Understanding the basics about SCORM is essential to both the eLearning development community as well as for customers who would like to deploy content on a learning management system (LMS). I will start off with a quick overview of SCORM and then I will touch on some of the challenges of developing and implementing the SCORM standard over the next couple of weeks.
Ok, so let’s start with the basics. SCORM stands for Sharable Content Object Reference Model. In essence SCORM is a suite of technical standards developed by the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) as an initiative to develop common specifications and standards for technology-based learning deployed over the internet. These standards enable web-based learning and content management systems to find, import, share, reuse, and export learning content in a consistent manner. In addition, using the SCORM standard allows user tracking and reports to be generated based on learning objectives. Essentially, SCORM standardized the method of communication between eLearning courses and SCORM conformant learning and content management systems.
SCORM currently includes the following ‘elements’:
1) An Application Programming Interface (API) for communicating information about a learner’s interaction with content objects.
2) A defined data model for representing this information.
3) A content packaging specification that enables interoperability of learning content.
4) A standard set of metadata elements that can be used to describe learning content and a set of standard sequencing rules which can be applied to the organization of the learning content.
The objectives of developing SCORM can be summarized by six key words namely Accessibility, Adaptability, Affordability, Durability, Interoperability and Reusability. Let’s touch on these five concepts as they relate to the SCORM standard really quickly.
1) Accessibility -eLearning content should be easy to find based on the classification of the content. Users should be able to locate and access instructional components from one remote location and deliver to other locations.
2) Adaptability -The ability to tailor instruction to individual and organizational needs. Content managers should be able to add new content without much effort or excessive cost.
3) Affordability - The ability to increase efficiency and productivity by reducing the time and costs involved in delivering instructional content.
4) Durability - eLearning content should be durable, regardless of changes or evolutions in technology. This means that new content should be added to existing content without costly redesign, reconfiguration or recoding.
5) Interoperability - SCORM requires that courses can run on different learning and content management systems. This means that instructional components developed in one location can be used or combined with another set of tools or platform in another location.
6) Reusability - Content developers and learners should be able to extract relevant eLearning content such as modules from different courses and reassemble them into a new course, application or context.
The next couple of posts will address more detailed information about SCORM and more importantly I will address some of the technical challenges related to the SCORM standard. Although SCORM is a wonderful idea it is NOT a silver bullet for developing eLearning content over the internet. I hope to highlight some of these SCORM development and implementation challenges over the next couple of weeks.
12/19/2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Working for a training dept. in a large corporation, the only thing we've done with SCORM so far has been to use it for tracking purposes. We communicate score and completion status with our LMS (SumTotal) and that's about it. It seems that across our company our training professionals look at SCORM as only serving that function. I know there's so much more to it than that like interaction tracking and reusability. As for interaction tracking, it's a great feature but our LMS makes it very difficult to extract the information. As for reusability, so much of our courseware is created as a one-time need that we haven't looked at that yet. I'm looking forward to your later posts about this.
Some thoughts based on your comments:
SCORM CMI Calls
I think you guys are spot on with your use of SCORM interaction. SCORM scripting (CMI calls) should be used to meet your company's needs. There are a myriad of CMI interactions that are available but unless you have the time to analyze the data there really isn’t much point. Let me give you an example. SCORM allows you to track how long a trainee took to complete a particular segment (module, section, course) of training. Ok that’s all good and well, but what does that data tell you? Does a longer time spent in a module mean that the content is too detailed? What baseline will you use to make that assessment? Do you have the time and resources to ask trainees follow up questions based on the data from CMI interactions such as time spent on training segments?
Tracking data is one aspect. Another aspect is that interactions between training applications/courses and the LMS also put a strain on the system. This is something that you need to be careful about if you are running a lot of courses on an LMS and no standards exist for how much information is sent backwards and forwards. Many organizations do not have any standards/limitations set up and this can be an issue, again depending on the number of courses and participants accessing the LMS. Having powerful servers that can handle massive loads will obviously make this a non-issue.
One area where I saw a client run into a problem was when they used a course builder package (HTML) that had all the LMS interaction pre-configured. After running the course through the ADL SCORM test server package we realized that there was a massive amount of information being sent backwards and forwards.
Reusability
Reusability is a great idea and XML formatting has brought the concept a long way. Just look at how blogs are using XML tags, which makes it much easier for search engines to find the content. Having said that, we have a long way to go with training. Much of the training is still done for one time deployment and assessment management using the Manifest XML file is still lagging in many organizations. This could again relate to the lack of standards in implementing training in many organizations.
Thanks for the feedback and sharing your experiences Patrick.
Post a Comment