Technical Content Considerations for Enterprise Learning … A Technical Content... · 2011-03-17 · SCORM 2004 Run-Time Environments From an LMS perspective, SCORM 2004 is a gigantic

Technical Content Considerations for

Enterprise Learning Environment Projects

- A primer into e-learning standards -

Frank Hanfland

Education Engagement Manager

Proprietary & Confidential©2008 SAP Page 2 of 23

Figure 1 – SCORM RTE

Introduction

Today’s world of training has introduced new terminology, such as accelerated learning and immersivesimulations, new technologies, such as synchronous collaboration, and new business requirements, forexample ‘Just-In-Time” training. Yet, all along there have been standards guiding the development anddelivery of e-learning content. This article serves to provide an insight into the SAP Enterprise LearningEnvironment and how to best plan for content delivery, whether developed in-house or purchased.

The Problem with Standards

Most Learning ManagementSystem (LMS) providers andauthoring tool vendors, as well asoff-the-shelf content providerswill make a claim to be compliantwith the Sharable Content ObjectReference Model (SCORM ), orcompliant with the AviationIndustry CBT Committee (AICC).

The Advanced DistributedLearning group (ADL) is thegoverning body of the SCORMstandard.

The problem is that before SCORM 2004, only a few data elements were mandatory, and the definitionof HOW these date elements were implemented was wide open for interpretation. As Figure 1illustrates, all 3 Sharable Content Objects (SCO) are “SCORM Conformant” (there is actually no “SCORMcompliant” classification), but at different levels and consequently may not report the data aboutprogress and/or completion that you might expect.

AICC defines compliance as following any one of the 9 AICC Guidelines & Recommendations (AGR). Theproblem is that only ARG 6 and AGR10 pertain to communication between content and a ComputerManaged Instruction (CMI) System, AICC’s term for LMS. In addition the LMS must support the data theSCO sends, and the SCO has to send the data you will need for later evaluations.

This in essence means, even though a course is compliant or conformant, it does by no means indicatethat it will fulfill your business requirements from a data gathering perspective, as well as end userexperience perspective.


Solving the Puzzle

Just as with solving a real puzzle, one cannot just pick pieces blindly and jam them together with therest of the puzzle pieces – they either don’t fit, or they break other pieces. The key is to find the piecesthat fit, and gently putting the big picture together. The only difference is that your puzzle is differentthan any other puzzle you’ll find at any other company. In order to look at which pieces fit, we’ll look atthese areas:

Selecting content standards

In this chapter we’ll compare the technical nature of SCORM, AICC and non-standards compliantcontent, with particular focus on the data elements.

Authoring standards

Here we’ll have a look at some authoring fundamentals, what to look for in authoring tools, andlook at vendor authored content.

Implementing the standard

Finally, we’ll talk about how to put all the pieces together- how and where the contenttechnology strategy fits with a new SAP Enterprise Learning Environment implementation.

These topics will allow you to take a holistic view at your content requirements and ensure that anystrategy you choose will fit your companies’ requirements. The puzzle mentioned above is of course asynonym for “Content Technology Strategy”, a predictable, long-term direction that will lead toanticipatable results.


Selecting Content Standards

Begin with the End in Mind

Once employees have completed an e-learning course, managers are tasked with evaluating attendancedata. What data elements need to be evaluated may be different from what another manager in thesame company may need to evaluate, and most likely be very different from what data a manager in asimilar role at another company might need to look at.

No matter what content standard or authoring technology isbeing used, one must first look at what data the contentneeds to pass to the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment.The SAP Enterprise Learning Environment is SCORM 1.2RTE2, SCORM 2004, and AICC AGR6 and AGR10 CMI v4.0compliant (see Appendix). This means that from a datastandpoint, the SAP Enterprise Learning Environmentsupports all SCORM data elements, and all mandatory elements based on the AICC standard. The tasktherefore lies in identifying the data elements the learning object (SCO or AU) should be able to transferto the LMS. In short – make a list of what data items you want to track, then compare those to thecontent standards and align them to the available data elements (See Appendix).

