You are here:

Purpose, Pedagogy and Philosophy: “Being” an Online Lecturer

, University of the Highlands and Islands

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


Instructing online has become an increasingly common aspect of a university lecturer’s role. While research has developed an understanding of the student learning experience, less attention has been paid to the role of the lecturer. This study observed the practice of university lecturers teaching in a range of undergraduate degree programmes in the United Kingdom. The lecturers’ purpose, pedagogy, and philosophy emerged in the dialogic patterns of the online space. Practice was shaped by the lecturers’ epistemological positioning and their cultural values and beliefs. The practice, which was observed across different modules, reflected the different positions lecturers took when they approached online teaching. The research highlights the way in which a lecturers’ purpose, pedagogy, and philosophy are reflected in their online facilitation.


Coker, H. (2018). Purpose, Pedagogy and Philosophy: “Being” an Online Lecturer. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Åkerlind, G.S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.
  2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D.R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190.
  3. Cho, M.H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students' academic
  4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
  5. Dawson, S. (2010). ‘Seeing’ the learning community: An exploration of the development of a resource for monitoring online student networking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 736-752.
  6. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
  7. Garrison, D.R. (2012). Article Review: Social presence within the community of inquiry framework.
  8. González, C. (2010). What do university teachers think eLearning is good for in their teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 61-78.
  9. Gubrium, J.F., Holstein, J.A., Marvasti, A.B., & McKinney, K.D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook
  10. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.
  11. Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Adesope, O., & Hatala, M. (2014). Psychological
  12. Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-106.
  13. Laffey, J., Lin, G.Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163.
  14. Lambert, S.D., & Loiselle, C.G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228-237.
  15. Lameras, P., Levy, P., Paraskakis, I., & Webber, S. (2012). Blended university teaching using virtual learning environments: conceptions and approaches. Instructional Science, 40(1), 141-157.
  16. Owens, T. (2012). Hitting the nail on the head: The importance of specific staff development for effective blended learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 389400.
  17. Pozzi, F., Ceregini, A., Ferlino, L., & Persico, D. (2016). Dyads versus groups: Using different social
  18. Richardson, J.C., Koehler, A.A., Besser, E.D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C.M. (2015).
  19. Stott, P. (2016). The perils of a lack of student engagement: Reflections of a “lonely, brave, and rather exposed” online instructor. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 51-64.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact