Another student admitted:

I guess I'm feeling frustrated and overwhelmed…

In discussing Web-based learning issues, one student said:

The disadvantages can be frustrating…the reliability of the equipment or the technology that supports it (phone lines that do down) and the time management strategies that need to be in place to make CMC doable…

 Eventually, the search-packets were organized into their own categories, such as: negative (e.g., overwhelmed, frustrated, alone), positive (e.g., enjoyed, happy, excited), and process-oriented (e.g., wondering, curious, connect). An example of an emerging pattern that was frequently followed: A student would express something negative like isolation and frustration, and then other students would display "peer empathy" and provide advice, encouragement, and other collegial behaviors. Here is an example that typified this pattern:

[Student Name], I can certainly relate to your experiences of being frustrated with computers…It is very frustrating to try to teach when things are inconsistent. I am finding that it requires much more of my time to plan because I am always thinking, "How can I incorporate the computer into this?" I imagine it will get easier…

The online support from a social and professional perspective was evident, and this was made more clear by utilizing the data (in reorganized form) produced by the search-packets. It put similar data in closer proximity, which allowed the researcher greater access to potential insights.

A second emerging insight was that the responses had distinguishable "tones" to them, as if spoken. Some students in the beginning had trouble with the notion of "writing" their ideas for all to read. They worried about proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar as well as the quality of the articulation. But, once over that, there was a definite tone to the responses. This was fairly typical across all items. A personality tended to come across in the writings, perhaps due to the informality of the "writing" – as opposed to turning in a paper, which would tend to be more formal, following certain guidelines and expectations. The online writing clearly had a "voice." Here is an example from a string of responses in the item called, "Interesting Introductions Around the Room" (they were talking about having met famous people):

[Student 1]: I haven't met any famous people, but I did go to a restaurant where many went. It was way back when, Christmas week 1996. [My wife] and I went to Paris for our Christmas present and we dined in a well-known place – Tour D'Argent…

[Student 2]: [Student 1], I'd like to know how much that dinner cost! It sounds absolutely divine.

[Student 3]: Let's see [Student 1], I think I got a, hmmm, BATHROBE for Christmas! I think I'll spend my next one with you!

This was increasingly so as time went on and the students were more comfortable with the system and with each other. People were basically not as shy as one might suppose, and there was enough expressiveness and use of social interjections to exude a certain tone to the responses. Also, in some cases, certain students had very similar tones to their responses across the whole semester (e.g., complainer, philosophizer, or technical adviser).

Third, new categories began to emerge, such as: peer empathy, group empathy, philosophizing, and many others. Emerging insights are discussed throughout this chapter in more detail in appropriate sections. The researcher notes and analytic memos were constantly bulging with new ideas, and it was hard to keep bound all of the ideas surrounding emerging categories. The concept of relating it to a particular theoretical framework (constructivist learning) truly helped keep things from getting out of hand.

In the beginning, the theoretically informed analytic bins helped the researcher to focus on constructivist-related aspects of the communication. It was easy to get sidetracked into pondering over the data in a variety of ways. Soon it became apparent that the preformed bins were not enough. Many patterns and themes and completely new ideas began to emerge. New questions, as stated above, emerged and stimulated this process further. The results of the first few rounds of analyses produced many prevalent and intriguing aspects of the online interaction, that were not in the original bins. These emerging patterns and themes were frequent enough and/or were prominent enough to be noteworthy, and became analytic bins. The bins were listed in the previous section, which described the "outline of the analytic bin system." The list that follows is to show, separate from the whole analytic bin system, a list of the new categories that emerged:

• philosophizing
• sharing stories
• Two new terms that this researcher created: (a) "metacognitive description" and (b) "voiced internal negotiation"
• Peer & group empathy
• Other "community" related concepts: (a) peer encouragement, (b) manners & politeness
• Discussion of particular recurring topics: (a) time (time management and the whole concept of time was frequently discussed), and (b) how things would work in their own classrooms
• Expression of emotion – sharing feelings and emotions
• Information exchanges: Even with "inquiry" bins, there needed to be separate bins for: (a) asking for help, and one just for technical help, and (b) problem-solving.

These new categories emerged readily. As time went on, the meta-categories mentioned in a previous section became very apparent (Personal, Social, Professional). These were born from the pervasive themes that emerged that were not a part of the original analytic bins. These themes were abundant across most items, and became their own large analytic bins in further analyses. Then, this helped to stimulate analytic memos that facilitated the development of the meta-categories. These following themes emerged as the most significant of the list above, outside of the original analytic bins: 

 (1) Philosophizing (personal, social, and professional);

 (2) Peer Empathy (social and professional);

 (3) Group Empathy (social and professional); and,

 (3) Story-Telling  (social and professional).

As noted in parentheses, these bins were subsequently divided into smaller significant bins. The discriminating aspect was purpose: personal, social, or professional.

Original bins that also followed this transformation (being further divided by personal, social, and professional) were: Reflection, Metacognition, and Inquiry.

Then, there were some insights on communicative aspects that emerged, such as:

1. The writing online was really like "speaking."

2. There was a "tone" to the online communication (students' personalities came through).

3. Writing-reading / speaking-listening appears to be a whole new phenomena in online interaction.

Finally, some interesting insights that emerged had to do with the concept of "negotiation" – both internal and social, which were original analytic bins.

First, social negotiation as discussed in the meaning-making model of Jonassen et. al (1995) had to be broken into social and professional. The students had two distinct purposes for negotiating over issues and topics: (a) social purposes (as a group member of online community, citizen, and other social, non-educator groups) (Rogoff, 1994); and, (b) professional purposes (as an educator: a member of a profession, a member of a community of practitioners) (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

A second very interesting and unique theme to emerge concerns the concept of "internal negotiation," which is purported to occur in the mind as an intellectual process (Jonassen et al., 1995).  This process seemed to come alive in the online responses. It was so prevalent and seemingly important to this learning experience, that this researcher gave it a new term: "voiced internal negotiation." However, it is difficult to separate it from reflection and/or metacognition. Many comments were like a tightly woven fabric of all three concepts. This "voiced internal negotiation" certainly had the quality of self-reflection and of metacognition, but took on a more philosophical stance. The students were voicing thoughts as if just for the sake of voicing them, and also as if to ask colleagues what they thought of their pondering and musing about a topic – but with no regard for actual engagement in discussion and conversation. Students repeatedly "talked" online as if they were thinking aloud. An example of this is necessary:

I have spent a great deal of time reading all the responses and ideas. …I am somewhat embarrassed to respond to everyone all at once. If I didn't know people already I would probably drop this class! I think web-based learning has it virtues but I really believe gathering together is a better way to learn and discuss ideas. I believe brain storming in a spontaneous classroom setting works better because you have responses from others and you can banter back and forth better. As I type now I am carefully weighing everything I type. I am going back and erasing stuff I don't think is tactful, or clever enough etc. (I am sure some people are very happy that I am trying to be tactful:) tee, hee) But I cannot read the faces of my friends that are quiet. Much of language is body language and the web will never replace human interaction. 

I do believe one positive aspect of web-based learning is that it is an excellent tool for extensive research. I also enjoy talking with everyone between classes using this caucus method.

That student response is almost like a rambling narrative of the mind, thinking through something.

This concept, "voiced internal negotiation," was one of the most interesting themes that emerged from data analysis. It started under the broad category, "philosophizing," which had emerged during initial phases of analysis. It became clear that the students were voicing their internal negotiation through the reflective articulation of the issues with which they struggled (Jonassen et al., 1995). Though mostly under the "professional" meta-category, as they struggled with issues concerning their jobs, there was also evidence of internal negotiation within the "social" and "personal" meta-categories. It was like philosophizing with a certain level of uncertainty, open to discussion if needed, but not asking for it, nor replying directly to anyone's philosophical comments.