I answer a lot of SCORM questions ranging from the basic to the extravagant, and I actually like it. A huge part of what I do is teaching about SCORM.
Sometimes, though, I get questions that make me laugh. Today, I feel like I need to share this one because it isn’t the first time I’ve gotten a question like this one.
What is Scorm Compliance?
OK, good question. I get this one a lot, so I have a sense of where it’s headed. My answer:
Is this what you’re looking for? The distinction between compliance and conformance? Or something more like this, a basic description of SCORM?
The response (slightly rephrased):
Yes both are good. There is a training specialist job interview question? ”Which of the following best describes your experience with Scorm Compliance?” (Then # years and months choice) So what does experience with Scorm Compliance mean in this context?
Let’s cut to the chase. The answer is none. You have no experience if you don’t know what it is.
Funny, yes. Uncommon? Not entirely. People think, or more accurately hope, that their products are SCORM conformant. Let me put it simply… if you haven’t tried, or worked at it, your product simply is not SCORM conformant, or IMS BLTI compliant, or AICC conformant. These things take effort. And so does acquiring SCORM experience as an individual.
No Comments | Post a comment »
The morning started out like any other. David decided to unwrap a package of Orbit gum. We’ve been headed down a path toward implementing a bit of BLTI from IMS (Basic Learning Tools Interoperability), and so we have a copy of Dr. Chuck’s book on our island. (Dr. Chuck’s tattoo has been admired many times, but today, we noticed the back of the bookjacket.)
Well, we really started wondering why Chuck was yelling the whole time. We decided that we would take the opportunity to reenact this important moment. And if we were going to have that moment, we might as well video it, so that we could share it with you, instead of just the guy who rode by on his bike.
Enjoy.
No Comments | Post a comment »
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to be sharing a great deal of detail from our Project Tin Can interviews. Some of you would be overwhelmed by this level of detail (on our main blog) so we’re going to segregate it for you.
If you’d care to keep up with it, you can do that at http://scorm.com/project-tin-can-blog/.
No Comments | Post a comment »
So many channels… please don’t miss what you need
Categories: SCORM Cloud, SCORM Driver, SCORM Engine
31 Jan 2011
There are so many channels now. Whether we’re talking radio, TV, or the web in general, there are so many ways that information is pouring over us.
Like many companies, we’re doing our best to reach everyone wherever they are… Of late, we’ve been finding that people are missing some important things we have to say. So, I wanted to lay out the different places we’re talking so you can be sure to visit if you care.
Our Blog (RSS)
Well, you’re here, so you must know about it already. For the most part, we tell our big stories here. Big new projects and products, major software releases, occasional client announcements, and industry brouhahas.
support.scorm.com
Many of you probably have no idea that our support forum even exists. We’re constantly answering questions from customers and others in these forums. As a customer, you’re invited to create tickets whenever you have a question you’d really like help with.
More than anything, though, I’d really like to see our customers subscribing to the forum for the product they license. SCORM Engine customers can follow the RSS feed or use the built in email subscription. No matter how you do it, this is a great way to know about our newest releases. (This applies to SCORM Driver customers too, of course.)
Project Tin Can
Project Tin Can might be the most important bit of work we’re doing these days. Along with a huge community of real SCORM users, we’re helping to figure out what comes next for SCORM and learning experiences in general. You can see our contributions daily on the User Voice site, and we’d love to see your contributions there as well. You can also follow @projecttincan on twitter.
OK, half the time you’ll get inane stuff, but that’s the price you’ll have to pay to get the relevant stuff. Tim’s tweeting regularly, Mike too, and Joe even has something to say on occasion.
If you’re a big SCORM Cloud user, we also use twitter to let the world know when we’re having issues or changes. @scormcloud is pretty quiet, but it could be useful in an emergency. (SCORM Engine and SCORM Driver even have accounts, but we rarely use them.)
Old School
That’s the big picture. If you need something you’re always welcome to call or email too. My phone number is 615.550.9522 (yes, that’s me, directly) and my email address is tim.martin@scorm.com. I actually want to hear from you, so bring it on.
No Comments | Post a comment »
The US Department of Labor just announced their solicitation for grant applications (SGA) and they called it this: “Employment and Training Administration Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications for Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training Grants Program“. Whoa.
I’m no political pundit, so here’s my short version: The federal government has set up a large grant program that includes the creation of Open Educational Resources, and they’ve required (on page 8 ) that the output conform with SCORM 2004.
There’s been a lot of “reaction” to the inclusion of SCORM, and by reaction, I mean many people are pretty angry about its inclusion. Most of that angst, though, originates from Rob Abel’s post on the IMS forums.
I will say this very plainly and directly: Rob’s post contains many inaccuracies and convenient explanations of the sort that you would see in a political campaign. While it is tempting to break down Rob’s post on a line by line basis, my ever-so-brief analysis of political campaigns (OK, I watched The West Wing) indicates that helps no one. I’ll limit my comments to a few:
- SCORM is not based on “outdated technology” as Rob claims repeatedly. The fundamental technologies employed by SCORM are Javascript and XML, and both are absolutely core to today’s web.
- “SCORM does not provide reliable interoperability or reuse.” Our SCORM Engine alone supports millions of learners and their use of interoperable content every year. Millions.
- “SCORM has no concept of or support for assessment.” False again. Please see the SCORM books for details on cmi.interactions, which are used widely for the reporting of learner assessment.
Lest you think I’m one sided here, there are truths in Rob’s post as well. SCORM is not well suited to “cohort-based” educational courses at this point, because it specifically governs single learner/host system communication. SCORM also elects (intentionally) to remain silent on countless subjects such as wider IT infrastructure and security.
Setting aside the technical errors in Rob’s post, my primary issue is with his misplaced vitriol. Rob has a vested interest in this debate. [Note: You could certainly argue that I do as well, given our domain name, but it's worth noting that we have equal support for AICC, and IMS CC has come up as a potential addition for us. We are definitively not the standards body.] As the leader of IMS, Rob has plenty of reasons to espouse the virtues of the standards they are creating. Further, I think Rob would be justified in complaining about the exclusion of IMS CC as a potential approach to reuse as part of the grant program. Michael Feldstein pointed this out in his balanced perspective on the issue.
SCORM and IMS Common Cartridge (the other main contender for a standard educational content interchange format) have substantially different affordances that are appropriate for substantially different use cases.
Michael Feldstein, in OER and Standards
My challenge to Rob and others in the conversation would be this. Argue the things that merit argument and take far greater care when you lambast other solutions.
- Does IMS CC provide some affordances that might be of use for a program such as this and should it be considered as a potential solution? I think it does.
- Should a directive such as this specify a single standard for clarity and simplicity? Or should other standards be options as well? I have no idea.
- Should SCORM, in its current state, be the only eLearning standard for the next 30 years? No way. Check out Project Tin Can and why SCORM needs to evolve, and tell us how it should evolve.
Ultimately, what’s the point here?
Elearning standards have a fundamental purpose: to remove the friction that separates learners from what they need to learn.
Rob has succeeded in inciting more than a few folks to criticize SCORM, when few of them have the background to determine the accuracy and reasonableness of his statements. A vitriolic argument like this does nothing but set us back in the goal of helping learners reach the learning they need.
SCORM can absolutely increase the utility of the Open Educational Resources produced by this grant program. IMS CC may well be able to as well. Let’s move this discussion past politically motivated and inaccurate accusations to something that helps people get their learning.
15 Comments | Post a comment »
Older Posts »
