Len Murphy is to be congratulated for his compelling and creative writing style and his humorous "Rube Golberg " depiction of todays SCORM compliant LMSs. On a more serious note the white paper for me makes a compelling case for the future integration of WEB 2.0 technologies with SCORM 2.0 from a users perspective. Good job Len!!    Thanks Frank

Posted by Frank Polster at Jul 02, 2008 10:40

(moved from main SCORM 2.0 discussion page)

This is an interesting paper and I agree that helpful content need not be complex.  I agree, too, that it should be easy to post simple content simply.  But that is not the problem SCORM set out to address and I'm not sure how we can get away from the requirement to provide an intentionally managed program of instruction that provides means for meaningful wrong-answer feedback for learners who are not yet sufficiently advanced to manage their own learning.

Posted by Eric Roberts at Jul 16, 2008 11:04

 (moved from main SCORM 2.0 discussion page)

Obviously this raises the idea of further extending the possibilities of types of content, how it is presented, linear vs. non-linear, and user(s) aggregated content for means detailed by the paper and confirmed by posts above. I agree that content could be further typed, not just at the resource level, but possibly as user customizable content package types. To deliver, this would be an on-going build of the 'content package' by users that would be fluid and dynamic in nature. This would also require further development from an integration standpoint of the delivery machanism & authoring mechanism to provide a services architecture to accomodate this type of user interaction and learning as an ever changing output.

Posted by Michael Lang Holloman at Jul 17, 2008 09:43

 (moved from main SCORM 2.0 discussion page)

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of "make it easy" and "grab the low hanging fruit". These are the cornerstones of what I've lately started to call the "pragmatist view of SCORM 2.0". As SCORM becomes increasingly popular and gains wider adoption, accommodating folks in this group is essential. They are the mainstream. 

Solving the cross domain problem and planning for web based content seem to go hand in hand to me. These are no-brainers to address in SCORM 2.0. Current business models need them and "Web 2.0" continues to evolve, they will only become more and more essential. A web services based path is likely the best approach in my mind and I believe security issues can be easily dealt with. 

When it comes to your vision of easily adding any web page into an LMS, I have to challenge you a bit. What is wrong with SCORM now that needs to be changed to accomodate your vision? I would contend that SCORM is actually already well suited for such a task. I'm pretty sure that I could easily implement such functionality now. What am I missing here?

 Let me push back on that vision a little more:

-Do we really want to track what people have read in an LMS? I'm not a corporate trainer so I don't know the answer, but I would consider reading an article on the web to fall under the category of "learning". Most "Learning Management Systems" seem to be in place to faciliate "training" or "education". There's a subtle distinction between those terms, but I think it's relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong here, I've really never been involved with any actual training so I could be way off base.

-Is what you describe "too easy"? Now, things can never be too easy, but they can be too trivial to warrant their own standard. If you really just want to link to other content, doesn't the W3C have standards for that? Should LMS's really be trying to tie into Digg or Google Reader rather than modifing an e-learning standard?

(one paper down, 60-70 or so more to go!)

It sounds interesting to be able to pull any web content into LMS but I totally agree with Mike that LMSs are meant for tracking/facilitating trainings, measuring performance etc. and not for adhoc learning.

Len, it would be good if you would elaborate this use case further for our better understanding.

I would not compare developing of SCORM 2.0 with grabbing low or high hanging fruits just because there is no enabling relation between low and high hanging fruits, which is essential in our case. I would prefer a road map metaphor. Indeed, in developing SCORM 2.0 making each step opens ones and closes other horizons. That is why it very important to see a big picture (road map) before making steps. Making just easiest steps can lead us to dead-ends. Existing SCORM is already there.SCORM 2.0 is supposed to enable good instruction. This is a big picture. Unfortunately, it is not clear what it means: good instruction. Different people have different understanding of it. But it does not mean closing our eyes (claiming pedagogy neutrality) and making blind steps (grabbing low hanging fruits) in SCORM 2.0 developing.The first HONEST step in SCORM 2.0 developing is supposed to be defining a conceptual model of good instruction. Yes, there is no such ready-made model yet, there is no even consensus about it. Instruction is a very loosely defined entity. Let us recognize it, this is too general statement to argue about.

I hope it is also difficult to argue with the following very generic definition of Instruction:
Instructional activity is an objectives-oriented loosely-defined control of an Instructor over a loosely-defined, ill-observable and ill-controllable active object, a Learner, performing learning activities with content object(s). This conceptual model is very broad and covers wide variety of educational and training activities, simulations, performance support systems, (serious) games and intelligent tutoring systems, but not yet supported by existing SCORM.
The next step in SCORM 2.0 developing is supposed to be developing a formal model of Instruction based upon its conceptual model. Despite claimed pedagogy neutrality and skipping the first step, this formal model is already developed partially in existing SCORM. It is just not explicitly claimed and not completed. All we need to do is to complete it and re-align to the explicitly recognized conceptual model of instruction.

