Update: The Output of Project Tin Can is Experience API.

next generation scorm evolution project tin can

Ready to really dive in?
View the full
Tin Can API spec.

View the Tin Can API
“quick start” guide.

Reporting Complexity

Reporting with the Tin Can API is harder, but it’s worth it.

Reporting complexity is tied to the verb variation problem. As long as verbs stay somewhat standardized, reporting complexity will be less of an issue. If experienced and read mean the same thing to an LRS, then anyone pulling a report to see what learners read chapter 1 will see learners that experienced or read chapter 1.

LRSs will need to have smart reporting features — there’s a lot more detail to sift through with the Tin Can API.

If a learner wanted to know what grade they got on a test, then that’s all that should be reported, even though there are many more statements behind that grade such as “learner completed test” and “instructor graded test”. The extra statements aren’t needed for that particular report, but would be helpful if the instructor wanted a list of learners that he/she had graded tests for.

Systems and software will be developed that will handle the massive amounts of data that will be generated, maybe even in the form of plugins that work with existing LMSs.

SCORM 2.0 next generation project tin can

  • Reuben

    I think a big problem with the proposed ‘reporting’ is a binary approach to measurement. Why not work on a web analytics report where there is a range of data being collected about ‘value’ and let organizations compare against their own benchmarks?

  • Anonymous

    (I’m responding to this post as well as the above comment: http://blog.edcetratraining.com/?p=103)

    We’re not suggesting the reports mentioned above are the only sorts of reports that one could or should create, rather this example illustrates a specific problem, simple reports will be somewhat harder to create.

    The TinCan API records events in a journaled format. So well one would not record ‘I read this 2 times’, one could record ‘I read this’. ‘I read this’. Then it would be up to an paralytics tool to summarize that as ‘I read this twice’. Similarly, one would not record jumping to another learning activity after interacting with a prior one, but the data would reflect that history through timestamps.

    We’re hoping that people will make good use of the volume of data that can be stored with the TinCan API, and then perform paralytics on that data, but we’re not really setting out to define how people do their reporting, just the way the data is tracked in the first place.

  • Pingback: Tin Can – Sorting Through the Junk | Managing eLearning()