This is a discussion page of SCORM and IMS LD, from the perspective of researchers in the learning sciences who develop new learning technologies and substantial learning content, with a focus on inquiry-based pedagogy. Many of these researchers have been confronted recently with the insistence of the e-learning community that they adopt certain standards like SCORM, resulting in a need to understand the applicability and limitations of those standards. The Background page offers more on the context for this discussion.
Below, we itemize several limitations of SCORM and IMS LD that emerged from a recent analysis we performed in the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) center. We want to make sure that these conclusions are accurate, and wish to invite visitors to this Wiki to comment on these points, and add new ones. This is all part of our effort to collect the wider community wisdom about the application of e-learning standards to research-based systems in the learning sciences.
If you wish to remain anonymous, simply edit this page, add comments, etc, without logging in. If you wish to participate in name, please create a Wiki account (very simple) by clicking on the "sign up" link at the upper right hand of the page. Alternatively, you could also just add your name in the text you contribute
SCORM
(please feel free to add more, to edit, or add comments)
- Open structured inquiry learning, where learning content can be used in unpredictable or multiple fashions, is difficult to capture with SCORM. For example, certain learning resources may be difficult to predefine, as the instruction might depend on new goals or needs of the learner that emerge during the learning process.
- Broader contextual elements of learning and instruction, which may include peer collaborations, offline activities, teacher interventions, formative assessments, etc, are not easy to accommodate in a SCORM-based system.
- Tracking and sequencing of a student group's actions, as well as individual students' actions in the context of group work is not supported in SCORM.
- SCORM is not well equipped to handle certain forms of student-generated content. For example, during an inquiry project students might make concept maps, drawings, brainstorms, structured scientific arguments, or Web searches that would be used in subsequent learning activities. Moreover, students might collect data through observations, probeware or experiments, then save that data for use in later activities (e.g., analysis). Similarly, simulation environments could provide microworlds for students who freely explore settings, test hypotheses, etc. These student-generated settings might then be captured for use in later activities, as well as for purposes of assessment. Any such learning content might also be shared with other students remotely, or in future school years.
IMS Learning Design
(please feel free to add more, to edit, or add comments)
- IMS LD addresses the issues we have found problematic in SCORM. But one important problem is that implementation of LD seems to be underspecified, which dilutes the strength of any standardization aspect.
One of the major strengths of SCORM is that it provides a set of specifications that cover many aspects of design and deployment of digital learning material. It is highly specific and not so difficult to implement, but therefore impose severe restrictions with regard to expressivity. LD on the other hand is unrestrictive, but more difficult to implement.
Add Comment