Is it Transferrable? Information’s Reusability, Adaptability, and Transportability through SCORM

Macarena Aspillaga, Ph.D. VSD Corporation Lane, Suite 200 Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Abstract The need for the sharable content object reference model (SCORM) to decrease the size of its shareable content object (SCO) is evident, especially since the introduction of Web 2.0 environments and new delivery systems. If SCORM is to be part of these emerging technologies, it needs to decrease its SCO size to the activity level to allow greater reusability, repurpose, adaptability, and portability of its learning objects. This will keep courses current at a lower cost, as well as enhance the transfer of knowledge; it will also help teach competencies, which will boost productivity. Greater reusability will help increase mental models. Emerging technologies will require that SCORM incorporate new standards for navigation, as new mobile learning environments communicate in shorter segments, requiring smaller SCOs and a different data model.

Background

Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) developed a collection of specifications and standards known as the sharable content object reference model, or SCORM, as a way to standardize e-learning within the defense industry. The need arose because each government contractor had its own system and guidelines, resulting in many inconsistencies. As a result, ADL is now in charge of publishing, governing, and updating SCORM specifications and standards.

There have been several versions since SCORM’s inception in 1997. The latest version, SCORM 1.3, launched in 2004, and includes the ability to specify sequencing of activities that use content objects, and resolve ambiguities. This latest version also allows using and sharing information, regarding success status for multiple learning objectives or competencies across content objects and across courses for the same learner within the same learning management system (LMS). It also contains navigation abilities. The current version is 1.3.4 (SCORM, 4th edition). It was released in 2009 and includes testing requirements and content packaging extension requirements.

SCORM moves content, as well as students’ profiles and assessment records, from one platform or system to another, making data into modular objects that instructional designers and developers can reuse in other lessons. This enables any LMS to search other systems for usable content. SCORM does not run the LMS, but allows interoperability between content and different learning management systems, regardless of the tool used to create the content. SCORM also facilitates navigation and provides content sequencing strategies.

Introduction

The introduction of the reusable learning objects (RLOs) inspired by the object-oriented programming practice in computers and the integration of SCORM have facilitated Web-based instruction, contributing to a major paradigm shift in education and training. This allows instructional designers and developers greater opportunities for creating new and rich virtual learning environments (VLEs) with reusability, adaptability, and repurpose in the way technology delivery systems present information to the learner. At the same time, the success of these interactions depends on its smallest unit, the shareable content object, or SCO.

A SCO is the lowest level of granularity that communicates with the LMS. It has four requirements: it must be durable, reusable, accessible, and interoperable. A durable SCO is an electronic resource that does not need adjustments as learning technology develops over time. A reusable SCO is developed once; is context-independent and reused in different learning objectives or in other lessons. An accessible SCO is linked to a description of the content and can be found when required; an interoperable SCO is one that can be launched correctly by various VLEs, (Bailey, 2005).

319 SCORM and its Components

The Function of RLOs

The use of RLOs allows database-driven programs to store these objects only once, while using them many times throughout a course. Furthermore, it provides learners with a variety of visuals and updated text in their lessons. The use of RLOs allows VLEs to be highly interactive and adaptive to ongoing changes, keeping education and training current by making changes to only the content areas that need an update versus the entire course, which could be too expensive, thus saving space and money.

It is also important to establish a common data model that will ensure that all SCO information can be tracked by the different LMSs or VLEs, since SCOs are designed to be shared with other LMSs and VLEs . At this point, it is important to establish the parameters of what will be in that model, to establish common ways for SCORM to report the information to the LMS. For example, if a test SCO uses a unique test scoring system, the LMS may not know how to interpret the test score or process the given data. However, using a common data model, the LMS will be able to interpret the data according to the parameters (ADL, 2009b).

