First, "negotiation," both social and internal, and "articulation" of ideas and knowledge are two more components of the constructivist model used to inform this study (Jonassen et al., 1995). In the data there is evidence of articulation and negotiation, but they seemed to have so much overlap that it was vexatious to clearly separate them. They are also closely tied to reflection, making the categorization even more complicated. The following distinctions, posed as questions, demonstrate this perplexing analytical task:

(1) Can there be written evidence of "internal negotiation?"

(2) Are there clear lines of distinction between the following pairs:

(a) negotiation and reflection;

(b) articulation and reflection; and,

(c)  negotiation and articulation?

Articulation was not hard to find in that most of the reflective comments involved the students' articulation of their ideas and thoughts (Jonassen et al., 1995). Also, it was fairly clear when the students were engaged in "social negotiation" – debating and discussing an issue, typically an academic or professional one.

An idea that emerged that helped with the more difficult concepts was: "voiced internal negotiation." (For an earlier discussion of this idea, see pp. 188-120.) The problem wasn't finding evidence of these concepts, but finding clear, stand alone evidence. Most of it is a tangled mix of these closely related components of constructivist learning. Many of the examples from the data of reflection and of metacognition in the above sections could be evidence of "internal negotiation" and articulation.

Here is one way to look at it: The students were reflecting, and to share this reflection with their classmates and/or to perhaps "get if off their chest" they wrote it as a "response." Now, their reflective ideas and thoughts have been articulated, and this is exactly at the point that it also looks like "internal negotiation," because many times this articulation was more like philosophizing on an issue. The student seemed to be "self-debating" over an issue through reflective thinking, and it was being articulated for all to hear.

Regardless of how difficult it was, this researcher needed to interpret this complexity and make some distinctions to help elucidate "what was going on" and then extract from the data evidence of these specific constructivist activities. First, in the initial stages of analysis a category of "philosophizing" emerged, which represented thinking aloud and pontificating on ideas, beliefs, values, and such. This was so close to reflection, but was closer to argument than to the nature of reflection: pondering, wondering, remembering. Reflection was more like painting a picture, whereas philosophizing was like discussing whether or not the picture was impressionist, or needed more bright colors, or how the painter had changed style over the years.

 Soon, it became clear that this philosophizing resembled the articulation that was stressed in the meaning-making model (Jonassen et al., 1995). Then, it emerged that there were two methods of articulation as related to negotiation:

(1) articulation of ideas in a self-reflective manner, directed to oneself, to internally negotiate over understanding and meaning; and,

(2) articulation of ideas in a social context, directed to others, to socially negotiate over understanding and meaning.

This was a very intriguing part of the online interaction relative to the constructivist principles set forth in the model. Reflection was abundant, but as a much larger, encompassing concept. Metacognition was also prevalent, but hard sometimes to separate from reflective thinking. The concept of negotiation – specifically internal negotiation more than social negotiation – was highly integrated with reflection and metacognition, and was extremely hard to pinpoint. At first, the only part of this that was observable was social negotiation. In the online interaction it became very apparent that the students were negotiating socially in groups, through discussion, as suggested in the literature (Jonassen, 1991; Wertsch, 1991).

The unexpected aspect of this model that eventually did emerge was the "internal negotiation." It seemed logical to assume that negotiating internally would not be observable until operationalized through writing or some behavior that could reflect this, like thinking aloud. The interesting thing is this – it did seem to occur in this online writing. It seemed to come alive and visible through the articulation of ideas, values, beliefs, and such. The students were thinking aloud. This researcher termed this: "voiced internal negotiation." It was very exciting to see the students struggling aloud with issues, negotiating with themselves over issues concerning right and wrong, knowledge, values, beliefs, methods, and ideas.

