Paul Needham & Will Noel
H-25: c15 Books in Print & Manuscript
22–26 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: Very useful, though not essential before the class started. It would be helpful to arrange list in order of increasing sophistication (need for prior information &c.) 2: I did not do any of the pre-course reading, nor did I do any additional preparation. 3: Some of the readings truly prepared me for class. Other, for example Vezin, did not seem particularly appropriate. 4: Informative and useful. 5: Useful. 6: They were quite helpful especially for the study of paper. 7: they were useful, but not necessary. They came up very rarely. 8: Useful, but not necessary to understanding most of the course content, since much was explained in class. 9: Not very. Would have preferred just a couple general texts rather than so many specialized ones. 10: The readings were useful, but—it seems to me—not all necessary as preparation for the course. Perhaps some could be listed as suggested reading? 11: Extremely useful—in fact there could have been additional suggested reading. 12: I was unable to do all recommended readings, but I found useful the ones I did read ahead of time. 13: I was able to read some of the preliminary readings; I’m glad for the ones I did read and glad to have the information about the ones I still hope to read. 14: Helpful, but they were never discussed.
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: Helpful if all images had shelf marks. Institution &c. A list of further reading or just other literature cited in the class would be great. Divide the workbook into sections, have a table of contents for easy access. 2–3: Yes. 4: I am very grateful for the course workbook and especially appreciate the file as a PDF. 5–6: Yes. 7: Yes, the workbook was good. 8: Yes; but I wish RBS had distributed a printed workbook as opposed to the PDF. 9: Yes. 10: Yes! It would have been nice to have a paper copy of the workbook. 11: Yes—the workbook is a great reference source. 12: Strongly yes—Most illustrative, and I made copious notes for future reference. Next time it might be worth asking students to pre-load a copy on their computers (I did, and it helped). 13: They were appropriate and useful, but I would have found a hard copy more useful so that my particular notes could be incorporated into my copy of the workbook. 14: They came as an online PDF. Very clumsy. A print copy would have been more helpful.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: Yes—several. This was an excellent course but less intense than many previous courses. More time spent on reviewing material covered in previous day—sometimes pace was very slow, followed by a rush to get through material. 2: No. 3: Yes. It generally maintained the high quality I expect from RBS. 4: Yes. I have enjoyed every RBS course I’ve taken; this was number five, and I hope to continue my professional development at RBS. 5: Yes—all great. 6: Yes. All have been outstanding. 7: No. 8: Yes. Similar amount of work (except for DesBib, which required a lot of work outside of class). 9: N/A. 10: No. 11: Yes—this was less intensive than my previous course, and required much less from me during the week. 12: Yes—intense as expected, and worth far more as a communal intellectual experience than as a series of lectures or readings. RBS instructors are top of the class. 13: Yes—one. This course was a little more conceptual and general, but it was an extremely useful introduction into an area where I had little experience. 14: Same—excellent.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: The discussions of the books and MSS with PN and WN were great. Classmates also contributed to the value of discussions. The two visits were extremely useful (especially Scheide Library)—U Penn collections also great. 2: We spent a lot of time looking at books and interacting with them at Penn. It was great to just concentrate on the books as physical objects. 3: Introduction to and analysis of nomenclature and principles of understanding and describing incunables. The wonderful world of paper sizes! 4: This course was directly related to my areas of interest, in terms of research, teaching, and librarianship. 5: The comparisons (similarities and differences) between books and manuscripts in the c15. 6: Seeing the incomparable collections, especially the Scheide. 7: The first-hand experience in describing and analyzing the books. 8: Absolutely the books were the stars, but the most useful content for me, as a cataloguer, was the discussion of descriptions, and how to describe books (in strata). 9: All. 10: The discussions between the instructors, (and the instructors and students) were most interesting to me. I came to this course to learn about the methods used by the instructors, and how they think. 11: Handling and/or viewing rare materials, learning from the exemplars and the instructors’ expertise. 12: I was largely unfamiliar with incunables, so this was mostly new territory for me. A major highlight and reason for taking this course was the chance to see different collections. 13: The thorough discussion of paper sizes and formats, and the close comparisons of related manuscript and incunable texts. 14: Print incunablula: construction, mistakes. TEI. T—Pen websites.
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: Would have liked more time spent on c15 MSS and their relationship with print (as opposed to general approaches, which were useful and interesting but still more c15 MS work). 2: Yes, and yes. 3: The expected level of familiarity seemed to change from hour to hour. 4: This course was both enjoyable and challenging. We spent a lot of time problem-solving, which I found more stimulating than just listening to lectures. 5: Yes—intellectual level was very high and challenging. 6: Yes, and yes. 7: They could have done slightly more with actual c15 books. The intellectual level was often under-rigorous. 8: Yes, although it would have been nice to have a brief general overview of early print and manuscript traditions (eliminating the vocabulary later). 9: Yes. I learned about several resources (especially online ones) that I will use in my work. 10: Yes. 11: For the most part, yes—I would have preferred a more intense course at a more advanced level, though. 12: Most interesting was how we confronted manuscripts and incunables as a set, rather than separately, and tried to apply principles and methods to both. 13–14: Yes.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Viewing and examining original books and MSS. Instructors worked well together—good chemistry. 2: PN and WN have a great rapport and very different sets of expertise that nevertheless overlap. They were the best thing about the course. 3: The use of U Penn rare materials. 4: This was my first RBS course taught by a team and I learned twice as much as I might have with only one instructor. 5: The sheer amount of interesting information conveyed. Going to Scheide Library was a highlight. 6: The quality of instruction. 7: PN’s approach to the book as historical object. 8: (Lively) discussions. 9: The exercises we did, handling the books, lively conversations. 10: The visit to the Scheide Library was excellent. We were able to see some very important and beautiful pieces of print, but these objects were also used to illustrate the important concepts and methods. 11: The field trips and the sessions with rare materials from Penn collections—the Philly location is an enormous asset for the course. 12: Extremely well structured, especially given the disparate interests of the instructors. They mad a fine team (fireworks included). 13: The technical information about paper and printing processes, and the day of the Scheide Library.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: Better pacing—a bit tighter organization. 2: It was often disorganized. More organization would be good. 4: Not a lot, the course was truly top-shelf. Maybe beginning and ending with the same books would be fun to see what we learned. 7: More books. There were times when the course seemed too theoretical or too purely academic, e.g., digitization initiatives and cataloguing. 8: Printed handouts of books viewed at the FLP and Scheide, with space for notes. Printed workbook. 9: Some of the spaces were not ideal for 17 people to look at one book. 10: No suggestions—it was great! 11: The lectures were the least effective and were of a very basic level (if you did the reading, you already know the information). A syllabus or course schedule would also help, since it often seemed a bit disorganized). 13: more attention by the instructors to giving all students a chance to see the “real” examples and more time to look would have been good. 14: With so many participants it was difficult to view the books that were displayed. Instructors stood in front of the books and the class was behind the instructors. Very discouraging.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–6: Yes. 7: Yes. But…I really wish we had practiced more of what they taught. 8–10: Yes. 11: Yes. This will be invaluable for my teaching in particular. 12: Yes. 13: Yes. The simultaneous consideration of contemporary manuscripts and incunables was highly stimulating. 14: Yes.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–3: Yes. 5–10: Yes. 11: Yes, for the most part—again, this will help me in the classroom perhaps more than in my own work. 12: Yes, and much more. 13–14: Yes.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: In my work with the c15 books and MSS in the library where I work—also in teaching. 2: In my job I have responsibilities to rare books and MSS—I have learned so much about how to approach them. WN’s “strata” theory was particularly useful. 3: In research and teaching 4: I will use information form this course as soon as I get back to work. 5: I will be able to draw on what I learned every day at work. 7: Teaching the history of the book. 8: I will be using the evaluation methods learned in this course and resources cited (print and online) in my daily work as a cataloguer. 10: The knowledge and methods I learned will influence my future academic work. 11: I will use the knowledge and (some of) the methodology when I teach book history courses. 12: I hope so. 13: As a manuscripts cataloguer, I will be more attentive to the papers used in the items I catalogue (and their format). 14: In the cataloguing and the teaching of these materials in classroom presentations.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: Yes. 2: Yes! 3: Certainly yes at the Scheide, but better use might have been made of our time at the Free. 4: Two field trips, both to see spectacular collections. 5: Yes. 6: Most definitely. 7: Yes! The Princeton and FLP trips were great! 8: Absolutely, yes! The “greatest (two) days of our bibliographical lives.” 9: Yes, and no. The objects we saw were amazing and worthwhile but we were not able to handle any ourselves and often had a hard time seeing them. See question seven. 10: Yes. 11: YES. The Scheide and the FLP trips were invaluable. 13: Absolutely. The examples were outstanding. 14: The time was very well spent and made the class extra special.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., Video Night and Evening Forum) were they worth attending?
1: Poorly organized, not advertized in advance—not at all the same experience as Charlottesville and Baltimore in the past. 2: I did not attend. 3: Yes. 4: Video Night was educational. 7: Yes, although we didn’t hear about them till we got the vade mecum. 8: Did not attend. 9: Forum—no; Video Night—yes. 10: Yes—video was helpful. It would have been nice to have been able to watch it from home before the class began. 11: Not particularly—the Forum was a bit disorganized and at the end of a very long day. The video was fine, as a refresher. 12: Quite! 14: The evening events became known when the session started. Difficult to find the extra time.
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?
7: N/A. 8: None—everyone in class was experienced at handling books and very respectful of the materials. 9: N/A. 10: No. 12: They make for long days, so I didn’t attend all, but they can’t help but enrich. 14: If the instructors would use digital images on a screen, visibility would have been enhanced enormously.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Yes. 2: Yes, definitely. 3: Yes. Yes. 4: Absolutely. 5: Yes! 6: Yes, and yes. 7: I’d recommend it, but not without qualification. 8: Yes, and yes! 9: N/A, yes, but not to an expert in the material. 10: Yes. 11: Yes! 12: YES! YES! 13: Yes. 14: Yes. 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.)
1: I think Simran Thadami knows about the accommodations and other hiccups. She is great and was very helpful. 4: Thank you RBS!! 5: Take the course! 7: WN and PN have a great deal to teach. But there were times when they seemed to be making up the lesson plans as they went along. There were highs (PN’s tour of the Scheide) and lows (WN’s half-day digitization talk), but overall the class lacked coherence. 8: If you ever have a chance to study with WN, PN, and especially WN and PN, do. 14: Solid course that will improve as the instructors work together more often.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 14
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 7 (50%)
I took vacation time: 1 (7%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 6 (43%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 4 (28%)
I paid tuition myself: 5 (36%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 9 (64%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 0
I paid for my own housing: 5 (36%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 9 (64%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 2 (14%)
I paid my own travel: 4 (29%)
N/A: lived nearby: 8 (57%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Antiquarian bookseller: 1 (7%)
Cataloguer, early MSS: 1 (7%)
M.L.I.S. and Ph.D. (humanities): 1 (7%)
Ph.D. (humanities): 2 (15%)
Other student: 1 (7%)
Librarian/archivist of digital materials: 1 (7%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 2 (15%)
Library/University Administrator: 2 (15%)
Rare book librarian: 2 (15%)
College, assistant professor: 1 (7%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 7 (50%)
RBS printed schedule: 3 (22%)
Work colleague: 2 (14%)
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 2 (14%)