Little survey about server-side technolgies and SCORM tracking
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Marc Mantha
Nov 23, 2009, 10:27:25 AM11/23/09
to eLearning Technology and Development
I'm just curious to see if it is a current practice to use SCORM only
for tracking purposes but developing courses with server-side
technologies like ASP.
I think that is you don't have to share your content, wrapping as a
single SCO for tracking purposes in one common database for all the
courses and it makes the reporting easier.
I think that developing in full SCORM with a SCO for each sections or
module of a course is too restricting on different levels during
course development. I don't like the fact that the content should be
independent of a context for it to "fit" in another course. The main
issue I have with that is that you can't a have the course menu inside
a sco, it has to be generated by the LMS, and it uses frames, which
creates big accessibility issues when it comes to screen readers. Also
it makes the whole design less interesting for a user, all the fully
SCORM compliant courses i've seen are more like power points and kinda
boring.
Am I the only one who thinks that way, if so, please give me some
examples to try and change my point of view.
Thanks!
for tracking purposes but developing courses with server-side
technologies like ASP.
I think that is you don't have to share your content, wrapping as a
single SCO for tracking purposes in one common database for all the
courses and it makes the reporting easier.
I think that developing in full SCORM with a SCO for each sections or
module of a course is too restricting on different levels during
course development. I don't like the fact that the content should be
independent of a context for it to "fit" in another course. The main
issue I have with that is that you can't a have the course menu inside
a sco, it has to be generated by the LMS, and it uses frames, which
creates big accessibility issues when it comes to screen readers. Also
it makes the whole design less interesting for a user, all the fully
SCORM compliant courses i've seen are more like power points and kinda
boring.
Am I the only one who thinks that way, if so, please give me some
examples to try and change my point of view.
Thanks!
Philip Hutchison
Nov 23, 2009, 1:25:34 PM11/23/09
to elearning-technolo...@googlegroups.com
Your message is actually covering a number of concepts, not just server-side stuff.
See responses below.
- philip
As I mentioned before, using server-side technologies such as ASP or PHP is against the rules. Some people may do it, but defeats the purpose of SCORM. I personally don't know anyone who uses ASP or PHP with SCORM (and if I did, I'd smack their hands with my ruler).
Hence SCORM using the cmi data model. This means no matter where you take your course, the database will always be there and properly formatted. You know what field names to use, what the data type is, size limitations, etc.
Before SCORM (and AICC) everyone used different proprietary systems, and developers would have to make extensive modifications to a course whenever they needed to migrate a course from one LMS to another. What you're proposing -- whether intentionally or not -- is a return to those proprietary systems. Even if you use a SCORM wrapper, if you're sending data to a second non-SCORM database and not using the LMS/SCORM system, you are creating an overly complex and difficult to maintain system. Maintenance would be a nightmare. Reporting would be difficult since you're be using two databases. Portability and interoperability would be disabled.
This is a common complaint, and the reason many people build single "monolithic SCO" (single SCO) courses -- most 3rd party tools (Captivate, Articulate, etc.) use a single-SCO approach. They manage course structure internally via JavaScript or ActionScript, but still use the SCORM database to store progress, bookmarking, scores, etc. They do not rely on server-side code or auxiliary databases.
You have the option to build a single-SCO course that contains its own internal menu. If you follow this route, you can turn off the LMS' menu (and yes, most LMSs have pretty crappy menu/navigation systems).
RE: frames, they're a fact of life with LMSs, whether you use SCORM or not. Even if you build your course to be frame-free, it will probably load in either a popup window containing frames or in an iframe.
Frames can be accessible if they're handled correctly, esp. with today's screen readers. Frames are more of an inconvenience than a true barrier.
THAT is a BIG misconception that a lot of people have, but is completely unfounded. SCORM doesn't dictate how your courses look or how interactive they are -- that's completely up to the developer. All SCORM does is provide a standard data reference and interoperability model. It doesn't contain any pedagogical rules or restrictions. SCORM doesn't say anything regarding use of videos, animations, graphics, etc., nor does it say anything about scenarios, branching interactions, or any other activity types. It merely says "if you want to have an interaction, here's a place you can store the data". The rest is up to you.
See responses below.
- philip
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Marc Mantha <mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm just curious to see if it is a current practice to use SCORM only
for tracking purposes but developing courses with server-side
technologies like ASP.
As I mentioned before, using server-side technologies such as ASP or PHP is against the rules. Some people may do it, but defeats the purpose of SCORM. I personally don't know anyone who uses ASP or PHP with SCORM (and if I did, I'd smack their hands with my ruler).
I think that is you don't have to share your content, wrapping as a
single SCO for tracking purposes in one common database for all the
courses and it makes the reporting easier.
Hence SCORM using the cmi data model. This means no matter where you take your course, the database will always be there and properly formatted. You know what field names to use, what the data type is, size limitations, etc.
Before SCORM (and AICC) everyone used different proprietary systems, and developers would have to make extensive modifications to a course whenever they needed to migrate a course from one LMS to another. What you're proposing -- whether intentionally or not -- is a return to those proprietary systems. Even if you use a SCORM wrapper, if you're sending data to a second non-SCORM database and not using the LMS/SCORM system, you are creating an overly complex and difficult to maintain system. Maintenance would be a nightmare. Reporting would be difficult since you're be using two databases. Portability and interoperability would be disabled.
I think that developing in full SCORM with a SCO for each sections or
module of a course is too restricting on different levels during
course development.
This is a common complaint, and the reason many people build single "monolithic SCO" (single SCO) courses -- most 3rd party tools (Captivate, Articulate, etc.) use a single-SCO approach. They manage course structure internally via JavaScript or ActionScript, but still use the SCORM database to store progress, bookmarking, scores, etc. They do not rely on server-side code or auxiliary databases.
I don't like the fact that the content should be
independent of a context for it to "fit" in another course. The main
issue I have with that is that you can't a have the course menu inside
a sco, it has to be generated by the LMS, and it uses frames, which
creates big accessibility issues when it comes to screen readers.
You have the option to build a single-SCO course that contains its own internal menu. If you follow this route, you can turn off the LMS' menu (and yes, most LMSs have pretty crappy menu/navigation systems).
RE: frames, they're a fact of life with LMSs, whether you use SCORM or not. Even if you build your course to be frame-free, it will probably load in either a popup window containing frames or in an iframe.
Frames can be accessible if they're handled correctly, esp. with today's screen readers. Frames are more of an inconvenience than a true barrier.
Also it makes the whole design less interesting for a user, all the fully
SCORM compliant courses i've seen are more like power points and kinda
boring.
THAT is a BIG misconception that a lot of people have, but is completely unfounded. SCORM doesn't dictate how your courses look or how interactive they are -- that's completely up to the developer. All SCORM does is provide a standard data reference and interoperability model. It doesn't contain any pedagogical rules or restrictions. SCORM doesn't say anything regarding use of videos, animations, graphics, etc., nor does it say anything about scenarios, branching interactions, or any other activity types. It merely says "if you want to have an interaction, here's a place you can store the data". The rest is up to you.
Am I the only one who thinks that way, if so, please give me some
examples to try and change my point of view.
Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "eLearning Technology and Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to elearning-technolo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to elearning-technology-and...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/elearning-technology-and-development?hl=.
Ryan Meyer
Nov 23, 2009, 2:23:16 PM11/23/09
to elearning-technolo...@googlegroups.com
Philip,
Thanks for this response. I was getting myself all worked up into giving a similar one, but you covered everything very nicely.
That being said, I can think of a few cases where it can be acceptable to use external web applications within a SCORM course. I believe that providing additional capabilities over-and-above SCORM's intended usage (at least in it's current state), is not necessarily a "bad thing."
For example, I worked on a series of SCORM courses that included games, and we used an external web application to serve as a "High Scores Board" to breed some competition among the learners. This functionality is not going to be provided commonly across LMSs, and was written in a way that the course could post and access the results from a web server from any domain. It's likely not fitting the letter-of-the-law when it comes to compliance, but the course would still function without the high scores if the external application were to go down. I could think of other types of collaborative activities that aren't really provided for by the existing SCORM specs (no shared data among users or courses), but are nevertheless valid and useful. I think the trick is to be careful to build your courses so they will work across any SCORM-compliant LMS, and that they will still function if the external application is not available. It's definitely a slippery slope that requires some careful thought, but I wouldn't completely disregard them as invalid SCORM-based solutions.
With regards to single- versus multi-SCO systems, the real question is what granularity of reporting do you require. If you need to track completions and scores for multiple objects within a course, then you need multiple SCOs (unless your LMS supports reporting of cmi.objectives and cmi.interactions.) If not, you can get away with a single SCO that provides all of its own navigation. With respect to reuse of SCOs, I don't think I've seen any good technological solution for easily reusing SCOs in multiple courses, other than in LCMSs of course. The only exception might be defining multiple <organization> nodes within a manifest to build slightly different versions of a course which reference the same SCOs, but I've only seen one or two LMSs that handle this properly anyway. Without a good technical backbone to support reuse, copying a "SCO" or copying "some files that are a page within my proprietary course shell" really aren't that different.
-Ryan
Thanks for this response. I was getting myself all worked up into giving a similar one, but you covered everything very nicely.
That being said, I can think of a few cases where it can be acceptable to use external web applications within a SCORM course. I believe that providing additional capabilities over-and-above SCORM's intended usage (at least in it's current state), is not necessarily a "bad thing."
For example, I worked on a series of SCORM courses that included games, and we used an external web application to serve as a "High Scores Board" to breed some competition among the learners. This functionality is not going to be provided commonly across LMSs, and was written in a way that the course could post and access the results from a web server from any domain. It's likely not fitting the letter-of-the-law when it comes to compliance, but the course would still function without the high scores if the external application were to go down. I could think of other types of collaborative activities that aren't really provided for by the existing SCORM specs (no shared data among users or courses), but are nevertheless valid and useful. I think the trick is to be careful to build your courses so they will work across any SCORM-compliant LMS, and that they will still function if the external application is not available. It's definitely a slippery slope that requires some careful thought, but I wouldn't completely disregard them as invalid SCORM-based solutions.
With regards to single- versus multi-SCO systems, the real question is what granularity of reporting do you require. If you need to track completions and scores for multiple objects within a course, then you need multiple SCOs (unless your LMS supports reporting of cmi.objectives and cmi.interactions.) If not, you can get away with a single SCO that provides all of its own navigation. With respect to reuse of SCOs, I don't think I've seen any good technological solution for easily reusing SCOs in multiple courses, other than in LCMSs of course. The only exception might be defining multiple <organization> nodes within a manifest to build slightly different versions of a course which reference the same SCOs, but I've only seen one or two LMSs that handle this properly anyway. Without a good technical backbone to support reuse, copying a "SCO" or copying "some files that are a page within my proprietary course shell" really aren't that different.
-Ryan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages