky to have taken a course with BN and AS. 11: Absolutely on both counts. 12: Yes! 13: Yes, and yes. 14: Yes. Yes.
15) Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)
2: Especially appreciated recognition of the importance of design and design thinking as a crucial aspect throughout a projects’ development, and revisions. 4: The staff, after I applied and described my project, guided me to the most appropriate course. Their careful attention (and that of our instructors) to engaging my own interests and letting the into the larger scope of the subject was done very well, indeed. 5: I strongly suggest reading the material assigned in advance, as it provides good foundation for discussion. 7: Read about markup language and website design before class. More variety at breakfast and breaks would be nice. 8: N/A. 10: I came into this thinking that I was powerless in my institution, that I couldn’t do anything effectively. I feel very empowered now. 11: Do it! 14: Gluten-free and dairy-free breakfast and snack options, e.g., rice cakes.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 14
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 8 (57%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 6 (43%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 9 (64%)
I paid tuition myself: 2 (14%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 2 (14%)
N/A: VABC auction: 1 (8%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 7 (50%)
I paid for my own housing: 3 (21%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 4 (29%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 7 (50%)
I paid my own travel: 3 (21%)
N/A: lived nearby: 4 (29%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Student, Ph.D. (humanities):1 (7%)
Student, Post Doctoral: 1 (7%)
Librarian/archivist of digital materials: 2 (16%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 1 (7%)
Rare book librarian: 1 (7%)
Retired: 1 (7%)
University, assistant professor: 1 (7%)
University, full or associate professor: 1 (7%)
Work in a museum or cultural institution: 1 (7%)
Librarian seeking work: 1 (7%)
Documentary editing: 1 (7%)
Curator: 1 (7%)
Publisher and Editor: 1 (7%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 7 (50%)
Work colleague: 2 (14%)
Word of mouth: 3 (22%)
Academic Research: 1 (7%)
Member of VABC: 1 (7%)