A synthesis of the thoughts of Turkle (1995), Jones (1998), Preece (2000), Rudestam and Schoenholtz-Read (2002), generally considered as early thinkers in educational technology, along with other recent research, shows several common ideas in their thinking that appear to be necessary to make an engaging online learning environment. These are: shared goals or interests, repeated participation, discussions and feedback related to thinking and learning, control over learning, content, environment, and multiple aspects, flexible thinking structures, interpersonal connectivity, collaboration, and shared outcomes. Additionally, the ease of use, or aesthetics, of the online learning community has been shown to influence the levels of participation (Jones, 1998; Preece, 2000; Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2002; Davies, Ramsay, Lindfield, & Couperthwaite, 2005: Hrastinski, 2006). A summary of these common ideas will help explain their importance. Also, while these factors can be discussed individually, many of them overlap and therefore, should be considered as interconnected components. The synthesis of research explored how people interact with different visual models and what makes for an appealing and effective online learning environment. Every online learning environment is developed to meet the needs of the parent organization. The online learning environment evaluation tool created by the author can assist administrators or developers in determining the level of participant engagement by establishing a framework of questions that can be asked about a given online learning community. The author developed an evaluation checklist at the request of a major multinational organization based on the common criteria of four theorists (Turkle, 1995; Jones, 1998; Preece, 2000; Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2002) who are experts in the area of online learning environments. The checklist is also coupled with more recent research that points toward additional factors that indicate successful online learning communities. An evaluation instrument was developed after determining those factors that were consistently common for online learning environments among leading educational theorists and more recent general research about web usability. By distilling the essence of what is available in the literature, the instrument provides an academically-grounded evaluation checklist for online learning communities. When used by the developer and the administration as a guide for creating or revising online learning communities, those who are participants of the community should show evidence of increased engagement, collaboration, and interpersonal connectivity that will help move the thinking of the organization, as well as the participants, forward. The lens for the data collection and analysis should be focused by the following research question: Is an evaluation instrument based upon best practices as outlined by Jones (1998), Preece (2000), Rudestam and Schoenholtz-Read (2002), and Turkle (1995) and supported in recent research valid for identifying and recommending changes for encouraging engagement in a given online learning environment? The study provides an evaluation form developed by the author as a way to assess online learning communities. It is recommended that evaluation of online learning communities occur as they were first developed with recommendations coming out of the evaluation based on ideas generated from the recent research. At future dates, additional evaluations could occur following the lines of Participatory Action Research (Kemmis & McTaggart in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) for data collection and analysis. Due to the exploratory nature of the research question and the community-based involvement, this method provides the best strategy for understanding a problem that developed with plans made for some form of interventionary strategy (Elliot in Hopkins, 1985). The author invites volunteers to engage in evaluating their online learning communities using this instrument as a way of validating its use and value.