Perhaps that original category that emerged ("philosophizing") was a better term; but it seemed more logical to just expand the model's term to be more consistent with the constructivist model – hence, "voiced internal negotiation." It was apparent that the students were openly negotiating with themselves (philosophizing) – not engaged in discussion, but voicing their thoughts as they struggled with understanding issues – of course, like reflection, but slightly different. This kind of philosophizing was like carrying out an argument with oneself. Finally, after several readings of the item, Down by the Lake, it became clear that this was indeed internal negotiation, but "voiced" for others to read, through online writing. Students wrestled aloud with issues about their profession, or about themselves personally and socially. It was extremely interesting.

Second, the analysis of the data includes description of evidence and analytic discussion of these constructivist concepts:

(1) Social negotiation;

(2) Internal negotiation; and

(3) Articulation.

The model's term "social" is not to be confused with this study's designation of "social" behavior as a meta-category. Social negotiation is considered the quest for shared meaning within a community of learners or community of practitioners (Jonassen et al., 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The learner is engaged in social interactions and is building personally relevant knowledge within a particular group context. In this case, the students (within the context of a group of educators) in this online course did show evidence of this. Many times it was not truly interactive, like debate, but involved mere presentation of things that might hold relevance for the group. In that the students sometimes negotiated over value and quality issues, it also has an evaluative aspect to it. As a cohort of educators searching for value in educational programs and ideas, they shared with each other, as in this example:

I was impressed by the sophistication of this project [they reviewed a Website]. It is evident that the coordinator has polished and refined this over the past couple of years as the project has grown. This project does indeed encourage learning along many strands: Students learn about ….; they are required to participate in … The teacher/coordinator has included a statement that the project has shifted over the years to better meet the district/state's standards of learning. It could easily be tailored for ours...

While the teacher doesn't state the project's learning outcomes specifically, the responsibilities of her students and the others are stated. These responsibilities could easily be restated into outcomes... I think the relatively short time a class is on the receiving end is positive. It could be a whirlwind week, filled with trips into the community and enlisting the help of local media, etc. Sponsoring this project would be of benefit to a class - the accumulation of regional artifacts for a mini museum sounds great, but the time investment is large. I assume starting small and slow would be a good idea here.

That example and the one below are as if the students attempted to decide in a group context what the worth is, and how it might be used. This is personally relevant for these students, especially when they evaluated it in terms of their own professional situations, and were presenting their ideas to the group for that reason. They appeared to be engaged in articulation of their own ideas and reflection on educational merit, as well. Here is another one, also reviewing a Website:

What a great way to use pictures as a learning tool! Great for the visual learners!

I see this activity as a beginning of a unit of study. The web site author doesn't identify what learning comes next but they could go on to a WebQuest that supports some higher level thinking activities or other classroom lessons.

You could do this same lesson with library books but the inherent motivation of computers and the Internet might be a good alternative. For those teachers hesitant to use the Internet and those "first timers" I think it is a great type of activity. Once students know how to use the tools to navigate the Internet and teachers see that it is "doable" then they are all ready for more interactive and long term projects!

 These students were sharing professional insights and opinions with the other members of their community of practitioners (Rogoff, 1994). The points are debatable by the group, but they didn't do this in most of these items where they had to discuss specific professional topics. They merely presented (articulation and reflection) their view, but perhaps in the context of offering this view to their fellow group members for critique. Many times, the students added these kinds of things on the end of their response: Any suggestions about how to make it better? What do you think?

Here is a good example of an exchange that approximates a more complete example of "social negotiation." One student presents some ideas, and the others help her negotiate toward development of more understanding and finding relevance.

[Student 1]

I am thinking about putting together some sort of algebra help online. The home page would list choices re: what kind of help the student needed, do they need to get help directly from somebody, do they want to just practice (games, puzzles, review) or do they need some help with their calculator. The instructional strategies used would be collaborative learning and problem solving. I am also thinking about requiring them to write a little something about which link(s) they chose, what they did and what they learned. What do you think?

[Student 2, replying to Student 1]
By requiring writing [county supervisor] will be a very happy person with ALL the stress on getting the students to READ and WRITE in as many activities as possible. Sounds like all he says about the SOL's is teaching to the test even though he says he's not.

