Month: July 2025

This is the final article out of my first ethnography of online course design. It is inspired by Bruno Latour’s work to trace the practical networks that build up our world into the incredibly diverse, unique forms that we find. I look at course design from this perspective, trying to show how each site is completely distinct, unlike any other.

This article serves as the third part of kind of a trilogy, along with The Everydayness of Instructional Design and the Pursuit of Quality in Online Course Design, and A Critique of Calculation and Optionalization Applied to Online/Blended Course Design. The three of them work together to dismantle the idea that the most important thing in course design is the instructional design processes or frameworks we use, and that the idea of best practices in this business is a chimera we should avoid.

Abstract

In this paper, I report a critical case study of optimization in online course design within the context of higher education. Through ethnographic work conducted at a university in the United States, I studied an office of online course design, investigating how the office (comprising course designers, administrators, other staff, and the faculty they worked with) enacted optimization as a practical concern. The analysis revealed that optimization was not only the result of interactions between various actors, but also the influence of multiple artifacts that mediated the transformation of educational ideas into concrete learning resources, presumed to be calibrated for a specific purpose. However, since optimization was not a singular construct, course designers regularly found that optimizing along one dimension (perhaps to comply with a policy) caused damage in another (such as providing an engaging learning experience). Furthermore, the practices of course design tended to deemphasize matters purely associated with the quality of learning, while trending towards forms of optimization related to organizational efficiency: streamlining, standardization, reliance on quantified measurements, and developing mechanisms of interchangeability. I conclude by discussing how these findings complicate our understanding of course optimization as well as of course design itself, and what implications this understanding holds for the field.

At Academica.edu

At ResearchGate

At BYU Scholar’s Archive

Full text link

Reference:

McDonald, J. K. (2025). Course designers at work: A critical case study of optimization in online course design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(5), 3315-3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10525-7

This is the second paper I contributed to for the special issue of The Journal of Computing in Higher Education on improving educational technology research. This is a more personal paper to me than the other, though I’m proud of them both. This one explores what it would look like if we didn’t treat research as an instrumental endeavor. What if we entangled ourselves with the lives of those we study? Quite a different picture of research emerges.

Abstract

Despite the enormous investment in educational technology research, there are sincere questions about whether it is having a meaningful effect on issues that really matter. Put simply, is education better because of us? In this paper we argue that our field is not having the impact it could, due largely to our instrumentalist approach to ed tech research. Instrumentalism transforms the educational problems we study into little more than opportunities to efficiently deploy technologies and other resources that are presumed to optimize educational systems. But despite instrumentalism’s near-ubiquity, there is an alternative. By analyzing a case study of research characterized by researcher immersion and entanglement with the situation under study, we show how educational technology can resist the instrumentalist tendencies that reduce even the most serious problem into simply another resource to be optimized. In large part this occurs as we adopt practices that demand that we change ourselves—striving on our parts for more sensitivity, more understanding, more caring—so we are up to the task helping education become more just, more humane, and more focused on students’ existential development.

At Academica.edu

At ResearchGate

Full-text link

I was also interviewed for an episode of the Two Pint PLC about the article. Check out the episode, as well as the whole show!

Reference:

McDonald, J. K., & Ventura, B. (2025). Is education better because of us? How ed tech can answer the call to produce research that matters. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 37(2), 543-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09440-w

This is one of two articles I contributed towards for a special issue of The Journal of Computing in Higher Education. The issue was a call to improve research quality in the field of educational technology, something I care a lot about. Ed tech, online learning, instructional design research all had this reductive quality. It misses the mark more than it hits. It has the appearance of rigor while somehow failing to capture the substance. This article was a manifesto, led by Matt Schmidt and written along with us by Stephanie Moore, arguing that…. well… I think in this case the title speaks for itself.

Abstract

The educational technology field is at a critical juncture, facing the dual pressures of rapid technological advancement and a pressing need for research that genuinely addresses educational challenges. Despite increasing awareness of these issues, a significant amount of educational technology research remains entrenched in superficial or trend-driven inquiries, failing to tackle deeper, systemic issues. This paper critically examines the historical and institutional forces sustaining what we term “the research we don’t need,” and argues for a transformative shift toward “the research we need.” Such research must prioritize depth, long-term impact, and relevance over mere novelty or ease of publication. We outline how entrenched practices, including academic publishing standards, tenure and promotion metrics, and funding structures, contribute to a cycle that rewards superficial research. To disrupt this cycle, we propose actionable strategies to foster a research ecosystem that values substantive contributions and advocates for systemic change. Ultimately, we urge scholars, institutions, and professional organizations to embrace a collective responsibility to redefine research priorities holistically. By doing so, we can foster a field that meaningfully impacts educators, learners, and society. This is not merely a call for incremental improvements; it is a challenge to realign the field’s fundamental purpose toward more impactful, responsible, and enduring scholarship.

At Academica.edu

At ResearchGate

Full-text link

Reference:

Schmidt, M., McDonald, J. K., & Moore, S. (2025). The research we don’t need will persist until we dismantle the systems that sustain it. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 37(2), 507-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-025-09446-4