Runology – Runic Inscriptions in the Middle Ages
This course is offered to both bachelor (NFI 2102) and master students (NFI 4122) and covers the runic material from the Scandinavian Middle Ages. The aim of the course is “to provide students with specific skills in reading and interpreting runic inscriptions from the Middle Ages and to place these in the context of cultural history. Students will also gain insights into the discussion of orality - literacy as a historical perspective on the Middle Ages in terms of forms of writing.”. The course is given in English and the bibliography is entirely in English as well. The syllabus consists of c. 500 pages of secondary literature, of which 200 are chosen freely by the students according to their own interests. Additionally, the students must study around 30 inscriptions. The syllabus is the same for both bachelor and master students. However, the examination is different. The bachelor students have to write a 5-page qualification paper during the course and have an oral exam at the end. The master students have to give a trial lecture at the end of the course on a topic chosen by the teacher. This is done in a mini conference where the other master students and the bachelor students participate as audience and discussants. Nine bachelor students wrote the qualifying paper and one did not pass. Seven bachelors took the oral exam and all passed. Seven master students gave the trial lecture and one did not pass.
The teaching consisted in lectures and seminars, where frontal lectures were combined with practical work with the runic inscriptions.
The responses in the course evaluations are to a good extent positive, but some also raised important critique. A main difference which can be seen in the responses is between the master students’ and the bachelor students’. The masters were all very positive, whereas the bachelors’ opinions were more split, as some of them were less satisfied with the course. This might indicate that the course is especially demanding for bachelor students.
One difficulty, which was already highlighted in the previous periodical evaluation, is the relatively high number of articles and inscriptions that have to be studied, coupled with the students’ highly varying previous knowledge of Old Norse and runology (see below). Based on the previous teacher’s evaluation, where it was suggested to give more space to the theoretical articles, I divided most lessons in a theoretical part, where the articles were discussed, and a practical part, where the inscriptions were in focus. This led to the result that, while most articles/inscriptions were more comprehensively covered, others were covered more quickly. To remedy this problem, material on every inscription was uploaded on Canvas in order to reiterate and expand on what was said in class. Most of the material was published before the classes so that the students had the possibility to prepare themselves and profit more from the lectures and seminars. This course structure gave naturally a good deal of responsibility to the students. All master students were satisfied with this structure and thought that the appropriate number of hours was given to all parts of the course. While some bachelor students were satisfied as well, some others wished some changes, even though the responses are sometimes contradictory. For example, a bachelor student wished for easier articles, while another asked for more detail and higher demands, and a third would have liked more time spent on the translation of the inscriptions for those without knowledge of Old Norse.
This last point raises another difficulty, which is the students’ varying background. According to the course’s formal prerequisites, all students should have some knowledge of Old Norse. On the contrary, “[s]ome basic knowledge of runology is to be desired but is not obligatory”, which is problematic in a specialization course in runology. Even though most students had basic knowledge of runology, a couple of students did not and had much more work to do at the beginning of the course. This might also have caused some lectures to be difficult to follow.
The aforementioned problems need therefore to be given attention to next time this course is given. A possible solution would be to have more hours in class. Another would be to focus and go into greater detail on selected articles/inscriptions, but at the same time make this choice explicit for the students, make clear for them that they have the responsibility to study the rest of the syllabus, and give them plenty of possibilities to ask for clarifications. As regards the students’ self‑study, it can be noted that a great deal of students in their evaluation agreed or partly agreed that they “could have put more effort into working with this course during the whole semester”.
Another critique raised by some bachelor student is that the compulsory literature was entirely in English, which was felt as a limitation. As a teacher, I do agree that, given the topic of the course, it would be better to include Scandinavian‑language literature as well. The secondary literature and especially the literature about the runic inscriptions would improve in scope and relevance. To address this issue, during the lectures I provided information that I felt was needed but lacking in the articles. While some students appreciated this, some other wished to have lectures with a greater connection to the articles in the syllabus and to what was going to be asked in the exam.
As regards the examination, several students would have preferred some form of written evaluation. From a teacher’s perspective, the oral exam with the bachelor students worked well. As far as the master students’ examination is concerned, the mini conference with the trial lectures worked good as well, even though it maybe should be complemented with a short oral examination, aimed at verifying the learning outcome in other areas covered by the course which are not included in the trial lectures’ topics. Now, there is in fact an imbalance with between the masters’ and the bachelors’ exam, since the former are examined once and the latter twice.