Single vs Multi SCO package
Charles Parcell
For 95% of the projects I work on and the clients that we have, there
seems to be little reason to ever package anything as a multi SCO
package. Nearly all the servers that we develop to have the ability to
string together SCOs via the server verses building a sequenced multi
SCO package.
Furthermore, stuffing multiple SCOs into a single package ideally
breaks SCORM. The whole idea of SCORM is to simply pluck out content
as needed and simply plug it into another stream of learning. By
bundling multiple SCOs together, you are greatly reducing the re
usability of the content.
So, I guess what I want to know is, how many of you use multi SCO
packages? What percentage of your work results in multi SCO packages?
Those that do develop multi SCO packages, is there a benefit to them
over individual packages and what are they?
Charles P.
Philip Hutchison
If the SCOs are linked via SCORM 2004, you can have your course code invoke the transition to the next SCO using adl.nav.
On the other hand, if you used an LMS's "curriculum" or "tracks" feature to link the SCOs, each SCO would be packaged as a separate course. Transitioning from one to the next would require closing the course window and searching/launching the next one in the series (most LMSs will not auto-direct you to the next course upon completion of an activity).
Usability/support for finding and launching courses becomes an issue.
Using the SCORM multi-SCO approach has the benefit of ensuring the learner won't need to search/register for each SCO in the LMS. This means the user only ever opens a single course window, and all SCOs in the course launch in that window (or automatically spawns a new window if that's how your LMS handles the transition). Much better usability in my opinion.
Plus, if packaged using a SCORM multi-SCO approach, the whole thing would be portable and could be taken to any LMS that supports SCORM 2004. If the SCORM multi-SCO approach is NOT used, you'd have to see if the other LMSs can do a curriculum-type feature, and would be reliant on their interpretation of how to handle these situations.
The upside of using the LMS's curriculum feature (in my experience) is that it's usually easier to report on the individual components.
RE: "stuffing multiple SCOs into a single package ideally breaks SCORM", I disagree; SCORM was designed to allow multi-SCO courses from the start. The problem, in my opinion, is that SCORM contradicts itself: "reusable content" does not jive with a spec that says everything must be self-contained and not rely on external files. The whole point of reuse is preventing redundancy.
- philip
Raymond Sugel Sr
To add to Phil’s comments.
I predominately build multi-SCO courseware in the customized software application genre for a major financial institution in the US. The major advantage I have found is, these applications are used across various audience groups that don’t always use it in the same fashion. Some use certain functionality in the app while others use other functionality. Creating content using individual SCOs allows these audiences to build courses suited to them.
As an example, a few years back I built training for a firm-wide mainframe interface to a customer information/demand deposit application. There were 85 tasks that were predominantly used from lookup functions to record maintenance functions. Building each task as a separate SCO allowed the various audiences to construct courses for what they used. Tellers got a course based on lookup tasks, back-office personal got maintenance related tasks, loan officers got tasks related to loans, etc. No one in the firm took a course consisting of all 85 tasks.
To be transparent, I build for SCORM 1.2, my client’s LMS (Pathlore 6.6) provides very spotty support for SCORM 2004. To date, I have not delved into the Sequencing & Navigation of SCORM 2004 although I don’t think my development methods would change. SCORM 2004 Sequencing & Navigation was put in to address issues with multi-SCO courseware.
Raymond Sugel Sr
eLearning Consultant
847.370.6163
rsug...@pivotpointelearning.com
www.pivotpointelearning.com
Ryan Meyer
As an example, a few years back I built training for a firm-wide mainframe interface to a customer information/demand deposit application. There were 85 tasks that were predominantly used from lookup functions to record maintenance functions. Building each task as a separate SCO allowed the various audiences to construct courses for what they used. Tellers got a course based on lookup tasks, back-office personal got maintenance related tasks, loan officers got tasks related to loans, etc. No one in the firm took a course consisting of all 85 tasks.
If you weren't using SCORM 2004's sequencing capabilities, how did you insure that each learner only saw the content for the tasks that they needed? Did you create separate course packages and copy the SCO content into the separate zips? Create one big course package, but specify separate organizations in the manifest that group the SCOs appropriately? Or is there some Pathlore specific functionality for managing this?
Thanks,
Ryan
Raymond Sugel Sr
One of the short-comings of the Pathlore platform is it does not capture any course-level data from the imsmanifest file. It does capture SCO and what Pathlore calls an Online Organization data. In my manifest I set up one Online Organization with every SCO for the project and import it into Pathlore. Then SMEs and business process owners create course “shells” manually and attach the SCOs as applicable for their audiences. SCORM 1.2 doesn’t support Sequencing & Navigation and Pathlore is very quirky in its support for 2004.
Raymond Sugel Sr
eLearning Consultant
847.370.6163
rsug...@pivotpointelearning.com
www.pivotpointelearning.com
Charles Parcell
even better, the scoping of the term.
I have always thought of it at the level of the learner. For example,
one government agency could develop some content. Then another agency
might use a part of that content.
But what I am hearing from developers is that it is only being
utilized at the developer level. It is only reusable to the developers
them selves.
Perhaps the difference in scoping is based on industry? All the
course ware we develop is for government use. Specifically military.
The various agencies can utilize any previously built course ware
without copyright or legal issues.
But in the commercial world each product is meant for either
themselves (internally) or for clients (vacuum packed). In these
cases, there is no need for content reuse outside of the initial
scope.
Charles P.