Barbara Shailor
M-90: Advanced Seminar: Medieval Manuscript Studies
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: Yes, very much so. We also did several assignments before the class (transcription, &c.), which were helpful and were reviewed effectively in class. 2: Advanced readings and transcription assignments were not distributed until roughly two weeks before course. There was not enough time for adequate preparation. More detailed description about what pre-work was anticipated would have been helpful, (i.e., you will have plus or minus ten hours of work with assignments given by a certain date). 3: Very useful, though I was not able to complete re-reading Derolez. 4: Very appropriate. I received my paleography and codicology notes prior to attending. 5: Very useful. There were more readings than I’ve had for previous courses. 6: Very helpful readings and very helpful paleography exercises. Ray Clemens’ book might be added to reading list. 7: Pre-course readings were vital to refresh myself on basic skills/knowledge. 8: Very useful. 9: The readings and transcription exercises set the right tone for the week.10: Very useful. I would also include Clemens’ introduction to medieval MSS perhaps.
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: Excellent handouts on bindings, parchment, paper, and pigments/ink that will be extremely useful resources to have. 3: Yes, I am especially eager to use and share the ‘Travelling Scriptorium’ materials. 4: All of the materials were great, especially the samples. The workbooks are gorgeous. 5: Yes. They are very good, and I will use them for teaching. 6: Yes. The Yale staff created terrific bulletins that I will use in my writing/research as reference. 7: Yes, the distributed materials will continue to be useful. I would have appreciated lists of basic resources for all areas (watermark identification, scribe ids, &c.) we studied, but that is a huge request! 8: Very useful. 9: Yes, especially the handouts on pigments and inks and on binding. 10: Very much so, and they will be prized by me.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: No, this is my first class. 2: N/A. 3: No, first course. 4: Yes. This had a bit more in the way of prior preparation but BS’s emphasis on projects of our own and working with the collections made that necessary. 5: There was more outside work, and it was probably necessary. 6: Yes. This course was much more helpful, in terms of hands-on experience using MSS and making arguments based on material analysis. Faculty was much more friendly and helpful. 7: N/A. 8–9: No.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: The entire content of the course was interesting and relevant. I’m not sure I can pick out one aspect in particular! 2: Paleography, calligraphy, and the travelling scriptorium; getting to know the Beinecke library and its collection; final presentation project. 3: More transcription practice in scripts that I am less familiar with. The work with bindings was also extremely useful. In general it is good to have a refresher on paleographical/codicological analysis and to learn of new tools and methods. 4: I really liked the ability to concentrate on items that connect to my current scholarly work. 5: To some extent the best part was just getting to see the great variety of the MS holdings, and to gain familiarity with them. 6: Paleography transcription; collation. 7: Everything! I especially found the sections on paper/parchment, inks, and fragments to be helpful. 8: All of it. 9: Learning a methodology for seeking answers to puzzles in a MS was very useful. 10: We had the opportunity to hone paleography skills. We looked at binding structure. We had specialists show us inks and pigments. I used quills. We worked in-depth with MSS.
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: Yes. The intellectual level of the class was very high both on the part of the instructor and on the part of the students. I think we all learned a lot from each other and from the class—both information on MSS and methodologies for studying MSS. 2: BAS is a phenomenal scholar and a generous mentor. Her exceptional level of familiarity with the Beinecke collection and our access to these materials made this course a genuinely awesome experience. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, if the skills were not gained, we were told where to acquire them. 5: Yes. The level was perfect. 6: Having a designated project/manuscript to work with all week. 7: Yes, I learned a lot. The other students were also valuable resources, since we all have different areas of expertise. 8: Absolutely, on both accounts. 9: Both BAS and my colleagues operated at the highest level. I left tired and very satisfied with the experience. 10: I was surrounded by people with doctorates, and I don’t have one. But I felt up-to-speed. This is an ‘advanced’ course, and I was adequately prepared by all my prior RBS courses.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Hands-on work with a wide variety of very interesting sources. It is extremely valuable to be able to see different scripts and different kinds of MSS in person to really see and understand the complexities. 2: BAS, books, and Beinecke! 3: BAS’s hands-on approach; she seems undaunted by the trickiest hand, the most convoluted construction. I loved the session on pigments and inks. 4: Getting to see real conservation professionals explain their techniques and working with fragments. 5: As in number four, it was the opportunity to work with the kinds of MSS I don’t normally work with. 6: 1. More time with our designated project MSS, 2. More facilitation—instructor guiding one-on-one with our chosen MSS, 3. Perhaps the calligraphy exercise was excessive—time better spent on projects. 