[Student 3, replying to Student 1]

Your idea sounds good to me. I think incorporating reading and writing is a great idea, it helps to give the children personal reflection also. It would be a great resource not only for schoolwork, but also a place where they could go for fun just doing different math games.

[Student 4, replying to Student 1]

I really like the idea of on-line help and it gives a place for all of those over achievers or ones who can't get enough a place to find extra problems. Great idea for parents who are always looking for more for their kids.

Internal negotiation, the more troublesome concept, will be termed "voiced internal negotiation." The following are examples of this concept that emerged from the data. It is like thinking aloud; it resembles philosophizing. The students voiced their search for personally relevant understanding (Jonassen et al., 1995). The second one is rather long, but it demonstrates how the students frequently rambled in philosophical tones. This is the kind of response that began the category "philosophizing," which eventually was changed to "voiced internal negotiation." Here are three examples:

• I am slowly starting to piece a lot of this course together just by be involved in the article discussion and by creating a concept map. It really helped me focus on what exactly we are doing. New ideas and different insights make better teachers. I think a lot of the problems we are seeing with technology is coming from those with the attitude that they will never change. We have so much to learn.
• This has led me to think about technology and leisure, as well as Web-Based Learning and the technology that drives it. I think this is an extremely useful medium. If used correctly the technology relieves us from those tedious and time-consuming duties that could be reserved for leisure. Unfortunately, leisure in the United States (and in my world) appears to have decreased. How can that be when we have developed all these amazing technologies to increase our productivity and free up our time? Caucus has been an extremely convenient tool in the sense that it is asynchronous and we can check it at our leisure (or is that leisure?). The difficult part is still weeding through the many, many responses. What Caucus has achieved is a step in the right direction. Why isn't this the case for the many other tools we have invented.
• In the eyes of our employers, new technologies are often just an opportunity to increase productivity. In my humble opinion, this medium of learning should allow us to complete our work and free our time that we would normally be used commuting to and from our homes. Technology in general should also be able to achieve this in the workplace. At this point, I have recognized some time-savings, though unfortunately it has not been in the form of leisure. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the benefits of technology in the form of increased productivity and increased leisure? Technology should allow for this. Has it?

Articulation of ideas and thoughts is the other aspect of "negotiation and articulation." As discussed before, this concept is much like reflection. These following examples could be argued to be reflective thinking, and might even fit in with "voiced internal negotiation." Below are examples of how the students used the online forum to espouse their ideas and thoughts, opinions and evaluative statements. Articulating those things is a step in constructing knowledge and understanding (Jonassen et al., 1995). Clearly, in the online interaction there was plenty of evidence where students were engaged in articulation. Most of the responses in the reflective area, Down by the Lake, could fall under that category, as well as many other items where the students had to offer their ideas, opinions, evaluations, and critiques. Here are three examples of the concept, articulation:

• It is my belief that a student will benefit from learning new math concepts through the use of technology and the presentation of real-life situations and problems.
• I really appreciate that I am able to accomplish things for this class on my own…schedule. It certainly makes management much easier. Having access to everything at any hour day or night definitely has its benefits. I find it is much more difficult to get assignments done for the other 2 face-to-face classes. There is one benefit, however. You really can't put anything off. Class is Wednesday night, and that doesn't change. Since access to Caucus is very open-ended, it can be easier to put things off.
• As for the reflection, it is something that we as teachers need. We are so involved in what we do as teachers, that we do not often take the time to just sit and think about what it is we are doing. I never considered myself a reflective person, until I became a candidate for national certification. It was all about reflecting on our practices as teachers, and on our students' work. It was difficult for me at first, but as I realized its impact on what I was doing and accomplishing in my classroom, I became a fast advocate. To date, I keep a small journal with notes about what I do in class, or what a specific student did or accomplished, etc. I believe in the Teacher as a Researcher, and reflection is a part of it.