1.1 Scorm 2.0: setting the boundaries

Scorm 2.0: setting the boundaries

At a conceptual level the role of SCORM is to provide:

• a way to aggregate content in a structured manner and make it available to a user in a way that is intended to assist them developing actionable knowledge;
• support for the high-level functionalities The high-level functionalities are defined in SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Overview Section 1.2.1. They are definedas Accessibility, Adaptability, Affordability, Durability, Interoperability and Reusability and are often referred to as the “ilities”. ; and,
• support for rule-based sequencing of content. (LETSI states that this functionality may not be present in the first version of SCORM 2.0.)

It may be argued that support for data exchange with related systems in learning infrastructures should be better supported. This would include support for integrationwith a range of repositories for competency data, ePortfolios, learner profiles etc. The exchange and useful consumption of what is essentially metadata from these types ofrepositories is likely to be an important issue for holistic, service-orientated infrastructures. Not all of these data interchange requirements sit entirely within therole of SCORM, however, appropriate support will be critical to success.

Highly regulated views of training are evident in the requirements expressed by defense, aerospace, medical and pharmaceutical industries, food safety, workplace safetyand a variety of others. In terms of the diversity of learning, education and training, these requirements may be seen to sit at one end of a spectrum where activities aretightly controlled and highly regulated. The following are a small set of examples of perspectives across these different industry sectors:

1. MedBiquitous requirements for the health sector (see slides );
2. Compliance Training in the Banking Sector (see article ); and,
3. an elaboration of training requirements (see example ).

By contrast, some parts of the education sector and those involved in the recognition of informal learning are often more interested in more open and less controlledapproaches to learning. David Wiley presents an open education view that argues the lack of utility and difficulty in adopting SCORM in [higher education]learning. It is worth considering what this means for the boundaries and role of SCORM.

There is growing emphasis on the possibilities whereby learners establish some type of Personal Learning Environment or “PLE” (eg SocialLearn at the Open University UK ). It is possible to actually create various types of mashups that provide a single interface to a PLE, however, this is not within the technicalconfidence levels of the average user. If PLE’s persist and evolve they are likely to become simpler for the average user to create and more standards driven. There is noapparent reason why SCORM should be ‘the’ standard for such mashups, however, there is likely to be considerable value with higher levels of interoperability, reusability anddevice-independence of the content available for such mashups.

Given these basic perspectives, SCORM should continue to be concerned with the ‘ilities’, however, within the context of a broader suite of applications that offerfunctionality designed to support learning rather than just LMSs. It is also important to consider a broader definition of reuse where learning content is liberated frompurpose-built LET technologies alone in favour of being mainstreamed within organizations. Rather than being treated as a separate body of content locked away inapplications unable to participate in ‘single source publishing’ models the content is liberated for reuse according to need. Within the context of this overall shift, it isprobably worth revisiting the ”high-level functionalities” to be supported by SCORM and determine whether adding new content-based functionalities is also appropriate (egsustainability, scalability, composability, ‘syndicatability’).