One item you CAN rely on is - that if content has been authored to comply with the packaging guidelinesdefined in the standards, and has passed a self-test using the individual standard’s testing tool, you canimport the content into the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment

AICC Content Standard

Not too long ago, all e-learning content was proprietarily authored to launch with a specific LMS. This ofcourse limited a companies’ choice of whom to purchase content from and what authoring tool toutilize. The aviation industry has historically been relying on e-learning content, and in 1989 theAviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC) issued the first AICC Guideline & Recommendation (AGR) tospecify interaction between content and a LMS (called CMI in AICC terms). While the AICC specificallyconcerns the airline industry, this guideline found wide-spread acceptance in other industries.

In general, AICC-compliant content offers 15 different mandatory data elements for tracking and LMScommunication; and the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment supports all of them. However theoptional data elements are not supported by SAP Enterprise Learning Environment. If, for example, anAssignable Unit asks a leaner for their telephone number and stores that data in theStudent_Demographics.Telephone data element, and sends that data to the SAP EnterpriseLearning Environment, it is simply ignored. Therefore that data will not be available on any report fromwithin the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment.

MAKE A LIST OF WHAT DATAITEMS YOU WANT TO TRACK, AND

THEN COMPARE THOSE TO THECONTENT STANDARDS


BEST PRACTICE: INITIALIZE THE SCOON THE FIRST PAGE, SUBMIT DATATO THE SAP ENTERPRISE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT AS SOON AS IT’SAVAILABLE, TERMINATE THE SCO ON

THE LAST PAGE.

AICC Content Standard, continued

Unfortunately, the AICC definition of “compliancy” is so loosely defined that none of the mandatoryelements actually matter, because the data elements are defined in AGR 6 (for file-based content) andAGR10 (for HACP content). A provider could be in compliance with any of the remaining 7 AGR’s andcall itself AICC compliant, without actually being able to provide content that sends any data at all.

AICC Remote Content (HACP)

One of the most predominant advantages of AICC-based content is the definition of AGR10 – the AICCHTTP Communication Protocol, or AICC HACP. This standard defines communication between a CMI andcontent hosted on an external server. Other than complex and custom SOAP interfaces or an XI-basedintegration, this standard is the only remote content standard that exists. In essence, the learningcontent provider sends between 4 and 6 files. These files are imported into the Authoring Environment,published, and once the course is launched in the content player, the content player actually launchesthe course on the content provider’s server, and listens to any data elements and updates the contentsends back to the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment.

SCORM Content Standards

The Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is the natural evolution of the AICC standards.The current version of SCORM is SCORM 2004 3rd Edition; however the majority of companies has notyet adopted that standard and is using SCORM 1.2. SCORM 1.0 & 1.1 are no longer in use.

No matter what version of SCORM is used, it is the CMI’sresponsibility to launch the content (or SCO). The SCO’sneeds to Initialize (LMSInitialize) communication to theLMS before sending any data, and Terminate(LMSFinish)communication to the LMS after it is done. Unfortunately,SCORM does not define at what point in time thissequence needs to occur, and consequently there areseveral vendors that store all data with the content until

the very last page has been completed. Other variants of this type of collecting data before sendinginclude launching a secondary window which must remain open during the entire session. If for anyreason the communication to the server gets interrupted, for example by a brief network outage, alllearner progress and other data is lost. In addition, most users are confused by having a second windowopen, and no matter how explicit the instructions are, often close it before realizing that they “deleted”any learning progress they had made. It is considered a best practice to Initialize the SCO on load of thevery first page (before any actual content is loaded), to submit any data to the SAP Enterprise LearningEnvironment as soon as it’s available, and to Terminate the SCO on unloading of the last page.


SCORM 1.2 Run-Time Environments

While SCORM defined the standards tighter, the model added complexity. SCORM 1.2 defines severallevels of conformance, or Run-time Environments (RTE). In addition, different levels apply to the LMSthan apply to the SCO. As mentioned before, the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment supports all dataelements as outlined in the Appendix. Let’s examine the various conformance levels for SCO’s:

SCO–RTE1

(SCORM Version 1.2 Run-Time Environment Conformant – Minimum)

Invokes, at a minimum, the LMSInitialize() and LMSFinish() API functions

SCO–RTE1+Mandatory

(SCORM Version 1.2 Run-Time Environment Conformant – Minimum with Some MandatoryData Model Elements)

Implements support for correctly getting and/or setting one or more LMS mandatory SCORMVersion 1.2 Run-Time Environment Data Model Elements.

