I’m not interested in standardizing courses for an institution; I would never dream of specifying what content a faculty should use for a course.  However, it seems most institutions have steered so far away from the standardization of content that they’ve missed an opportunity to provide valuable content and resources to all faculty and particularly adjuncts. 

As far as the adoption rate, my estimation is that the adoption rate by full time faculty might be somewhat slow for a number of reasons.  However, the use by adjunct faculty might occur much more quickly.

QM absolutely focuses on the development of course content – as it exists prior to the course actually beginning for a semester.  It does not evaluate the quality of teaching that occurs.  I’ve been intrigued by the complete absence of a QM-like rubric for evaluating online teaching. 

We subscribe to Quality Matters (QM) in my program, and are
very happy with the results of the emphasis of the standards in our
courses.  We have to remember, however, QM
focuses on the framework for design, and does not take into consideration other
important elements needed in a quality course, such as quality of instruction
and evidence of student learning.  QM,
unfortunately, can guarantee neither.

Additionally, your plan is flawed in that you allow
instructors to “edit or modify the course as needed.”  According to QM, courses must be reviewed
when:

·        
“Upon faculty request

·        
More than three (3) years have passed since
original review

·        
New textbook or instructor

·        
Professional or accreditation review pending”

The benefits you list are pretty good.  Economy of scale in development costs are
becoming a focal point for most institutions. Faculty union agreements will or
should answer the question of ownership. 
In some institutions, if a faculty member is compensated for the
development, the course belongs to the institution.

So will a QM-approved course guarantee a great ENGL 1301
course? No. Does your plan have merit, certainly!   Still, the plan must be flushed out
more to achieve what I gather are a couple of your goals – ease of transition for new
online faculty, and a standardization of courses for an institution.

The Panasonic Lumix GH2 would be a good choice in many respects for your needs. There are 2 key issues that I personally would have with that particular system — 1. mediocre performance in regards to high ISO shooting; 2. very limited lens selection. For about the same cost, you could get a Nikon D7000, which is not too much larger than the Lumix GH2. The Nikon D7000 can shoot at 6400 ISO (very low light) and produce very clean still photos and videos (that’s twice as good as the Lumix). Also, Nikon offers hundreds of lens choices (you can also get very good Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses that are made for Nikon dslr cameras).

If you stick with the Lumix, I think it will be a good choice for the short term. But the Nikon D7000 will produce even better photos, and it’s a higher end system that you can grow into as your photography and video skills improve. Also, you need to think about your lighting system. The Nikon Speedlight Creative Lighting System is widely regarded as the best flash system available (very easy to use for remote, wireless flash photography).

But, don’t take my word on it. Research reviews of the Nikon D7000, and the Nikon CLS lighting system.

A few years ago I was in a similar position as you — wanting to improve in photography and wanting to upgrade equipment. After a lot of research, I chose Nikon, and it’s one of the best decisions I ever made.
Just my 2 cents.

-cmd

————————————————————————–
http://www.twitter.com/cmduke
http://www.cmduke.com
Second Life: Topher Zwiers
————————————————————————–
“Nobody is as smart as everybody”
– Kevin Kelly, Wired
————————————————————————–
“Think for yourself along rational lines. Hypothesize,
test against the evidence, never accept that a question
has been answered as well as it ever will be.”
– Michael Lewis, Moneyball
————————————————————————–

Personally, I like it when people use Twitter to “mindlessly-broadcast-whatever-the-speaker’s-saying-channel”- but I made my points about that one over at EGJ as a comment. People have been doing that for years now, and if most people thought it was a bad idea they probably would have stopped doing it (or never started in the first place). I think the popularity of people doing it probably speaks to what most people think about it – not that it makes it right, of course. But I happen to be one of those that likes it.

Overall, though, I think that back channels ultimately speak to the weakness in design to most conferences – you have to move so fast to other sessions that there is not time to discuss what was just said. I wish there was no need for back channels because conferences were giving ample time and avenues for discussion and interaction. Lets face it – it is considered rude to physically chat in the back of the room while someone is speaking, so I personally don’t see how it is any different to do it virtually. But since it is the only way to have the conversation or point out what you like about the session – what are you going to do?

Recording at

http://connectpro52594655.adobeconnect.com/p35328619/

There is also a long and resource filled debate on this topic happening in

LinkedIn Groups

Group: Higher Education Teaching and LearningDiscussion:I
am tasked with building Faculty Development Session to help them move
away from lecture based and towards engaging learning environments. Any
links/urls you might direct me to.
Some great material there.

Lindy

PS jealous of your state of freedom. 2 months to go for me.

Would you argue that lectures are an inherently flawed activity within current academic institutions? Do they have a place? Why or why not?