We all need to have the same definition and understanding of what an RLO is, because we are sharing these objects, sometimes from different places and maybe with different LMSs. Currently, there is no agreement on the type of RLO, or how small or granular it should be. Nor there is any agreement on the type of information or metadata one should include when describing the SCO or RLO (Churchill, 2007). For instance, some suggest that RLOs can only be of digital form (McGreal, 2004; Smith, 2004), while Wiley (2000) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, 2002) suggest they are predominately instructional components, digital in nature, that support learning. Moreover, there are definitions that talk mostly about their function, comparing them to LEGO™ building blocks that can be put together in any number of ways to produce a desired learning outcome, because they are standardized with a uniform pin size so this task can be accomplished (Hodgins & Conner, 2000).

Churchill proposes a classification containing six types of learning objects: presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information, and contextual representation objects. He also proposes that it would integrate various media modalities (text, animation, tables, diagrams, video, etc.) into a single learning intervention.

Even if all RLOs were digital, none of these definitions agree as to an RLO’s size and its granularity. Since a SCO interacts with diverse VLEs and LMSs, then this agreement is of the utmost importance. Without an agreement on SCO size and granularity, it will not be possible to have high SCO reusability, transferability, or interoperability between different proprietary models, which according to Hodgins and Conner could only happen with open accredited standards.

SCO Size

SCORM’s success will depend on the size of its SCO, a collection of one or more assets grouped together. It is the smallest object that communicates with the LMS; the SCO initiates all communication between the LMS and the SCO. Once the SCO is launched, it exchanges information with the LMS that can store and retrieve it.

The size of a SCO is affected by branching decisions and the amount of information required for a given learning outcome. The lesson SCO size most used in companies is a one-to-one relationship with the terminal objective (TO), which does not allow instructional designers to create new paths for reusability within the same lesson in the form of enabling objectives (EOs). However, if SCOs were smaller and they had a one-to-one relationship other EOs, several EOs could be clustered to work toward the TO, allowing for the creation of new paths for reusability (Chapman, 2007).

Currently, SCORM does not have a standardized size for its SCOs. Even though many government contractors have come up with their own SCORM-compliant software to develop their training products, each company determines the size of its SCO. However, ADL recommends that for greater reusability, SCOs should consist of small units. Therefore, to achieve a higher level of interaction, repurpose, reusability, and transferability using SCORM, the size of its SCOs need to decrease from a lesson to a lower level of instructional intervention.

320 Advantages of Smaller SCOs

Many instructional interactions, when made into smaller SCOs, can be reused in various sections or parts of a section throughout the same lesson, such as an opening presentation, a later definition, as part of a remediation, or summary. Moreover, some learners may need to repeat some activities at different levels of interaction, in which case smaller SCOs will allow the learners to move with ease from place to place. The same information will help the learner connect to the content by relating RLOs of similar tasks (eliciting prior knowledge) as the learner interacts with new material. The larger the SCO, the harder it is to reuse and adapt to other content; conversely, the smaller the SCO, the greater its reusability, adaptability, transportability, and ease of navigation.

Other benefits of smaller SCO size deal with cost benefit and productivity. Smaller SCO size will keep instructional programs current at a lower budget. This could solve budget problems for many institutions by updating only those SCOs that have become obsolete and thus keeping programs current at a lower cost. Similarly, with smaller SCOs, competencies can be taught as job-related tasks, increasing productivity.

Metadata and SCO Size

Metadata is “data about data,” (ADL, 2009a). Metadata is information that describes the SCO and its components; it is a form of labeling that enhances the search and discovery of these components. Metadata is used to facilitate discoverability and reuse of learning resources; it contains information such as content title, description, date of creation, and version. Each RLO has its own metadata as well, information about the object that serves as a cataloging information system (Smith, 2004). The Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (IEEE 1484.12.1-2002) is one standard used internationally that defines all of the data elements in terms of interrelationships that are both hierarchical and iterative. Those who use the LOM standard should follow its structure for maximum interoperability.

Larger SCOs have less descriptive metadata than smaller SCOs. A larger shareable content object that includes an entire course is context-independent, which means it is not related to any content organization structure, whereas a smaller SCO allows the designer to include context such as activities, tasks, commonalities, or competencies. Words selected as metadata should be universal and standard (used by everyone in the profession) so they can be easily tracked by other SCOs, achieving interoperability between systems. Activity metadata, on the other hand, should not only be universal, but also contain context-sensitive information. It should describe the activity in relation to its purpose, who can use it, etc. (ADL, 2011; Duval, 2001).

Reducing the SCO Size

A way to reduce the size of a SCO is by dividing it into various RLOs by means of activities instead of lessons that contain numerous activities, most of them similar in nature. Many activities share some of the same tasks and/or instructional events. Another way to create a small SCO is to generate the SCO itself, by combining assets (e.g., text, images, sound) or RLOs related in content and from there assembling them into a SCO.

Depending on its content, an activity may aggregate more than one SCO. For instance, when designing a lesson that involves engine maintenance, the designer would need to explain only once the importance of changing a filter or performing an oil change (no matter the type of engine). What changes from component to component are the periodicity (how often something is done) and the location of where it takes place. This example requires the SCO metadata to be more descriptive, for it relates to an activity that can be replicated in many places within the same lesson, as well as in other lessons. All those items that share the same content area or have a commonality are grouped into the same explanation, becoming a reusable SCO. Only the distinctive attributes or differences are placed into separate SCOs; thus increasing the number of SCOs per lesson by decreasing the SCO size according to shared tasks, activities, or commonalities.

A smaller SCO becomes transferrable to many other lessons, depending on its metadata, which describes the elements of the content package in its file. Metadata allows learning resources to be found by the LMS when stored in a content package or a repository. It is a best practice to describe learning objects with metadata; it increases their reusability by facilitating their search and discovery across LMSs.

321 SCOs and Data Models

According to ADL (2009b), a data model is a standard set of data elements used to define the information being tracked for a SCO’s completion, such as a quiz, a test, or an input interaction. It is the information that both the LMS and SCO need to know for reusability across platforms.

When designing an interactive instructional intervention, the activity metadata will support SCOs that will communicate with the LMS. The SCORM Run-Time Environment (RTE) deals with this communication. As the learner interacts with the content, the LMS evaluates the performance of the interaction and identifies an activity that corresponds with its input. The LMS next launches the corresponding SCO from within a VLE and presents it to the learner. It then tracks and stores the records of the learner’s activity along with the SCO. This is the function of the RTE (Bailey, 2005).

For SCOs that will be shared with other VLEs and LMSs, it is critical to establish a data model that will ensure that the information will be tracked across systems. It is important to establish the parameters of what will be in that data model, creating common ways for SCORM to report the information to the LMS. These rules are also central for sequencing and navigation.

Smaller SCOs will require a different data model, as there will be a greater level of interaction between the learner and the VLE. The greater the interaction the superior the educational experience for the learner. However, SCORM standards will have to adjust to these new challenges, as new technologies demand new data models.

Reusability Increasing Reusability

Dividing SCOs at the activity level allows greater reusability, transferability, and portability. A smaller, well-designed RLO can be reused in various ways: by different learners working on the same course, or by the same learner working on different tasks or activities, or solving different problems; it can also be used at different levels of knowledge or skill and in different disciplines that share the same competencies.

To increase reusability, break large SCOs into smaller units, which can be used independently of each other but include as much contextual setting as required to support the content; make sure to change its metadata by providing information that is more descriptive and precise, relating the information to the activity instead of the lesson. This descriptive metadata will facilitate discoverability within a larger content repository. This way, each activity will have its own “activity” metadata repository through which a reusable learning object can be searched as opposed to a larger SCO that only has all its RLOs within a single metadata repository: the course or lesson metadata repository (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Difference between the size of a lesson SCO and activities SCOs

322 This descriptive metadata will allow similar resources (i.e., tasks associated with the activity) to associate as RLO-relevant to the selected SCO. It will also allow the LMS to find resources based on similarities when necessary.

To increase reusability, make sure each SCO is self-contained and can stand on its own. This means that aside from the connections to its own RLOs and the other SCOs, there are no links to outside material (Figure 2). If there are links to outside material, do not make its access mandatory for completion of the task within the learning object. Also, eliminate the RLO’s reliance on other learning objects that would prevent its mobility to other sharable content objects (Smith, 2004).

Figure 2: SCOs dependent on internal and external links for completion of its task

Reusability and Mental Models

Reusability helps in the development of mental models, which are internal images of what is true and how the world works, created through computer human interaction. Some characteristics that will help build mental models are affordance, simplicity, familiarity, availability, flexibility, and feedback (Khella, 2002). For example, an activity SCO presented at various times becomes familiar to the learner; it later will help build upon prior knowledge. A frequently accessed activity SCO reinforces and enhances the mental model. Similarly, immediate feedback throughout the lesson helps in the development of the mental model.

Similarities and Differences as Building Blocks

SCOs can be grouped by commonalities or similarities in content, such as according to how components are made, placed, used, maintained, grouped, selected, and the like. In this case, a commonality may have several SCOs bound together by a function, purpose, location, etc. Whenever there are similarities, there are also some differences and contrasts that need to be explained and/or highlighted. Content aggregations by commonalities help in identifying competencies by recognizing job-related tasks used in Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA), which are required for a successful job performance in a job situation (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004).

In the current lesson SCO size, as displayed in Figure 1, these commonalities and differences are part of an entire lesson (a large SCO); common activities cannot be separated and reused. However, if these sections were of smaller SCOs (i.e., activity SCOs) then they could have multiple functions by being separated and reused multiple times as different activities, as presentation, examples, and non-examples in other parts of the existing lesson and/or other courses. Likewise, commonalities themselves, when made into activity SCOs, can be reused in other parts of the lesson or other courses that share the same activities and/or have the same competencies required for a particular job. Competencies are important in training as they increase productivity by distinguishing what is necessary for exemplary performance (Rothwell, 2001). Instructional designers can also use commonalities as building blocks for the next section that shares the same tasks or competencies, thus increasing knowledge transfer.

By dividing SCOs into smaller units, instructional designers can have a wide variety of uses for the same activities or RLOs. For instance, each SCO will have its own navigation system as each will have a subset of

323 reusable learning objects and metadata associated with it. Reusable learning objects become consumer-friendly, as they can be reused multiple times not only as a parent activity but as subsections of parent activities as well, according to their commonalities or differences. Amount of reusability per lesson will depend on the instructional interaction and instructional strategies, which provide a greater learning experience as the transfer of knowledge is increased. Figure 3 depicts a SCO that is presented to the learner and later recalled several times as it is compared to new material.

Figure 3. SCO Reusability within the same lesson.

SCORM and Emerging Technologies

Emerging Technologies, Reusability, and Transportability

Many new delivery systems, such as those use in mlearning (mobile learning), transfer only small sections of lessons at a time and/or activities that can be transported on small video segments or selected text (e.g., via iPod, podcasts, mp3 players, cell phones, or other applications). If SCORM is to be part of the new and evolving communication technologies, it will have to reduce its SCO size and modify its communication system to allow for content aggregation at a lower level. For instance, instead of aggregating all content under one objective, it would have to aggregate small amounts of content under various activities, each activity linked to an enabling objective (EO), which is part of a terminal objective (TO). This allows the presentation of each activity as a separate unit, under the umbrella of the same EO. The LMS will present the activity SCO to the learner; then will evaluate the learner’s interaction according to the input received. From there, the LMS will launch the corresponding activity SCO, according the TO’s sequence, and present it to the learner until all EOs have been fulfilled. In this way, each activity can be organized separately; some can be reused later as needed (e.g., as presentations, examples, non- examples, feedback, and/or remediation). Based on the descriptive metadata as well as the navigation and RTE data model, the LMS will have to determine which SCORM content needs to be delivered next.

As for navigation, SCORM sequencing does not put restrictions on how EOs and TOs are associated with activities; nor does it make any assumptions on how to interpret learning objectives (ADL, 2009c). It is therefore up to the instructional designer and developer to divide SCOs into smaller units and allow selections by categories and/or specific activities to achieve greater reusability, adaptability, and transferability of content.

324 SCORM and Web 2.0 Environments

Web 2.0 technology systems involve multiple authors, while SCORM was created for a single author or team. Although the latest SCORM version allows input for learner interaction, it is mainly in the form of assessment, since each question is considered an interaction. At this point, SCORM also lacks a model with standards that would allow interaction between the instructor and the learners, as well as and between learners themselves. These, among other constraints, make SCORM unsuitable for Web 2.0 environments (Rogers et al., 2007).

As Web 2.0 technology and new delivery systems become available, such as those in use in mleaning (e.g., podcasts, mp3 player, iPod, and iPad), new mobile applications and virtual spaces that communicate in shorter segments will demand higher reusability, transferability, and portability, requiring smaller SCO size than the current lesson size. If SCORM is to be part of these new tools, it will need to decrease its SCO size to the activity level. Emerging technologies will also require that SCORM have new standards for navigation, as these VLEs behave different not only requiring smaller SCOs but also calling for a different data model.

Summary

Decreasing SCO size by activity content will allow instructional designers and developers to create interactive instruction, providing greater learning experiences and promoting a greater level of interaction between topics of the same lesson as well as between lessons of the same course, thus increasing transfer of knowledge. It helps provide feedback as well as remediation. Smaller SCO sizes will also help keep programs current by updating only those SCOs that have become obsolete, keeping programs current at a lower budget. Similarly, competencies can be taught as job-related tasks, increasing productivity. Learners, on the other hand, will be able to connect learning experiences, such as tasks and processes, in a meaningful way without having to relearn steps; they will be able to engage fully in interactive lessons.

If SCORM is to survive the future, it will have to evolve to the point that it will integrate the Web 2.0 technology, since these applications and spaces, such as blog technology that allows more participation and social interaction among learners, are already being incorporated into the curriculum. Furthermore, educators are using multiple formats across several platforms to increase the chances that their message will reach the intended audience. Education and training is communication; while the basic message is not changing, the vehicle is…and fast.

References

Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2011). Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.gov

Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2009a). Sharable content object reference model (SCORM®) 2004 4th Edition, Content aggregation model (CAM) Version 1.1, 2009.

Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2009b). Sharable content object reference model (SCORM®) 2004 4th Edition, Run-time environment (RTE) Version 1.1, 2009.

Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2009c). Sharable content object reference model (SCORM®) 2004 4th Edition, Sequencing and navigation (SN) Version 1.1, 2009.

Bailey, W. (2005). What is ADL SCORM? In Joint Information Systems Committee, Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards, Standards briefings series. Retrieved from http://www.icodeon.com/pdf/WhatIsScorm2_web.pdf

Chapman B. L. (2007). Tools for design and development of online instruction. In Spector M. J., Merrill, M. D., Van Merrienboer J., & Driscoll M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 671-684).

325 Churchill D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Education Tech Research and Development 55, 479–497.

Dubois D.D. & Rothwell, WJ. (2004). Competency-based or a traditional approach to training? Training & Development, 58(4), 46-57.

Duval, E. (2001). Standardized metadata for education: a status report. In ED-MEDIA 2001 world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications, proceedings. Tampere, Finland.

IEEE 1484.12.1-(2002). Draft standard for learning object metadata. Retrieved from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf

Hodgins, W. & Conner, M. (2000). Everything you ever wanted to know about learning standards but were afraid to ask. In Learning in the new economy (LiNE Zine). Retrieved from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/wheyewtkls.htm

Khella A. (2002). Knowledge and mental models in HCI. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2002/cmsc838s/tichi/knowledge.html

McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: a practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9), 21–32.

Rogers, P. C., Liddle, S. W., Chan, P., Doxey, A., & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 Learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 8(3), 16-33.

Rothwell, W.J. (2001). A report on workplace learning and performance. PowerPoint presentation of the Institute for Learning and Performance Improvement. Wayne State University. Retrieved from http://www.ilpi.wayne.edu/

Smith, R. S. (2004). Guidelines for authors of learning objects. New Media Consortium.

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.) The instructional use of learning objects, 1-35. Retrieved from http://reusability.org/read/#1

326