SCO–RTE1+Optional

(SCORM Version 1.2 Run-Time Environment Conformant – Minimum with Some Optional DataModel Elements)

Implements support for correctly getting and/or setting one or more LMS optional SCORMVersion 1.2 Run-Time Environment Data Model Elements.

SCO–RTE1+Mandatory+Optional

(SCORM Version 1.2 Run-Time Environment Conformant – Minimum with Some Optional andSome Mandatory Data Model Elements)

Implements support for correctly getting and/or setting one or more LMS mandatory SCORMVersion 1.2 Run-Time Environment Data Model Elements AND implements support for correctlygetting and/or setting one or more LMS optional SCORM Version 1.2 Run-Time EnvironmentData Model Elements.


A SCO, AT MINIMUM, MUSTINITIALIZE AND TERMINATE. ALL

OTHER DATA ELEMENTS AREOPTIONAL.

SCORM 1.2 Run-Time Environments, continued

As you can see there is no SCORM-ALL conformance level. What this practically means for you is thatyou simply cannot trust the “SCORM Conformant” label. You need to identify to what RTE the content isconformant, and which data elements are and submitted, since even the highest SCO-RTE specifies “oneor more” mandatory elements. You have to go back to “Square One” and take your list of required dataelements and compare them to a content sample. Run the content sample though the ADL Test Suite,examine the report and compare it line-by-line with your requirements.

This analyses applies to authoring tools, custom developed content, and all off-the shelf content. Thisanalysis should be the basis of selecting a tool, signing a contract with a vendor, or developing atemplate for future content development.

SCORM 2004 Run-Time Environments

From an LMS perspective, SCORM 2004 is a gigantic leapforward, since the concept of RTE has been eliminated.If an LMS is SCORM 2004 conformant, it supports all dataelements. Unfortunately, the SCO-RTE has not beenmodified. A SCO, at minimum, must Initialize andTerminate. All other data elements are optional. Therea few more data models, most notably the split between the concept of “completion” and “success”.SCORM 2004 allows a learner to unsuccessfully complete a course. Unfortunately this still means to youthat you must analyze the data requirements you wish to track, regardless of content standard.


Non-standards compliant content

The SAP Enterprise Learning Environment comes with a set of tools that allows users to import non-standards-compliant content. This tool, the Authoring (Structuring) Environment allows association oflearning objectives and metadata, and to create performance-based assessments. From a datareporting perspective, non-compliant content data elements are:

Completion Time

Score

Completion Status

Number of previous attempts

The Authoring Environment can package non-compliant web-content into re-usable objects, very similarto the SCO concept and in combination with the Test Author can be used to create objectives-basedlearning content that reports data back the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment. Even though the datais slightly different (and stored in different tables) from the data elements defined by SCORM or AICC,the data is similar to SCO RTE1+Mandatory.

Alternatives

If none of the standards suffice, or you simply cannot find a data model and integration level that fulfillsthe business requirements, or you have an established relationship with a vendor whose content cannotbe imported, you may need to look into creating a non-standard interface. The SAP Enterprise LearningEnvironment features several ways to connect and interface with external content. There are basicallytwo options:

Static WBT:

The content is simply launched via a URL. Any and all data tracking happens on the system thathouses the content. This data is them imported into the SAP Enterprise Learning Environmentthough a data interface.

XI:

The XI connector allows course to be launched from the Learner Portal in a transparent manner.The XI connector sends and receives data from an external LMS and mediates the informationexchange. This integration is highly customizable to suit virtually any requirement, however theexternal vendor’s system has be able to communicate the data that you require, so the SAPEnterprise Learning Environment can receive that data.


Summary

In summary, the content standards were developed for CMI Interoperability, to allow content to beported from one LMS to another, to give vendors a packaging and import standard, so that off-the shelfcontent could be developed. The standards were not created to address consistent data communicationbetween the content and the LMS. It is up to each business to identify what data elements are needed,and to prescribe what data elements to send, and when to send them. Then find authoring tools thatsupport that standard, develop templates that fulfill the requirements and communicate thoserequirements to vendors.


