Brian McMullin and Keith Maslen
The English Book 1600 - 1800

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

  1. Useful.
  2. Very valuable although some did not fall into place until the practical exercises had been undertaken or the appropriate lecture given, e.g. collation formulae. Long lead-time to obtain some books via second hand sources reduced the time available to read all of these.
  3. They were very useful and helped me get more out of the course. It was good to have the little comments that came with the titles ("comprehensive if difficult", "thought provoking" etc). Also good to have them prioritised, so we knew which were the books not to miss. It will be a useful future reference for me.
  4. The essential reading was very helpful to set the context and a template structure to the program.
  5. Very useful - provided a background and information on which to build.
  6. The pre-course reading list was a little daunting, although very useful in the long run and I will certainly be returning to it. An indicator early on of the essential texts to be read would have been useful.
  7. I found that reading most of Gaskell and Steinberg and being aware of the others was suitable preparation. Excellent background reading list.

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It would have been nice (but was not essential) to have the course syllabus prior to commencement. The course pack will be very useful to refer to and was well used in class.
  3. The photocopied handouts were useful, but would have been easier to manage if they had been organised - I don't know how! Lack of space on the table (see number 5) meant that we had a lot of confused shuffling when trying to find one unidentified, untitled sheet among so many. Great to have so many photocopied title pages - but wish we had done some more q-f transcriptions together in class.
  4. Useful. It would have been helpful if they had been numbered for easy reference/ or bound.
  5. Yes, a wide-ranging selection of examples etc. The syllabus could have contained a little more information about titles and locations of extra activities - lectures etc - for people unfamiliar with the location.
  6. Materials have been and will be useful, as will other references that have been given. As there were so many, for in-class purposes it would have been useful if handouts were numbered.
  7. Excellent handouts, especially the bibliography topic lists.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. A level of exposure/ expertise was not assumed. I think as long as some pre-reading had been undertaken you were fine.
  3. Yes - it was challenging, but I think we all understood what we are aiming at - need a bit more practice to achieve it!
  4. Yes, but the answer is more a reflection of me than the lecturers who were obviously far more experienced and educated in this field.
  5. Yes.
  6. Yes.
  7. Yes.

4) Were the instructors well prepared, organized, and helpful?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, they were both certainly experts in the area. They also brought in further materials if a student expressed an interest.
  3. Yes, very. A lot of detailed information was important. There was time for some general discussion and anecdotal material. They were both very knowledgeable and experienced. They worked well together. One of the lecturers was particularly well prepared, well organized, and a great teacher.
  4. Excellent. First class tuition. Outstanding!
  5. Yes, very.
  6. Yes.
  7. Yes, in particular the detailed examples on the whiteboard.

5) Was the teaching space suitable for the class?

  1. A bit tight and stuffy at times.
  2. A little more space would have been useful particularly when using the whiteboard but the room location was handy.
  3. No! The room we were in first was too small. It was very difficult for the instructors and students. The second room was bigger, but we still needed more space, and more shelves, trolleys, a spare table.
  4. Ugh. More space would have been nice, but this was secondary to the excellent quality of the program.
  5. No, the first space was too small for the group. Committee Room 1 was better but still a bit cramped and airless.
  6. A little cramped, with some chairs with back to the whiteboard.
  7. Yes, but perhaps the tables in the first room were too large, making conditions a little cramped.

6) What did you like best about the course?

  1. Understanding construction of early books.
  2. Competent instructors, practical exercises, varying the day with dvd sessions, hands-on, practical exercises and theory.
  3. The books, the students, the teachers, Dunedin, St Margaret's . . .
  4. It was outstanding from the start to finish.
  5. Having two instructors gave a sometimes differing point of view of the material - or a view from a different starting point - that was useful and provided balance. A good experience - I know more now than I did a week ago!!
  6. The opportunity to print on a hand press (the 'fun' part, though not to say the rest of the course was less useful). A week spent with like-minded people.
  7. Although I work as a cataloguer I have worked on several major bibliographical projects and I catalogue rare books, this is the first time in my career that I have had the opportunity to listen to people who are expert bibliographers and I enjoyed the experience to the full. I enjoyed the comparative nature of the methodology, the sharing of experience, the expert guidance and the book lists for further reading.

