Many of the large-group items were set aside to address one particular assignment, and for the most part included a fairly limited range of response type. For example, one item was specifically to display the students' "concept maps" and therefore, the responses included the posting of their concept maps, with some small discussion on technical problems, and the exchange of critique and/or encouragement among themselves – all related to the particular assignment, concept maps. Many times, student thinking and their concerns were clearly observable – it was a mix between metacognition, reflection, and the articulation of ideas. There was clearly a joy expressed when accomplishing the technical feat of uploading their assignments. Here are some examples of some of these observations from the item "Web-Based Concept Maps" (Item # 17) (These are not all in a successive string.):

• [Student 1] Okay – I don't have the option of converting to GIF on the old inspiration….I'll try another approach – but, not tonight…
• [Student 2] I can't seem to activate the browse button. Will try again later.
• [Student 2, again] Hooray!!! I did it!!!
• [Student 3] I tried unsuccessfully to upload this map to you…I just wanted to try it this way, too! Not sure where I went wrong, but may try it again to learn something new!
• [same student, next response] Ugh…I tried it again and still no luck. Any ideas on what I am doing wrong?
• [same student after successfully uploading it ] Yeah! I did it! I learned something new! I figured out where my problem was, quite by accident.
• {Student 4, addressing Student 3] Great job! Looks great!

One thing that was prevalent in all of the items was an atmosphere of collegiality. The students' dialogue maintained an openness that enabled them to complain, ask questions, confer with colleagues, and to exchange ideas, advice, critique, and encouragement (Rogoff, 1994). This was collegial interaction was more evident in the items that tended to contain professional and academic topics. This is frequently reflected in citations already shared and to be shared in the next section.

The students clearly felt no inhibitions about venting in order to express frustration and problems ranging from technical to time-management to conceptual. This seemed to be unique in that in a typical classroom students might tend to address the instructor privately, as opposed to this environment where the frustration was openly expressed for all to read. In a typical classroom every student does not have access to a classmate's problems with finishing assignments or understanding the tasks or requirements. Many times, students openly complained while working on completing or "posting" their assignment or project, not something to which we would normally be privy. It was fairly common to have comments from students in mid-completion of an assignment, expressing problems, concerns and questions. This spawned another aspect of the content of the responses that was frequent: asking for help, advice, and information. Students freely asked their colleagues for these things, and were usually quick to get responses to their queries. Usually in proximity to these requests for help or the expression of frustration were responses that contained advice, empathy, solutions, and encouragement (Rorty, 1991). This contributed greatly to the overall atmosphere – it had an unmistakable air of collegiality (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and the content of the responses reflected this with frequency. Examples of these concepts have been cited above and will be in the next section, as well.

As far as the communicative aspects of the content of the interaction, the overall nature of the interaction in this online environment seemed very close to "speaking" – even though it was written communication on a computer screen. This personal aspect seemed to come from a combination of some points that have already been made:

1. There was a very clear and pervasive social element (Jonassen, 1991).

2. Concerning professional and academic topics, a collegial atmosphere was always present (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

3. The students shared stories and other personal and social reflections that helped build a sense of "community" (Rogoff, 1994).

4. An openness was maintained in that students felt free to complain, and show other emotion and feelings (Rorty, 1991).