7: The exposure to so many amazing MSS and the encouragement to be hands-on. 8: BAS’s extensive knowledge and careful preparation as well as the contact with so many original materials; also, the invited guest speakers. 9: The sheer number and variety of MSS seen. 10: Everything, especially BS’s teaching it.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: Class was excellent! Hard to think of improvements! 2: Better communication about pre-course assignments and preparation. 3: We maybe didn’t need so many breaks or breaks so long. 4: Better coordination between Yale conference services and the construction staff. 5: Some technical things—use of digitized display, computer use, and access to the network could have been better. 6: Yes. Some aspects were more ‘introductory’ than advanced, (e.g., binding, paper/parchment). 7: It would have been helpful to have the option of access to our own MSS for a couple of hours after the end of class. 8: N/A. It’s perfect as is. 9: Problems with technology (limited internet access) and library use limitations made independent work difficult.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–3: Yes. 4: Yes. I learned much more and was given several ideas for further projects. 5–10: Yes.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–2: Yes. 3: Yes. Though there is so much more to know! 4–6: Yes. 7: Yes, and I got information relevant to a current article project. 8–10: Yes.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: This course is directly relevant to my current and future research. It will help me better understand the MSS on which I work. It is also directly applicable to my teaching—has given me new information to present to my students and new ideas for how to teach about MSS. 2: Further work in SC and archives; possible publication out of presentation project; general methodology for working with original text and MSS. 3: I am going to re-work the MSS descriptions in the appendix of my dissertation. 4: I plan to incorporate it into revising my dissertation for publication and write some short articles. 5: I work with MSS as both a librarian and a historian. I also teach paleography sometimes. So I will use this information both in teaching and research. 6: Going into a new book project—using material analysis of MSS. 7: I will use the skills for future MSS work. I also plan to use the specific project in my dissertation and in a separate article project. 8: Primarily in my research and publications (presently my first book project—what I’ve learned here will allow me to make significant strides with the book that I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to make). 10: I will use them to further investigate materials in my field, as well as to better understand collections in my care.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: No trips. 3: N/A. 4: We made no outside trips. 5–8: N/A. 10: N/A.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: Yes. 2: N/A. 3: I probably should have just spent the time looking at MSS in the reading room. 4: I attended the lecture and it was well worth attending. 5: Yes. 6: The video was interesting but discussion afterward may have been nice. The lecture was underwhelming. 7: I attended the lecture, but wanted to know more about the Canterbury collection and would have liked more general information. 8: Yes. 10: 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: Handling was always careful and responsible. 2: Very well co-coordinated. Kudos to Tom and co. 3: We maybe should have kept tables cleaner. 4: No suggestions. 5: Great care was taken with the materials. 7: I was grateful for access! 8: N/A.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Yes, absolutely! 2: Yes. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, very much so. 5: Yes! 6: Yes, and yes. 7: Yes! 8: Yes, and yes. 9: Yes, very much so. 10: 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.)
5: I think it would have better had Yale given us access to the secure network. It was awkward trying to use the guest network and it did not always provide access to sites we needed to see. Same goes for access to Sterling. 6: BAS is wonderful! It was a great course. 7: BAS’s expertise made this course the amazing resource it was. Thank you! 8: I absolutely recommend it. BAS is both remarkably erudite and an excellent professor. 10: This is an advanced course and should be offered again, at the advanced level. RBS offers plenty of introductory courses to get people to that level. Everyone in the class was well placed.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 10
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 3 (30%)
N/A, self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 7(70%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 4 (40%)
I paid tuition myself: 2 (20%)
N/A.: Self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 4 (40%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 4 (40%)
I paid for my own housing: 1 (10%)
N/A.: stayed with friends or lived at home: 5 (50%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 4 (40%)
I paid my own travel: 2 (20%)
N/A.: lived nearby: 4 (40%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Ph.D. (humanities): 4 (40%)
Rare book librarian: 2 (20%)
University, assistant professor: 2 (20%)
University, post-doctoral fellow: 1 (10%)
University, non-tenure track: 1 (10%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 3 (30%)
Advertisement: 1 (10%)
Word of mouth: 2 (20%)
Listserv: 1 (10%)
Other: 3 (30%)