David Whitesell
G-20: Printed Books to 1800: Description & Analysis
8–12 July 2013
Detailed Course Evaluation
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?
1: Pretty useful although more technical than I was expecting. However, in hindsight I know they had to be. 2: Very useful for me. The class portion of them felt like review, usually in a good way—solidifying what I had already learned with explanation and especially physical examples. (Some classmates clearly hadn’t read and this was frustrating at times). 3: Required readings were very helpful. I wish I had read more of Gaskell, but plan to revise and refer back to it. 4: Good. However, they didn’t really “stick” until after our class coverage of them. 5: The pre-course readings were extremely helpful. It was really apparent who in the class had bothered to do the readings because discussion flow would be clogged up by those who hadn’t. 6: Gaskell was very helpful. The videos were useful in visualizing the processes and I highly recommend them. Worth trying to read Bowers so you know what to expect. The others were unnecessary and covered in class. 7: Useful; Gaskell is more directly relevant than ABS for Book Collectors, but the latter was not useless. I did some of the recommended reading as well. 8: They were helpful, but impenetrable. However, I was glad I did them, because with the course, they made sense. 9: Very useful. 10: Very useful, I had consulted colleagues for other books. 11: Very useful. I only did the pre-course assignments. 12: Very.
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: Yes—I found the workbook very helpful and I feel I will refer to it often. Also appreciated the handouts and list of books from SC. 2: Very much so, but variably. Occasionally I wished for more images or representations of Gaskell, though sometimes handouts solved this (i.e. info on imposition). 3: The workbook is fantastic! I plan to refer to it frequently. All handouts were interesting and useful. 4: Yes, workbook is very well laid out. 5: Yes! They will be housed (and used) in my work cubicle. 6: Yes. I’ll be referring to the workbook often for its ready list if nothing else. 7: Yes, both. 8: VERY helpful. I was suspicious of the video at first, but found it to be very helpful. 9: Again, very useful. 10: Very useful indeed, I shall be moving the manual often. 11: Yes, I will use them as references at home. 12: Yes.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: Yes—this one covered a broad timeframe—more of the technical aspects I think. 2: N/A. 3: This is my first class at RBS. 4: Yes, I liked Eric Holzenberg’s post-1800 course, but I like this course even better (even though my collecting interests are mostly post-1800). 5: No. 6: No. 7: First course. 8: The overall format outlining how to look at a book. 9: Yes. Uniformly excellent. 10: I cannot compare the last course, I am very happy for taking both. 11–12: No.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: I most enjoyed the discussions of paper, bindings, and illustration processes as well as the visit to SC. 2: Printing practices and DesBib—being able to look at a book and instantly figure out how the text became the object (broadly speaking) and how the materiality shaped the text. 3: Format, collation formulas, and brief discussion of bibliographical description are most relevant for my work. Discussion of printing practices and papermaking were personally very enjoyable and interesting. 4: All of it. 5: Using collation to suss out wonkiness in a book, and figure out errors in printing and binding. 6: Reading collational formula, identifying bindings, identifying foliation, and doing provenance research. 7: All interesting and relevant; collation was the area I would have found it hardest to master on my own, printing and binding demonstrations were both very helpful. 8: The course did a good job conveying information. DW was good at simultaneously providing a basic and more advanced level of info depending on your interest and ability. 10: Content absolutely relevant to both my interest and academic and research needs. 11: I was looking for a general overview and this class provided it. 12: Collation.
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, collation formulas will look more familiar to me, but I don’t think I will ever be comfortable with them. This is my problem—I am not a numbers person. 2: Yes, and yes. Sometimes the diversity of students was an advantage as everyone brought useful anecdotes and complementary expertise. Occasionally the different paces of learning or individual needs and interests slowed down the group as a whole. 3: Very informative and challenging class. Requires attention and willingness to understand, but DW was open to questions at all times and go over information again. 4: Absolutely. Level and pace were perfect. 5: Yes, and yes. 6: Yes. Occasionally we had to go over concepts contained in the pre-class readings as some class members did not do them. 7: Yes. 8: I loved the hands-on activities like the binding workshop and the composition exercise. 9: Yes (strangely, to both). 10: Yes, very competent instructor, helpful. 11: Yes, and yes. Hands-on learning is very effective. 12: Mostly.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: DW was very organized, succinct, and knowledgeable with a nice dash of humor. 2: Hands-on examples and practice. DW’s anecdotes and fun instruction! 3: Discussion of printing press, typesetting, book sewing demonstration and discussion of illustrations (wood engravings, intaglio, &c.). 4: How deliberate, methodical, patient, and unflappable DW was. 5: Everything. 6: Additional evening sessions to work on collational formulas, and all the hands-on examples. 7: I liked it all. 8: I loved the hands-on activities like the binding workshop and the composition exercise. 10: The hands-on aspect and great and diverse experience of the instructor as a librarian and bookseller. 11: The books, of course! 12: Confirming what I did know, teaching me what I didn’t.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: Not sure—can’t think of anything. 2: If everyone had done the advance reading, everyone’s class time would be better used on occasion. And the class didn’t gel till Wednesday. I think something more active and hands-on earlier (Monday) would have helped us (both) relax and get to know one another better, sooner. 3: Can’t think of anything. Well organized. 4: Thought it was excellent. 5: N/A. 6: More discussions on reading descriptive bibliography. 7: Might be helpful to break up collation segments. 