7) How could the course have been improved?

  1. Could be more strongly directed.
  2. Not sure - I think it is up to us to pursue further reading in our areas of interest.
  3. a) Bigger room, more table space. b) Somehow have a couple of hours somewhere for us to visit other libraries/ museums/ galleries in Dunedin. Most of us were visitors and had NO TIME to get out and about. Maybe start earlier, finish earlier on one day? c) More class exercises together, before setting off on our own. d) A bit more general direction, before all the details.
  4. I would have paid for a month!
  5. No answer provided.
  6. No answer provided.
  7. At times I could sense that some participants needed a reminder of the broader structure, an overview of the whole bibliographical process.

8) If you attended the Tuesday and/ or Thursday night lectures, were they worth attending?

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes if you have an interest in the subject matter. I found the one I attended to be most informative.
  3. It's a nice idea, but they weren't well attended, so it didn't feel very good.
  4. Unable to attend due to home farm commitments.
  5. Yes, interesting and informative.
  6. Yes - of marginal interest to me, but still worth attending.
  7. I attended both and particularly enjoyed Mary Ronnie's paper. They were worth attending but could perhaps be signalled as optional as it can be tiring after a day's work! I would make the effort again!

9) If you stayed in St Margaret's College, how was the housing and/ or food?

  1. N/A.
  2. Accommodation good but it would have been useful to find out more about facilities before arriving, e.g. towel provided, iron and washing facilities - the conference manager was not very responsive by email. Evening meals had only two fairly heavy variants. Nothing really available for a lighter/ healthier option.
  3. Perfect!
  4. N/A.
  5. N/A.
  6. Rooms and facilities were quite comfortable, food was 'institutional', but for the price, which was very cheap, reasonable. Earlier access to email at the college would have been useful. Closeness of the college to the library and classes was a real advantage.
  7. The St. Margaret's College housing and food were excellent. Both good value and comfortable. We were able to arrange late meals if required and the staff were unfailingly friendly and helpful.

10) Did you get your money's worth? Any final thoughts?

  1. Yes - useful introduction to early printed books and improved my understanding of descriptive bibliography.
  2. Yes, although I feel we only really scratched the surface of the subject matter - a week is probably the right length of time. Most out-of-town students would probably have been interested in a behind the scenes tour of the Hocken and Dunedin public library. Alternatively an evening session of hands-on typesetting (in smaller groups) would possible have been of interest. Some students seemed to be at a loss in the evenings. Provision of information about points of interest other than the research institutions even if only a couple of websites prior, also opening hours for research institutions. Taking a packed lunch was fine but on Monday without a timetable I thought it would not be necessary given the closeness of St Margaret's but the break for lunch 1-2 did not tie in with the meal time 12:30-1pm, and this was not advised until Monday morning in class. Provision of a better map such as the $1 one from the information centre would also have been useful. Having said all that it was a great experience, I met lots of people, learned heaps (my head is spinning) and had an enjoyable stay. An option of a rare book dinner would have been nice. I look forward to the development of the Australasian rare book school and associated memorabilia.
  3. Probably. It seems quite expensive, but I'm not paying personally, so it's difficult to judge. There were private people who paid, and so it's probably about right in terms of "money's worth". The pre-course communication and organization was excellent.
  4. I don't think I have ever received such value for money! It was excellent!
  5. N/A.
  6. Well worth attending. Having two lecturers proved beautifully that this is not an exact and agreed upon science! Perhaps one or two more social occasions midweek where participants from all courses could come together. A dinner?
  7. I think the National library got their money's worth. Thank you for a very successful course. I will certainly request to attend future courses.
University of Otago Dunedin Rare Book Summer School