Evolution of SCORM

A timeline and description of the eLearning standards

Just like any technology, SCORM has evolved through the years. There are currently four different implementable versions of SCORM. SCORM 2004 has several different editions, and the latest version/next generation of SCORM is xAPI (Experience API) and cmi5. Furthermore, SCORM isn’t the only eLearning standard out there. Other standards like AICC HACP and IMS Common Cartridge have their place in the industry. This page will describe these common eLearning standards and provide recommendations about adoption of each. The chart below summarizes the comparison of each standard:

	Release Date	Pages	Widely Used	Run-Time	Packaging	Metadata	Sequencing	Works Cross Domain
AICC HACP	Feb 1998	337	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
SCORM 1.0	Jan 2000	219	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
SCORM 1.1	Jan 2001	233	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
SCORM 1.2	Oct 2001	524	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
SCORM 2004 “1st Edition”	Jan 2004	1,027	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
SCORM 2004 2nd Edition	Jul 2004	1,219	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
SCORM 2004 3rd Edition	Oct 2006	1137	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
SCORM 2004 4th Edition	Mar 2009	1162	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
IMS Common Cartridge	Oct 2008	135	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
IMS LTI	May 2010	25	In Academic LMSs	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
xAPI	April 26, 2013	85	Not Yet	Yes	Partial	No	No	Yes
cmi5	June 1, 2016	48	Not Yet	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes

 

---

The Versions of eLearning Standards

SCORM 1.0

Released January 2000

SCORM 1.0 was a draft outline of the SCORM framework. This document did not contain a fully implementable specification, but instead contained a preview of the work to come. SCORM 1.0 contained the core elements that would become the foundation of SCORM. In particular, it specified how content should be packaged (content packaging), how content should communicate with an LMS (run-time) and how content should be described (metadata). Each of these areas was described in a separate specification or a “book of SCORM.”

Recommendation: SCORM 1.0 is not relevant today. There are no significant implementations of SCORM 1.0.  It is the stuff of charts and historical retrospectives (like this one).

SCORM 1.1

Released January 2001

SCORM 1.1 was the first real and implementable version of SCORM. It fleshed out SCORM 1.0 into an implementable specification and commercial vendors began to adopt it. These early adoptions revealed that the SCORM idea was valid, but that it left many details to be worked out to be sufficiently robust for widespread implementation.

Recommendation: While there might still be an implementation of SCORM 1.1 still around, it is not relevant today.

SCORM 1.2

Released October 2001

SCORM 1.2 is when SCORM hit the big time. SCORM 1.2 incorporated all of the lessons learned from the early adoptions of SCORM 1.1 to create a robust and implementable specification. Vendors who adopted SCORM 1.2 realized dramatic cost savings from increased content interoperability.

Recommendation: SCORM 1.2 was VERY widely adopted and is still the industry workhorse. Every eLearning vendor should make their products compatible with SCORM 1.2. SCORM 1.2 will be around for a long time to come.

SCORM 2004 “1st Edition”

Released January 2004

Widespread adoption of SCORM 1.2 brought some problems to light. SCORM 1.2 was very good, but it still had some ambiguities that needed to be tightened up. SCORM 1.2 also lacked a sequencing and navigation specification that allowed the content vendor to specify how the learner was allowed to progress between SCOs. The lack of a sequencing specification meant that most SCORM 1.2 content was produced as a single monolithic SCO instead of created with granular, reusable SCOs. SCORM 2004 addressed both of these problems.

SCORM 2004 (in all its flavors) includes very mature versions of the content packaging, run-time and metadata books. The parts of SCORM 2004 that were derived from SCORM 1.2 are VERY mature and VERY stable. In fact, the individual standards that make up these books are well on their way to becoming accredited standards.

SCORM 2004 also added a new “book” called “Sequencing and Navigation.” This specification allows content vendors to create rules about how users may navigate between SCOs. For  instance, a content author can say that “a learner can’t take a final test until he has completed all of the courseware material.” Or, “if a learner fails question X, remediate him back to SCO Y.”

The term “SCORM 2004” is generally used to refer to any edition of the SCORM 2004 specification. You may also see references to SCORM 1.3. Prior to its formal release, SCORM 2004 was indeed called SCORM 1.3, but that name is no longer in official use. The term “1st Edition” is in quotes in this section because this specification wasn’t actually called “1st Edition,” at the time, it was simply referred to as “SCORM 2004.”

Recommendation: The sequencing specification in the first release of SCORM 2004 had some fundamental problems and wasn’t fully implementable. The “1st Edition” of SCORM 2004 isn’t deployed or usable.

SCORM 2004 2nd Edition

Released July 2004

As industry started to adopt SCORM 2004, it was quickly realized that there were some defects that had to be resolved. ADL quickly responded by issuing SCORM 2004 2nd Edition. This specification was adopted and implementations started to pop up.

Recommendation: SCORM 2004 2nd Edition has significant adoption, but it did not reach the adoption levels near those of SCORM 1.2. While the core SCORM books are very stable in all of SCORM 2004, sequencing is a VERY complicated specification. Vendors creating new product implementations should prefer later SCORM 2004 editions.

SCORM 2004 3rd Edition

Released October 2006

The complications of the sequencing and navigation specification have mostly driven the future evolution of SCORM. Third Edition is largely a set of improvements to the sequencing specification to remove ambiguities and tighten the specification for greater interoperability. The big change in Third Edition was the addition of user interface requirements for LMSs. Previously, it was completely up to the LMS to determine the appropriate user interface. In Third Edition, new language was added that requires the LMS to provide certain user interface elements to enable sequencing and navigation to function consistently across systems.

Recommendation: SCORM 2004 3rd Edition has significant adoption, and vendors should strive to support it. Of all SCORM 2004 editions, the 3rd edition is the most widely used.

SCORM 2004 4th Edition

March 2009

This edition contains further disambiguation of the sequencing specification and also adds a few new features to the sequencing specification which will broaden the options available to content authors. The new features in Fourth Edition make creating sequenced content much simpler.

Recommendation: The new features of SCORM 2004 4th edition increase its usefulness dramatically, and we recommend you adopt it. SCORM 2004 4th Edition should be supported by vendors supporting SCORM 2004.

AICC HACP

Released February 1998
SCORM is a “reference model.” The individual books of SCORM are actually each references to other specifications. Some of the most significant contributions to SCORM came from the AICC. The AICC was an early pioneer in the world of eLearning standards; their specifications date back to 1980s and the days of “computer-based training.” AICC’s “CMI Guidelines for Interoperability” was the first widely adopted specification for interoperability between eLearning content and LMSs (Document No. CMI001 on the AICC site).

The run-time communication in SCORM was based on the AICC’s work. Originally this specification began with file-based exchange of data between content and LMSs. It was then updated to support an HTTP-based data exchange. Recently, it was updated to support an EMCAScript-based data exchange to harmonize with SCORM. AICC HACP is still widely supported, mostly using the HTTP-based data exchange (known as HACP, “HTTP-based AICC/CMI Protocol”). AICC publishes many specifications, but when somebody refers to the “AICC spec,” they are most likely referring to HACP protocol in the AICC CMI specification.

The HACP protocol has a unique characteristic that makes AICC HACP very useful and, in fact, preferable to SCORM in certain situations. Specifically, since HACP is HTTP-based, it doesn’t suffer from the cross domain scripting problem that plagues SCORM’s ECMAScript-based communication. In SCORM, because of (good and intentional) browser security restrictions, content served from one domain (ex. www.mycontent.com) can’t talk to an LMS that is served from a different domain (ex. www.mylms.com). In AICC HACP, that problem is less restrictive, making it a useful alternative to SCORM in certain deployment situations.

Recommendation: AICC HACP should be supported by most vendors. Its level of adoption is likely still second only to SCORM 1.2.

IMS Common Cartridge

Released October 2008
Another organization that significantly contributed to the books of SCORM is IMS. IMS’s content packaging and sequencing specifications are the origins for two of the books of SCORM. Like AICC, IMS produces many specifications.

Recently IMS released a specification known as Common Cartridge that has some overlap with SCORM. Unfortunately, relations between IMS and ADL have soured because of a disagreement over intellectual property. IMS is now positioning Common Cartidge as a competitor to SCORM and some have even called it a “SCORM killer.” Our assessment is that Common Cartridge and SCORM solve two different problems and serve two different industries. Assuming Common Cartridge is adopted, the two specifications will likely live side by side.

Common Cartridge is designed to serve the higher education market, while SCORM primarily serves the online training market. Common Cartridge includes things that are appropriate to classroom-based education, such as discussion board topics and question banks. It lacks certain concepts that are more appropriate to online training like run-time data communication and sequencing.

xAPI (The Experience API)

Released April 26, 2013
xAPI, also known as The Experience API or Tin Can API, is the newest eLearning standard and it solves a lot of issues that were inherent with older versions of SCORM. Mobile learning, team-based learning, cross domain functionality, sequencing, removal of the need for a web browser, and simulations/serious games are just a few things that are now relatively easy to accomplish.

xAPI removes content from the LMS, and allows the content to send “statements” based around [actor] [verb] [object], or “I – did – this” to a Learning Record Store (LRS). LRSs can live on their own or as part of an LMS. There are a lot of good things happening with the xAPI — go read about them.

Recommendation: xAPI adoption rates are growing with multiple products and organizations, including the US Department of Defense, supporting the standard. If you want to track more than just what SCORM or AICC track and take learning outside of the LMS, then it’s recommended that you adopt the xAPI. If you have a traditional LMS-based learning use case, but want the flexibility and long term data convenience of xAPI, look into adopting cmi5 alongside xAPI.

cmi5 (a companion to xAPI)

Release date: June 1, 2016
cmi5 is a companion specification to xAPI. It provides a set of rules intended to achieve interoperability in a traditional LMS environment, and uses the xAPI as the communication protocol and data format. It defines the concept of a course structure which is intended to be packaged and imported into an LMS. The course structure provides metadata information allowing the LMS to launch content, in the form of Assignable Units (AUs). cmi5 includes the concept of a learning session and has specific rules for capturing a core set of data for learning experiences.

Recommendation: If you have the traditional LMS-based learning use case, but want the flexibility and long term data convenience of xAPI, look into adopting cmi5.

PENS

Traditionally, publishing content to an LMS could take a dozen or more manual steps for the end user. PENS is an eLearning standard that addresses the publishing of content from an authoring tool to an LMS. PENS offers one-click publishing, simplifying the process, and removing another layer of friction between content creators and LMS’s. It doesn’t replace other eLearning standards, but works in conjunction with them.

Recommendation:  We recommend considering PENS if you deal regularly with importing lots of content to an LMS, and/or if that import process is tedious and time consuming. PENS is supported in the latest release of SCORM Engine, and SCORM Cloud can accept PENS requests. 

IMS LTI

LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) is mostly used by LMSs serving in educational settings. It’s a little different from other eLearning standards — it’s a plug-in architecture that allows LMSs to work with third-party/remote learning tools. It provides the ability to authenticate LMS users into the remote tool via OAuth. Simple Outcomes (part of LTI) allows the remote tool to report a score back to the LMS. This is the only LMS tracking that is available in LTI. Learn more about LTI vs. SCORM on our blog.

Recommendation: LTI is used commonly in the world of education, so if you intend to work in that space then LTI is something you should strongly consider supporting. LTI is supported in SCORM Cloud as a way to deliver a Dispatch — it allows a LTI conformant LMS to play SCORM content. The Simple Outcome (score) is delivered to the LMS, but you can still track SCORM data in SCORM Cloud.