Kevin Werbach, a Wharton professor who has been teaching a MOOC on gamification (I know, my two favorite tastes together at last!), has written a Chronicle post decrying the use of the “rock star” moniker for MOOC profs. “The rock-star meme implies that teaching is all about performance,” says Werbach.
Of course, it’s possible that the rock star metaphor works precisely because all that matters is performance. One of the arguments I’ve made about MOOCs is that they are a kind of entertainment media that extend today’s trends in para-educationalism: TED talks, big idea books, and so forth. So to say that this rock star rhetoric is risky business, as Werbach does, seems to admit that this is the case.
But Werbach continues: “It doesn’t have to be this way. One of the greatest and least remarked-upon benefits of MOOCs is to open up room for experimentation in teaching.” He continues to worry about losing control of the production process and about faculty becoming just the help, so to speak. Werbach’s right to worry, but he’s wrong to think that an alternative is compatible with the MOOC “tsunami”.
Anytime you see an argument that hinges on the fact that “things could be different,” your ears should perk up. Such arguments admit that there’s a problem, but refuse to accept the fact that things are not otherwise, and thus refuse to ask whether and how the problematic aspects of a situation are endemic to it or merely incidental. Werbach’s an honest and decent fellow and I truly believe he wants what’s best for education. But asking us to eschew the “rock star” name in the hopes that doing so will inaugurate some magical respite to the problems his article itself illustrates, this is a type of head-burying we cannot afford.