8: I would have liked more organized social opportunities to get to know my class—sign-up sheets for lunch, group Booksellers’ Night, &c. In only a week, it was hard to break that barrier. 10: I think it’s good as it is. 11: Some references to the global context: how were books being published in the East? 12: Better support material for collation.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: Yes. 2: Yes. General history and bibliography in enough detail to go forward on one’s own. 3–11: Yes.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1: Yes. I hadn’t studied illustration before so that was a big help. 2: Yes. Great foundation for students researching in this period, hard-core bibliographers or not! 3–5: Yes. 6: Yes, somewhat. I wanted more. 7: Yes. I still feel a little fuzzy on half-sheet impositions, work and turn, and work together. 8–11: Yes.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: When I present rare books to visitors and classes, I’d like to pass on what I’ve learned. Also, if a researcher has a format or bibliographical record question, I hope to be more helpful—in my job at the library. 2: To be better informed about the texts I study and how they have been transmitted to us in general, and in the ability to approach specific books with better context and understanding. 3: I hope to incorporate knowledge into my job as special collections librarian to educate readers and researchers on the hand press period. I also hope to identify rare treasures in the collection. 4: It makes me a more knowledgeable collector, and I will be able to better read a bibliographical collation of a book. 5: The skills learned will help me greatly in my presentations of early handpress books for undergraduate students at my university. 6: My work includes researching and describing rare books. Also helping book historians. So I’ll likely use it all. 7: It will feed into my own research and also into teaching—neither centrally, but as an important supplement. 8: I want to see how I can push these skills and this methodology to apply them to a differing field. 9: Better able to check accuracy of descriptions against physical objects. Informed cataloging skills. 10: Basically for my research needs but also hopefully to teach a similar course in the future. 11: To be determined.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: Yes—SC visit was helpful and fun. Printing demo—I love it! 2: Yes—SC is so rich. Wish we had more time there somehow. 3: The visit to SC to examine their treasures was very good. Would like to tour SC if possible. 4: Absolutely. The beauty of RBS is the hands-on time. 5: Yes. We visited SC. The RBS materials were well-used and worn, so it was nice to see pristine examples. 6: Nice material at UVA SC but it didn’t add much that the RBS examples hadn’t. 7: Yes, printing demonstration and SC visit were both valuable. 8: Yes! They were the best part! 9: Yes (SC and printing demonstration). 10: Very much so. 11: Yes—to SC.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: Yes—first time I stayed for Video Night—interesting though, film was a little long. 2: Yes! The lecture was provocative and fun; the videos were great and inspiring. I wanted to run away and become a binder and conservator. 3: I attended one lecture; the days can be quite busy, but it was worthwhile. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, but not so much for learning and content. They were excellent ways of banding with the other RBS attendees. 6: Neither evening talk was in my area of interest so I didn’t get much out of them. 7: The lecture was interesting, though she spoke very quickly and I was a bit tired after a full day with an evening of exercises to follow. 8: The lecture and forum were wonderful. I feel like Booksellers’ Night could have been improved with the option of a formal outing. 10: I think so, though I had to do extra work in the evenings. 11: 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?
2: Everything seemed to responsibly balance accessibility and preservation. 3: DW was very careful with materials and instructed us on appropriate handling practices. 4: Well done. 5: Maybe replacement foam supports (if they weren’t so expensive). 7: Seemed fine. 8: I thought it was done excellently. 10: No suggestions. 11: None.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Yes, and yes. 2: Yes! 3: I would absolutely recommend course to colleagues and friends. 4: Yes to both. 5: Yes, and yes!!!! 6: Yes, and yes. 7: Yes, absolutely, both. 8: Yes! And Yes! 9: Yes to both. 10: Worth every penny, I would recommend it to everyone I know. 11: 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.)
1: Thanks once again for the experience! 2: Earlier in the week, and during certain less hands-on sessions, the class could be a bit dry and a-social. Maybe work extra hard to get to know people early on—group lunch first day? Or suggest RBS reorganize the schedule slightly to get us moving and collaborating faster. 3: None. 4: Well worth taking. Might want to “market” as Descriptive Bibliography “Lite” for collectors and non-librarians. 5: If you have the chance to take an RBS course, take it! 8: DW is a wonderful instructor, as well as incredibly patient. Please keep on next year! 9: Must do pre-reading. Excellent instructor. 10: RBS is such a great institution and community. This has been the best part of my summer. 11: DW is amazing! He’s a great teacher and he’s obviously at the top of his field.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 12
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 5 (42%)
I took vacation time: 1 (8%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 6 (50%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 4 (33%)
I paid tuition myself: 4 (33%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 4 (34%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 4 (33%)
I paid for my own housing: 3 (25%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 5 (42%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 3 (25%)
I paid my own travel: 4 (33%)
N/A: lived nearby: 5 (42%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Book collector: 25%
Ph.D. (humanities): 18%
Librarian with some rare book duties: 17%
Library assistant/clerk: 8%
Rare book librarian: 8%
College, assistant professor: 8%
University, assistant professor: 8%
University, full or associate professor: 8%
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 17%
Work colleague: 33%
Word of mouth: 17%
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 33%