(2) How were they talking about it?

The interaction was for the most part structured in that the students conversed in an orderly fashion. Many times they addressed each other by name, and referred to previous comments in specific terms. In the items that were designed for a specific course related academic content, the dialogue rarely strayed from the instructional topic. There were frequent brief social comments or asides in these items, and especially in the items that were not so structured by the course content (more popular items mentioned above). The responses in those structured items tended to stick to the subject, were linear, and had a very professional and academic tone.

On the other hand, the social item, reflective item, and the two items for help and

questions/advice tended to be more unstructured, non-linear, and dynamic. The items that had a little of both were the ones reserved for particular small group collaboration and discussion. These contained both academic and social tones, and were very much directed to other students by name.

(3) What were the more significant and salient topics in their dialogue?

As mentioned before, the most salient themes concerned reflection, social elements, and questions and problems. It is interesting to consider that these are not large components of a "normal" face-to-face classroom. It seems that the interaction with their peers was very important to them (Jonassen, 1991), as well as being able to articulate and reflect on ideas, issues, problems, and such (Jonassen et al., 1995). The areas designated for social interaction and reflection (The Patriot Center and Down by the Lake, respectively) were the most frequented by the students. After that, the next two areas most utilized by the students were the items designated for questions, problems, and concerns: Technical Issues, and Faculty Lounge. This reflects a need and desire to be able discuss problems and ask questions (Rogoff, 1994). The students also clearly enjoyed helping each other, giving advice, and sharing information. Rorty (1991) found these collegial activities to be crucial to the development of constructivist learning communities. It is interesting to note that these three major areas (social interaction, reflection, and help-advice topics) were common throughout all items, not just the items designated for each.

As mentioned elsewhere, the "search packets," produced from online searches through the data, provided insights through observing word frequency. Also, this helped in analyzing the proximity of particular words and topics to other specific words and topics. From there, patterns and themes were more readily visible, and the topics that seemed important to the students were more easily observed.

Right from the start, because of the amount of technical problems and because the course was delivered via an unusual format, certain types of "negative" words were frequent. That is, due to problems (mostly technology related), the following negative words (and their root words and/or other derivatives) were frequently used, especially in the unstructured items: overwhelmed, frustrated, worry, struggle, difficult, isolated, concerned, and confused. These were definitely more frequent in the first part of the course, and diminished near the end. On the other hand, and on many of the same topics, there were many positive words that were frequently used: comfortable, excited, enjoyed, happy, amazed, and understand. As well, there were lots of words used all through the course for encouragement and positive feedback, like: good job, great, wonderful, congratulations, and excellent.

Both of these negative and positive "emotional" words tended to arise in the same "threads" of conversation. That is, students expressed negative responses, and classmates came to their rescue. Both negative and positive words that were frequently used were associated with discussions on these topics:

• the technological environment (Web-based computer conferencing);
• the assignments and projects and other course components;
• the students' experience (as graduate students) in this online course; and,
• the students as educators (discussing their own students in their schools).

The negative words were mostly about the technical problems and other course related concerns; and, other issues like time management, workload (courses, job, family), and issues related to their profession and to their specific education position. In many cases, the positive words were actually for the same topics, as people were quick to bring up alternative views in response to a particular negative view expressed. As well, they would use positive words to commend, congratulate, empathize, and encourage each other.

The second initial research question asked for a description of how the interaction in this particular environment might support constructivist learning. From the start this generated many sub-questions concerning each component, such as reflection, metacognition, negotiation, and such. Each constructivist component from the model and from the literature in general was considered. Each component followed this basic expansion from a "starter question," such as (using reflection as the example): Was there evidence of reflection? Then, further sub-questions emerged:

• How was it used?
• How would it be described?
• What about these aspects of online reflective interaction: quality, frequency, and volume?

These are typical questions that were generated under each constructivist component. Some had to be even further detailed in response to the emergence of the three meta-categories: personal, social, and professional. Analytic matrices had to be utilized to efficiently sort this out. The results of these questions were described in Chapter Four, and the evidence of constructivist components was discussed in the above section.

The final list of components of a constructivist learning environment that emerged as evident in this online environment, as observed in the online interaction, are listed below. Each had the same set of sub-questions (as described above) applied. They are as follows: (a) metacognition, (b) reflection, (c) negotiation (internal and social), (d) community-building (socializing, empathizing, and story-telling), and (e) professional development (sharing knowledge, and mentoring and tutoring).

There was evidence of these constructivist components throughout the online course. In addition to sub-questions emerging from these constructivist components, there was a natural question that arose – one that surely arises in most explorations of learning environments: "What aspects of the environment (and thus, the online interaction) seemed to facilitate learning, enjoyment, and enthusiastic interaction among students?"

First, the students clearly enjoyed the social aspects of this online environment. This was evident in two ways:

• The area for social interaction, specifically – The Patriot Place – was the item with the most responses.
• Also, as discussed elsewhere, social awareness was present in almost every response across all items. The students were very aware of their membership in an online community. 

This social aspect also seemed to help them get through problems and the demands of the course. It also helped learning, as the students were comfortable with each other. They were quick to offer help, advice, critique, feedback, support, empathy, and encouragement – learner activities that Rogoff (1990) and Lave and Wenger (1991) found to be important in the development of effective learning communities.

Another thing that stimulated enthusiastic engagement was the reflective component (Jonassen et al., 1995). Students were very willing to reflect – not only when prompted to by the instructor, but on their own, throughout the course across many items. The reflection was typically deep and thoughtful, and was often full of emotion and sensitivity.

They also seemed to enjoy sharing, discovering, and discussing new ideas, resources, and methods that could help them as professionals in their particular situation. Duffy and Jonassen (1992) suggested that these types of collegial interactions, where students are quick to help each other and share things that might be useful, are important aspects of constructivist learning. This professional development aspect was very prevalent, and that did generate a lot of interaction.

The evidence of actual learning (i.e., "knowledge construction") was difficult to clearly observe, but could be presumed by observing many student responses that expressed that directly, and by observing many series of interactions that specifically dealt with exploring, inquiring, sharing, and collaborating. For example, if a student shared a resource or an idea for applying instructional technology to their classroom, the other student(s) would respond enthusiastically, thanking them and giving feedback on how they might use it and/or other evaluative comments. That indicates learning indirectly. Measurement that could more clearly assess actual learning might be other data collection methods, such as testing, questionnaires, and interviews. These could contain direct investigation as to whether or not they actually "learned." In this study, though, the data analysis was based solely on the observations of the online interaction, as well as the researcher's notes and analytic memos.