Good formal model of instruction is supposed to be easily down-gradable to more simple models including instructional, achievement support, performance support, learning, and information content objects. The latter ones are low hanging frits, which can be much better defined within explicit instructional models. I am pretty sure that only such approach can safe us from getting into new SCORM dead ends. Thanks
Vladimir Goodkovsky

While this paper discusses low-hanging fruit, the concepts are not the low hanging fruit in terms of doing the simple things first.  It really focuses on making something easy - being able to ad hoc pull content from the Web into a LMS.  It does pose a nice way to bring Web 2.0 into SCORM 2.0.  The four overarching design concepts include:

1.  Make it easy - include a too that developers can easily add to their web-based content and include an LMS tracking wrapper.

2.  Establish a cross-domain communication standards - provide a way to launch a module that is hosted on a website.

3.  Plan for web-based content - take into account that not all content is stored in one location along with an LMS.

There has already been a lot of good discussion around this paper.  I would like to add to the comments that Mike and a few others have stated.  It is such that LMS' can be used for education and doesn't always fall into the category of training.  In a school or higher education setting, it is such that a teacher or professor may find some "ad hoc" content to utilize within their course.  Learners may be having difficulties with concepts or some enrichment content is desired.  Adding this content to a LMS, track what the learner did and providing an assessment can be a helpful tool for teachers and professors.  Or, what if a learner discovers content that may be helpful to a class and would like to place it in the LMS for discussion, collaboration, etc.?

 Is this a problem that SCORM 2.0 should address?  While it may not have been an original problem that SCORM set out to do, is it something in moving forward that should be focused upon?

Mike,

 I like the examples and explanations that Jill provided. The "ad hoc" concepts also relate to time, money, and cost/benefit considerations. In some situations, an educator may need something quickly, or maybe the money for a comprehensive course is not in that year's budget, or maybe the cost of a well designed, interactive course is deemed to exceed the benefit to the users/company or there is a preference to spend the money elsewhere.  Training staff may like to include "ad hoc" content as an alternative.

You asked "Do we really want to track what people have read in an LMS?"  Sometimes yes.  Many employees want their boss to know that they completed an assignement including reading something that they were asked to read. Likewise, there are many managers that want to know and track what their staff did in terms of professional development even if it is not a training course.  Another example of reading alone being important might be basic policies and procedures related such as a company Anti-Harrasment policy.  There may be a policy that needs to be read and then a separate on-line two hour course.  A company might want to have record that the policy was read.You asked "How can SCORM 2.0 go beyond where SCORM is today to address that problem?" [ad hoc problem and web content generally] I think this relates in part to marketing and in part to interoperability.  As example, please take a look at the "Share Partners" page of face book. http://www.facebook.com/share_partners.php
They make it easy for designers to add the share feature to content, which then makes it easy for audiences to share the content.  As a result both Facebook and the content gain greater exposure.  If LETSI were to have a nice feature like this for SCORM 2.0, more content might become available (which might in turn make LMSs more popular).  I suppose each major LMS vendor could create and market a tool like this.  But, it might be nicer if there was a standard tool that worked with any LMS.

Does that make sense?

Thanks to everyone working on SCORM 2.0 and thanks to those who read my paper.  I read all of the papers and comments.  I liked what I read.  I am optimistic.

Thanks,

Len

Well, the ad hoc option sounds like basically adding a piece of content-html, video, pdf as an "asset" in a manifest without an organization-resource package. So to me it sounds like Jill is looking for an easy way to do that. Isn't that in the arena of the LMS-if they make it easy or not, give the user a webform to fill out and upload or link to the content?

I think we could define an ultra simple manifest for such an object, maybe a way to also define mechanism that allows attaching content to a defined course-sorta like a relationship tree? Maybe the top manifest has a tag that allows injection of content links at certain locations in the organization? Then the LMS's could follow the standard and support the capability. Obviously the lms would give controls to allow it or not, and implement a process that makes it easy when the admin chooses to allow it.

My perspective is two-pronged: my master's degree studies are entirely online; also, my firm produces learning content for the military. So I look at this article & posts from the views of a distance learner and a provider of distance learning. Para 5 on page 6 regarding adopting AICC HACP protocol . . . "This might be acceptable, despite security concerns because for some content, high level security is not essential." Most of the learning content my firm delivers to clients isn't classified but it is proprietary. To keep that out of the WWW, the protocol would need to be designed to only bring in web content to an LMS, not to share our content on the web.The paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 . . . "Most people will not hack into an LMS or decode web communications to cheat the system for the purpose of getting a few continuing education credits". I'd hate to make that assumption. At the academic level, you might very well get some Ferris Beuller types who would hack into the system to change their grades. At the commercial training level, where certifications can mean the difference between getting the job or losing it, there should be more than an honor code in place.

Having said that, the applicability of this article's idea seems most useful at the training level, then the academic and military, respectively. Last year, I site-surveyed Hurlbert Air Force Base for several different RFPs calling for creation of electronic classrooms. Often a classroom needed to house both classified curriculum and non-classified. This necessitated a separate projector for the classified curriculum material. For such a mixed requirement (military or not) I'm wondering how you'd get SCORM and an LMS to allow for integration with web content for non-classified courses, while prohibiting such integration for classified courses. Maybe through implementation of SCORM or SCORM Lite, depending on the situation?Not poking holes in your logic, Len. I loved reading your thought provoking paper. And my observations might be really naïve. But I'm pleased to engage in the conversation and read all the posts.