Figure 2 – Single SCO Structure

Authoring Standards

Introduction

This topic is again technical in nature, and concerns itself with the principals of content authoringaccording to the various standards. It does not discuss any instructional design methodologies,engagement principals, or usability considerations. This chapter also does not focus on the “reusable”aspect and proper instructional design methodologies related to developing SCOs that are aligned withthis philosophy. It does concern itself with the issue of content sequencing, navigation between pages,topics and chapters, as well scoring concepts.

Single SCO or Multi SCO?

Let’s discuss this topic right up front. Since navigation frompage to page in the SCO is responsibility of the SCO, not theLMS and there is no clearly identified method of telling the LMSwhat page the learner is on and how many pages there are,completion is tracked at the SCO level by the SAP EnterpriseLearning Environment. This means if a course has only a singleSCO, it is either 0% completed or 100% completed – no matterhow many chapters, modules, pages or other learning elementsare included in the content, as shown in Figure 2.Unfortunately most commercial authoring tools package acourse as a single SCO, regardless of the real structure of thecontent itself. The same principal is true for AICC, wheretracking occurs at the Assignable Until (AU) level. The problemcan be avoided by properly designing the content structure,then create each SCO (or AU), and use a tool (such as AdobeDreamweaver or Reload Editor) to create a multi SCO manifest.


Figure 3 – Multi SCO Structure

Single SCO or Multi SCO, continued

An open discussion involving allgroups in your company that createe-learning content should produce astandard definition of coursestructures with clearly definedguidelines of how SCOs (or AUs)align to topics, modules, chapters,or pages, as illustrated in Figure 3.

In addition, a thorough review ofcontent management designstandards should provide an insightat which content-level a SCO can beconsidered effectively reusable –while this aspect is not technical, itis an important consideration whenapproaching managed content.


Navigation, Sequencing and Completion

AICC - The SAP Enterprise Learning Environment imports AICC content at the Assignable Unit (AU)(converted to Learning Object) and Module (converted to Learning Net) levels. Navigation from page topage is responsibility of the AU, however navigation from AU to AU and higher levels is responsibility ofthe LMS.

The AICC Course Structure Data Model allows for very complex course structuring though optionalcourse structure elements – the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment does not support dynamiccontent-based navigation in AICC (prescriptive learning). Real-World experience shows, that while AICCoffers some very comprehensive data models and course structure models, most authoring tools andLearning Management Systems support only the mandatory elements. As with all content standards,the AU is responsible for reporting any data back to the LMS (such as completion); the LMS does notvalidate the data, but simply records it.

SCORM 1.2 - dictates the responsibilities of navigation between SCO’s to the LMS, and navigation withineach SCO to the SCO itself, that means that the LMS is entirely unaware of what goes within the pages ofeach SCO. In similarity to the AICC standard, the LMS does not know what “completion” means, or how“completion” was obtained. It simply waits for the SCO to issue the “completed” message, and recordsthat status. Next!

As far as sequencing and navigation are concerned, SCORM 1.2 features 2 models. Forced sequentialnavigation, or pick and choose. They function exactly like their name says. A leaner must eitherprogress through the content in strict sequential manner, or they can deviate from the sequence as theywish. The standard does not support a logical “prescriptive” evaluation.

SCORM 2004 - This newest standard fully supports objectives-based dynamic navigation throughcontent. If a learner for example demonstrates mastery of a concept through an activity (such as a pre-test), the content has the ability to direct the LMS to skip that relevant chapter of content. As such,SCORM 2004 has made a change in the standard that allows the SCO to navigate to the next SCO.Overall the topic of sequencing is beyond the scope of this article and can be very complex – socomplex, that at this time there is not a single commercial authoring tool that supports SCORM 2004Sequencing. Finally, SCORM 2004 has divided the completion status into “Completion” and “Success” –allowing leaner’s to complete the content, yet “fail” the course.


Figure 4 – SCO Flow

Putting it all together

You will notice a pattern as you read this article. There is simply no single rule to fulfill your businessrequirements, not is there a rule in the standards that prescribes “when” and what data is evaluated bythe content before a status is sent back to the SAP Enterprise Learning Environment. To reiterate, it isthe content’s responsibility to determine how content is presented, how navigation is handled withineach content unit, and how any learning activity is evaluated before sending any data to the LMS.

The key is again to evaluate how your business needs the content to be evaluated and how and whenthe business expects data to be sent. The diagram in Figure 4 represents a minimum best-practiceapproach (in between Initializing and Terminating the SCO), and can serve as an example or basis fordiscovery for your own business requirements.


Here is what happens and when:

Page 1 On the very first page, as soon as the HTML header is loaded by the browser, the SCOsets its own completion_status explicitly to incomplete, leaving no room forany ambiguity. In addition, the SCO updates the session_time, and sets thelesson_location for bookmarking purposes. This initial data transmission iscritical, and should occur before any content is loaded.The SCO does this on each page, once on loading, once on unloading. Finally, the SCOinitializes its assessment score model. This ensures that the LMS is always aware of whatexactly the SCO is doing, and in case of premature termination of the SCO, by whateverreason (learner leaves, computer breaks, network crashes, etc), the LMS has the latestinformation already stored.

Page 2 There is nothing special going on this page, other than repeating thelesson_status. Technically, this step is not necessary, but follows the principle ofbeing “rather safe than sorry”. Finally the SCO updates the session_time andupdates the bookmark with a lesson_loaction call.

Page 3 This page has some interactive content, such as a simulation. If your businessrequirements dictate that you must store the details, such as the time spent on theinteraction, what the interaction type was (a multiple-choice question, for example),what the question text was, the answers, and which answer the learner chose, then theSCO has to initialize and report the cmi.interactions elements (there are dozensof them). Again, as soon as the data is available, it will be sent to the SAP EnterpriseLearning Environment to protect against data loss. In addition, the “standard” SCOstatus calls are sent as well.

Page 4 This Page is similar to Page 3 and will not be further discussed.

Page 5 This page contains the assessment that determines mastery of the content. There are 2methods to decide if a student has mastered the content. The SCO can evaluate if ascore is higher than the passing requirement, or the LMS can be informed about thepassing requirement though the manifest file. The SCO then sends the score and the SAPEnterprise Learning Environment evaluates passing or failing status.As a general rule, it is more consistent if the scoring process is handled by the SCO. Sincethe SCO already knows the minimum and maximum score, it should know the masteryscore and evaluate a passing or failing status. In addition, the SCO should preventnavigation to ever reach the last page in the content, where thecmi.core.Lesson_status is set to completed. This guarantees that only masteryof the content will lead to a “completed” course. Any score below the passingrequirement should be sent to a different page.

Result Page The PASS result page actually sets the cmi.core.lesson_status to completedor passed. This page is only reachable if the assessment is passed with a score equal toor higher than the mastery score. This page also contains some instructions for closingthe content player.The FAIL result page explicitly sets the cmi.core.lesson_status to incompleteor failed, and includes some verbiage to re-take the course.


Implementing the standard

Introduction

Implementing a content strategy can be a very lengthy process, depending on established vendorrelationships, number of courses authored in-house, the structure and abilities of the contentdesign/management resources. The most important part about implementing a standard is to plan forit, which was discussed in the previous two chapters, and to simply put the plan into action. However,there are significant differences between organizations that have large content libraries andorganizations that are just now beginning to venture into e-learning (or have just a few courses).

New Implementations

Once you have formulated your content requirements, you need to communicate and enforce theserequirements with:

Content Vendors

For custom designed content, you can insist the vendor follows the guidelines. For off-the shelfcontent, that might not be easily achieved, and there might need to be some customization andadditional cost on the content provider’s part. However, if the import and data requirementsare based on legitimate business requirements, those are expenses that must be absorbed andcan be part of the overall proposal process.

In-House Authoring

For organizations that have in-house teams that author content, the standards you havedeveloped have of course been designed to meet every group’s needs, as discussed in the firstchapter. It is extremely important that the teams develop along the same guidelines in order toensure proper functionally of content. This then allows a template-based developmentapproach, which will lead to time and cost savings through reduced development and QA cycles,as well as a better learner experience.

Authoring Tools

The in-house teams will need tools to author content. There are over 100 different enterprise-level authoring tools on the market, in every price range and every language you can imagine.This chapter does not cover any recommendation or content technology; however a fewguidelines are listed in the appendix.

In summary, you will need to prescribe to content vendors and in-house designers how each SCO is tocommunicate with the LMS. In addition you will have to evaluate which content authoring tools willsuffice for your requirements.


AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM,ONE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE

OF EACH GROUP HAS TO BETESTED END-TO-END.

Existing Libraries

For companies with existing libraries and relationships to vendors, they must test each coursearchitecture end-to-end. This means getting together with vendors and internal teams to categorizecourses by authoring architecture. For example, there may be 20 courses that are based on template A,and another 20 courses that are based on template B. At an absolute minimum, one representativesample of each group has to be tested end-to-end. The same is true for all content to needs to bedelivered. If content is found to be working properly – great. Chances are you will encounterdifferences between how existing content functions from a LMS communication perspective. You havetwo options:

Transition Immediately

This means either correcting content to work as expected by re-writing, re-coding or otherwisemodifying the content to work as you specified in your requirements document. It also meansworking with vendors (and sometimes forming relationships with new vendors) to standardizeany content you may have in your library.

Transition Over time

If content is at least functioning properly and reports the absolute minimum requirements yourhave identified, a more cost- and resource effective solution seeks to version content at the endof its life. Courses that are being revised and/or rewritten because their instructional contenthas expired are aligned with the new content requirements, while courses whose content is stillapplicable, is allowed to be “grandfathered”.

In reality, you will most likely encounter a mix of the twomethods listed above, because some content simply willnot conform to your minimum requirements, and willneed to be re-authored or re-purchased, while othercontent may simply need to wait until it’s time to revisionthe learning content.

It should be anticipated that such a transition can take between 3-5 years, depending on volume andcontent type, as well as industry type.


Figure 5 – ASAP Project Cycle

Project Alignment

By now you understand that contentis a complex science, and a little bitof an art as well – content is certainlynot plug-and-play, as many want youto believe. Content is whatseparates an LMS implementationfrom any other transactional system,and needs to be considered duringevery phase of the ASAP project cycle (Figure 5), assuming you have developed your businessrequirements.

Phase Tasks1 Catalog Content Library

End-to-End Test courses for compliance with requirements, note deviations

2 Define transition strategy for contendPlan resource requirements for re-work of contentIdentify/negotiate potential contract/vendor changesSelect authoring tools

3 Physical migration of content into QA environmentDevelopment work to re-author/modify contentTrain staff on new authoring toolsComplete QA testing

4 Migrate content from QA to Production

5 Monitor utilization & bandwidth

A surprisingly large number of implementations have not planned for any content migration at all, andas result have faced tremendous challenges to get the LMS implementation to go live. In the end, it isimportant to understand that a content strategy requires proper planning and the correct number ofqualified resources. A content specialist has a different skills profile than most HCM consultants, as theproject is different from any other as outlined in this guide.


Appendix A – SAP Enterprise Learning Environment Supported Data Elements

SCORM 1.2 Data Elements supported by LSO 6.02(+)

Element Mandatory Supported Commentscmi.version yes yescmi.core.student_nme yes yescmi.core.lesson_location yes yescmi.core.credit yes yes Only field value “credit” supported.cmi.core.lesson_status yes yescmi.core.entery yes yescmi.core.score.raw yes yescmi.core.score.min no yescmi.core.score.max no yescmi.core.total_time yes yescmi.core.lesson_mode yes yes Only field value “normal” supported.cmi.core.exit yes yescmi.core.session_time yes yescmi.suspend_data yes yescmi.launch_data yes yescmi.comments no yescmi.comments_form_lms no yescmi.objectives no yescmi.student_data no yescmi.student_preference no yescmi.interactions no yes



SCORM 2004 Data Elements supported by LSO 6.02(+)

Element Mandatory Supported Commentscmi.comments_from_learner yes yescmi.comments_from_lms yes yescmi.completion_status yes yescmi.completion_threshold yes yescmi.credit yes yes Only field value “credit” supported.cmi.entry yes yescmi.exit yes yescmi.interactions yes yescmi.launch_data yes yescmi.learner_id yes yescmi.learner_name yes yescmi.learner_preference yes yescmi.location yes yescmi.max_time_allowed yes yescmi.mode yes yes Only field value “normal” supported.cmi.objectives yes yescmi.progress_measure yes yescmi.scaled_passing_score yes yescmi.score yes yescmi.session_time yes yescmi.success_status yes yescmi.suspend_data yes yescmi.time_limit_action yes yescmi.total_time yes yes



AICC AGR6/10 Data Elements supported by LSO 6.02(+)

Element Mandatory SupportedCore Yes YesCore.Student_Id Yes YesCore.Student_Name Yes YesCore.Output_File AGR6 - Yes/AGR10 - No AGR6 - Yes/AGR10 - NoCore.Lesson_Location Yes YesCore.Credit Yes YesCore.Lesson_Status Yes YesCore.Exit Yes YesCore.Entry Yes YesCore.File_Path AGR6 - Yes/AGR10 - No AGR6 - Yes/AGR10 - NoCore.Score Yes YesCore.Session_Time Yes YesCore.Total_Time Yes YesCore.Lesson_Mode No NoSuspend_Data Yes YesLaunch_Data Yes Yes


Appendix B – Authoring Tools

Introduction

While this appendix reference will not recommend for or against a particular authoring tool, it canprovide some insight into what a future-ready environment might require. As this entire document, theperspective is purely technical – and does not consider any didactical references, or recommend aspecific tool.

Content Technology

Some authoring tools deliver a file structure through a publishing process that consists of HTML andmedia assets - then use XML files to assemble the content at run-time by employing several dozen javascript functions. This structure is of such complexity that an expert programmer would need days todecipher the logic that was employed. In addition to that, these so called “enterprise-class” tools do notsupport synchronization of audio, video and other rich media assets. In addition, this relativelyoutdated architecture does not take advantage of idle time, while a learner consumes content todownload the remaining content – a process known as progressive streaming. Instead, each time thelearner clicks the next button, s/he will have to wait for the page to load – which also provides theopportunity for failure (broken links). No matter what the authoring tool - modern content shouldheavily rely on the Flash (SWF) file format and the advantages this file deliver format offers. The basicHTML technology originated in 1989. Current demands on training content, such as interactivity andrich media have only been possible since the development and rapid advancement of Flash-basedproducts. Future learning challenges will most likely be met with new technologies. On the other hand,content expectations of the “Web 2.0” population demands immersive, relevant, highly interactivecontent, while business requires fast and cost-effective development. These challenges have been metthrough the intense development of Flash-based technology.

Content Technology Timeline


Content Technology, continued

Some vendors insist on packaging their own content player (in form of a mediator window). Thiscontent player – in one particular instance increased the file size of a simple 5-page text-only course,that occupied less than 5bk of disk-space (and consume less than 5kb of bandwidth) to a very complexfile structure, consisting of 1,296 files in 147 folders, now consuming 14.9 MB of storage and bandwidth.The ratio was reduced when content files got larger, however 20MB content still packaged to over50MB. Assuming that it took 60 seconds to read the 5 very simple text pages, it meant that ever learnerthat accessed a course, produced 2 Megabits/second unneeded overhead. Take that times 50 learnersand the typical 100 Mbps office network is overloaded.

In summary, content packages should be as lean as possible without sacrificing requirements. Flash-based content has demonstrated that ability by revolutionizing the web over the past 10 years.


Interactivity & Engagement – One Vendor’sApproach

Interactivity & Engagement

Most authoring tools provide a base to developsome interactivity, mostly though pre-configuredquestion types. Question types tend to serve forreview and assessment types of activities-therefore considered end-of learning activities. Afew authoring tools support embedding of Flash-based templates – so why not begin with flash-based content. Lack of activity-based learninglimits the learning-styles to a limited audience, aswell as limiting the learning effectiveness acrossthe entire audience base. This factor contributesto a less favorable learning results, contributing tothe myth that e-learning is an ineffective trainingmechanism. This myth can be challenging toovercome, especially when combined with thehigh cost of custom developed e-learning content.

A few authoring tools have emerged that brand themselves as truly “rapid development”, not only beingfeature-rich in regards to media and asset capabilities, but also flexible enough to be used within newdevelopment methodologies .

In order to maximize training effectiveness, an authoring tool should support rich media (audio & video),template-based Level 1 learning activities and provide the ability to support Level 2-based interactions.

Documents

Technical Content Considerations for Enterprise Learning … A Technical Content... · 2011-03-17 · SCORM 2004 Run-Time Environments From an LMS perspective, SCORM 2004 is a gigantic