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.