Re: ADL Research Newsletter January 2013

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Haag, Jason

unread,
Jan 8, 2013, 2:42:21 PM1/8/13
to DADL WG


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ADL Research Newsletter <alan.wor...@adlnet.gov> wrote:
ADL Newsletter for Educators and Educational Researchers
ADL Co-Lab Logo
Advanced Distributed Learning for Educators and Educational Researchers
January 2013
EDITOR'S CORNER
In this issue we continue the discussion of some of the advantages, and problems, with Sharable Content Objects (SCOs) begun in our last issue by Michael Bush. Michael is at Brigham Young University and wrote from the perspective of someone developing instructional material for educational purposes. In this issue Peggy Kenyon describes the use of SCOs by instructional developers in the U.S. Army. Peggy is a Division Chief with The Army Distributed Learning Program where she was responsible for technical standards for distributed learning products but is currently in charge of contract acquisition for distributed learning. Peggy has an MBA and an Ed.S. in Education, and recently completed a Ph.D. in Education Technology.
As usual, please send reactions, comments, questions, or suggestions to me so that they may be considered for publication in future issues of the Newsletter
- Sig Tobias
If you are interested in subscribing to this newsletter, please click on the button below.
Prior Articles:
About CORDRA (Dec. 2006).
ADL Introduction (Jan. 2006).
Consensus?(Oct. 2010).
KERIS Introduction (April 2006).
More Research Needed (Oct. 2010).
Newsletter Purpose (Jan. 2006).
Semantic Net (June 2009).
Sweller & Tobias Agree (Oct. 2010).
Web 2.0 and ADL (June 2008).
Newsletter archives, as well as the current issue, are available in the archive.
 
Shareable Content Objects - the U.S. Army’s Use of Shareable Content Objects
Peggy Kenyon
Office of the TRADOC CAPABILITIES MANAGER
THE ARMY DISTRIBUTED LEARNING PROGRAM (TCM-TADLP)
Introduction
In 1997, the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative was charged with the formidable task of making instructional content developed by all federal government entities shareable across technical platforms to save money and other development resources. The concept called for all developers to design content at the smallest granular level, keep it context neutral, and tag it in such a way that it could be easily found and retrieved. This change in development of web-based instructional content promised to make learning accessible to anyone at any time, from anywhere in the world.
The U. S. Department of Defense (DoD) responded to this call and defined instructional capabilities to be used by all federal agencies. These capabilities were published (DoD Handbook: Advanced Distributed Learning, 2001) as a set of standards and guidelines that could be used or adapted for each agency’s unique needs. It should be noted that even though the examples used in this article deal with training developed for the U.S. Army, perhaps 75% of the content of Army training is quite similar to training in the private sector, and to education as well.
U.S. Army Adopts SCORM
In 1997, the Army responded to the DoD directives and began development of web-based courseware to fit the requirements of the Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) (DoD Instruction 1322.26, 2006). The SCORM initiative challenged Army developers to rethink old design paradigms in the direction of sharing their content. This has not been an easy road to follow for any of the services but especially so for the Army as it continues to follow a course structure which does not lend itself to reuse.
Sharable Content Objects (SCOs) and Their Use in the Army
The ADL SCORM specification provides a common technical framework for packaging and delivering Web-based learning. It is a collection of standards and specifications adapted from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive suite of e-learning capabilities that promise interoperability, accessibility and reusability of Web-based learning content.
There are three major elements used in SCORM:
  • SCOs - standardized reusable learning objects. These can be a collection of one or more assets (content objects such as text, pictures, audio, video, or animations) that represent the smallest size, or lowest level of granularity of learning resources and constitute a single launchable resource that can communicate with a learning management system using the SCORM student tracking data.
  • SCORM Content Package – The package may represent a course, module, or lesson or may simply be a collection of related content objects. The manifest, an essential part of all SCORM Content Packages, is similar in many ways to a “ packing slip.” It lists the contents of the package and may include an optional description of the content structure.
  • Learning Management Systems (LMS) — this is a term that is used loosely in SCORM documentation. An LMS is designed to use SCORM to provide communication from the content back to the LMS to track learner progress and to report on learner content completions. SCORM manages simple learning content such as a lesson or very complex content such as simulations and gaming. An LMS provides an enterprise level learning environment for both SCORM and non-SCORM content (SCORM, 2004).
The Army has defined SCOs as learning objects that may include multimedia content, instructional content, terminal and enabling learning objectives, learning or performance events, all referenced during technology supported learning (as depicted in Figure 1). Each of these SCOs is tracked by an LMS using the SCORM communication process (SCORM RTE).
Figure 1 - Learning Objects
Figure 1 - Learning objects
During content design and authoring activities developers design their course elements down to the smallest logical size of content that one might desire to have tracked by the management system. With the Army design schema, the smallest element of content is the lesson. While small, this level of granularity has not provided for reusability.
Rethinking SCORM
The definition of a SCO has been elusive for Army content designers who were used to a design schema that bundled tasks, lessons, and modules into one piece of courseware. The designers were initially producing large SCOs, sometimes consisting of whole courses that were more reflective of past Army content design than of reusable, context free reusable objects. This design schema worked well with computer based training delivered via CDROM or Video Disc but did not provide for discovery and reuse of content or otherwise meet the vision of SCORM.
Two SCO Types: Dependent and Independent. As the basic building block for SCORM conformant courseware, a SCO is simply presented as a collection of one or more independent and context free assets (HTML pages, graphics, animations, audio, etc.) that make up a learning event. To satisfy Army training requirements, the SCORM SCO specification required refinement and clarification.
In order to assist content designer’s acceptance of SCORM requirements and promote movement into better SCORM design practices the Army defined the dependent SCO as one that contained context. For example, this could be an introduction, a summary, or transition material that is sometimes necessary for clarity and instructional flow. Context is provided to orient the learner to their position in the course, how much material is included in the course, and how to navigate through the content.
Type of content Dependent Independent
Allows referencing instructional material that resides outside of itself. All content must be ‘ self contained’ , i.e. context neutral. Instruction that resides outside a SCORM SCO cannot be referenced.
Introduction Introduction SCO which may present information that will be further refined in the following SCO(s). No mention of following equipment/instructional information. Follows SCORM SCO working definition which does not allow referencing instruction outside itself.
Transition Transition SCO which may summarize information in a previous SCO and may identify specific equipment/instruction that will be addressed in the next SCO. Follows Army expanded SCO definition. No mention of previous or following equipment/ instructions. Follows SCORM SCO working definition which limits transition material to reference only material that is contained in the SCO itself.
Table 1 - Dependent and Independent SCOs
The Army Dependent SCO. These SCOs establish context for an otherwise context-neutral group of SCOs. A dependent SCO could be developed to transition from an introduction SCO “ Welcome to Math 101” to an independent SCO such as an animated scientific calculator used in a check on learning exercise; or it could transition the learner between two independent SCOs (See Table 1). Dependent SCOs are usually limited as a “ single use” SCO and could be local files contained in the content package. Dependent SCOs can contain external references accessed by URLs such as an external link to a glossary or references from an introduction page. The concept of the dependent SCO was essential for the Army content designer transitioning to SCORM.
The Army Independent SCO. The SCO containing a photo, animation, exam, or video that is context neutral is defined by the Army as independent. The Army Medical School uses independent SCOs which contain medical drawings, animations of blood flow, the progress of diseases which are produced without reference to lesson title or number so they can be reused in different courses. The dependent SCOs such as the course introduction contain all the information to place the independent SCOs in context for the course. Context neutral implies the absence of Army specialty, branch, or school and also implies removal of the course, module, and lesson titles. Independent SCOs are considered “ sharable” and once stored in a SCO repository would be available to other training developers for use in any other course(s) with little or no modification required.
The Matter of Size. SCOs are developed in many different sizes and with different instructional purposes. A small SCO could be an exam, an html page, or a simple game. A large SCO is likely to be a collection of these smaller SCOs such as a pretest SCO combined with lesson SCOs, and finally a posttest SCO. SCORM does not impose any particular constraints on the exact size of a SCO; however the Army established some business rules to assist content developers and to prepare content for eventual placement into a repository.
Figure 2 - SCOs
Figure 2 - SCOs of different sizes, content, instructional purpose
For Army developers, one SCO will be developed for each lesson, terminal learning objective, or enabling learning objective. SCOs may be developed at the learning step/activity such as a pre or post test, a lesson, or an exercise, to meet the course's desired educational strategy (See Figure 2).The instructional design and testing strategy also drive the size of SCOs. As mentioned earlier, independent SCOs are independent of context and can stand alone.
The Monolithic SCO (Single SCO Course) In terms of SCORM, bundling objects into a large SCO results in monolithic SCOs, a large bloated SCO. Following the Army model for course structure, this would be a single SCO that would collect multiple smaller learning objects such as lessons and learning events and the assets such as pictures, audio files, animations, and videos that provide the instructional content of the lessons and learning events. The Monolithic SCO will typically embed the all the instructional content, and internally code all sequencing and navigation (instructional strategy). While this learning object collection strategy is legal for SCORM packaging, it obviously cannot be re-used in other instructional sequences, nor does it support any SCORM goals. Many Army content designers used the monolithic SCO concept, however it presented problems when hours of instruction and SCORM data were exchanged without the natural break point afforded when a SCO is closed and another reopened.
Movement Between SCOs. Utilizing the navigation and sequencing features of SCORM, the content developer can direct the learner's path through the material based on meeting performance objectives. In other words, successful completion of a pretest in which all objectives were passed would result in completion and credit for the course. However, if only some objectives are passed, the learner would be directed back to the course menu where only the failed objectives would be available. The learner could then select the next lessons and proceed through the content. The final SCO would be a posttest. Successful completion of all the lessons and the posttest would result in credit for completion of the course. Likewise, if learners failed the pretest, they would be presented with the content, practical exercises, and posttest in a prescribed sequence.
The Army adopted use of the sequencing and navigation features of SCORM. However, implementation has been a challenge. With large content files and complex instructional strategies such as diagnostic testing, sequencing and navigation taxed the capabilities of LMSs. In the future, plans are to use the capabilities of the management system itself for sequencing and navigation of the learner.
Future of SCORM in the Army
To summarize, the Army has been a leader in the implementation of the SCORM initiative since its inception. The lessons learned by the Army, the largest military provider of asynchronous, self-paced, web-based courseware in the World, have helped to lead to some of these changes in the e-learning community.
Keep it small – Design at the course level but develop from the bottom up. For example, a course may be designed to teach electronics. The content is reviewed to determine which lessons may be reusable in other courseware. Thus, an animation that allows practice with an electric meter could be reused in a course on electrical troubleshooting. The content is then developed, tagged using metadata to facilitate storage and eventual retrieval. The lesson content could be retrieved by a content developer, assembled in the LMS with a pretest, some additional lesson content, and a posttest and then delivered as a completed course. In this example, the learner moves from a pretest that measures prerequisite knowledge to course content, and finally to an exam that communicates a score or completion status back to the management system.
Optimize for the web – The size of a SCO is the sum of all the assets contained in each of the assembled SCOs and results in a large file to be managed by the management system and rendered over the web. Depending on the user’s technical environment, this packaging may result in a degradation of the learning event. This often happens when the bandwidth at the point of delivery is smaller than anticipated by the content design. The result is a learner who is frustrated by the learning event and may not be able to complete the event at all. Army users have experienced such degradation with courseware that is media rich with complex instructional strategies.
Close the SCO – Lesson SCOs should take the learner back to the management system after the instructional event. Many learners have experienced a “ time-out” problem while taking web-based courses. When there is no action from the learner to trigger communication with the management system, the system may lose connectivity with the SCO leaving the learner with a locked or frozen presentation. This may happen while the learner is reading, viewing video, or listening to audio. The preferred design is to return the learner to the LMS at the end of each learning event. This serves two purposes; it gives the learner a chance to reduce cognitive load, and to control the decision to launch another lesson or to exit. Finally, this gives the management system a chance to catch up and record the learners’ progress.
Conclusion
SCORM has fulfilled many of the promises of the early initiative. It provides a method for tracking the asynchronous learner through web-based content. SCORM provides for discovery and reuse of learning objects if those items are properly tagged and stored in a repository. However, some of the lessons learned with SCORM require content developers to understand the technical implementation of the learning event to keep it in harmony with the learning goals.
References
DoD Handbook: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Products and Systems - Mil-Hdbk-29612/5, (part 5 of 5 parts) (31 Aug 2001).
DoD Instruction 1322.26; June 16, 2006
SCORM® 2004 3rd Edition Overview Version 1.0
Academic ADL Co-Lab
222 W. Washington Ave.
Suite 470
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608.263.6657
Fax: 608.265.0070
www.academiccolab.org

DISCLAIMER:
This newsletter is provided as a service to those in the academic community and does not necessarily represent the opinions of or an endorsement by the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages