Introduction

Most of the learning that takes place on computers does not require special standards. Using computers to learn is an intrinsic part of day-to-day life and is something most people do every day. Every time a person reads an article from a newspaper online, or reads a blog post, or works out a new function in Microsoft® Excel®, that person is learning.

However, school-based learning and formal workplace training have slightly different features and requirements in that they require targeted content delivery and assessment functions. Content packaging standards are designed to facilitate this.

The question of how people learn is both philosophical and practical, and there are deep divisions between educators concerning the best ways to teach different skills. The types of learning that are best facilitated by packaged content, especially content that conforms to the Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), are limited to those where teaching and assessment can be done entirely by the computer, with no human intervention. Educators who value more social and creative forms of learning often avoid standards-based content.

Back to top

Learning needs in different environments

E-learning standards are designed to support learning, so the first consideration is always the learner. Below are three hypothetical learners using technology in different ways to achieve their educational goals. We will be referring to these example learners throughout the article as we discuss different content packaging standards:

Jane (learning informally for work)

Jane needs to work out some percentages for a report. Unfortunately, she's forgotten how to derive percentages. She makes a quick trip to Wikipedia, learns how to find a percentage, and finishes her report. The percentages Jane creates are correct, which is what she wanted. Her learning has been successful.

Sam (learning for school)

Sam needs to work out some percentages for his homework. Sam logs onto his school's Web site, and opens up an educational content package that has been set up for him by his teacher. The lesson shows him how to derive percentages, gives him a couple of trial questions, and then a quiz. Sam passes the quiz, which is what he (and his teacher) wanted. To the extent that he achieved the required measurable outcome, Sam's learning has been successful too.

Paula (learning formally for work)

Paula is a marketing manager who is undertaking training in how to analyze sales data. This involves learning to derive percentages. Paula's company has implemented e-learning using content packages, so Paula's learning experience is functionally exactly the same as Sam's. Her learning is also successful.

Back to top

What the standards are for

The majority of educational technology standards are content packaging standards that are designed to facilitate two complementary activities:

1. Learning
2. Assessment

In the example above, Jane successfully learned how to derive percentages by reading Wikipedia. Wikipedia, however, has no means of assessing whether or not Jane successfully derived percentages after reading the article, nor can it identify Jane as Jane. Jane is in total control of her learning — the only person deciding what Jane needs to learn (and how) is Jane.

Sam and Paula, on the other hand, had their learning chosen for them, Sam by his teacher and Paula by her trainer. Sam's teacher, for example, needs to direct Sam toward what he needs to learn, and then track whether or not Sam has successfully learned what he was supposed to. For this to happen, Sam's learning environment must be able to do more than just deliver content. It must:

1. Identify Sam as Sam.
2. Direct Sam to the learning materials he should use and the assessments he should perform (tasks).
3. Let Sam perform the tasks.
4. Collect information about how well Sam has performed the tasks.
5. Identify Sam's teacher as Sam's teacher.
6. Provide the collected information to both Sam and Sam's teacher, but not to anybody else.

This scenario, however, applies only to a single learning experience. Both Sam and his teacher will derive greater benefits if Sam's learning and assessment encompasses not only the lesson on percentages, but Sam's entire math class for the semester. For that to happen, the following functions must be added:

1. Collect information about how well Sam performs over multiple tasks.
2. Provide the collected information at an aggregated level to both Sam and Sam's teacher, but not to anybody else.

Back to top

Content packaging and the case for interoperability

Given the number of different features and functions that a single learning object (a digital resource that can be used and re-used to support learning) needs to support, it is not feasible to maintain a single file-type as the standard for learning objects. To get around this problem, standards-based learning content is usually deployed as content packages, which take the form of zip files. To achieve their learning outcomes, both Sam and Paula would be using content packages.

The key word across all current content packaging standards is interoperability: creating content that can be used and re-used in many different environments. A standards-based content package that can be used successfully in one learning environment should be usable in other learning environments.

The greatest benefits of interoperability for learning are:

• Decreased cost, as resources are created once.
• Greater possibilities for content discovery and re-use across institutions through the use of content repositories.

Interoperability for learning is different from other kinds of interoperability in that it requires functions that are not supported by day-to-day technologies such as browsers. A browser by itself cannot identify a user (for example, Sam), nor recognize relationships between users (Sam and Sam's teacher), nor associate different permissions with users (Sam's teacher may introduce new learning materials, but Sam may not).

For this reason, current content packaging standards are designed to play in environments that already have these functions. The vast majority of these environments are virtual learning environments (VLEs).

VLEs

VLEs are Web-based, and each installation of a VLE is specific to a single institution. For example, Sam's school and Paula's company would each have their own VLE. At their most basic, VLEs provide:

• Management of students, such as class lists.
• Delivery of learning content to students, such as reading lists and standards-based content.
• Assessment functions, such as delivering tests to students, storing the results of assessment exercises completed by students, and collecting work submitted by students.

More sophisticated VLEs also provide features such as hosted blogs and forums, though it is up to each individual institution to decide how they want their VLE configured and the features they choose to use.

VLEs are also often called learning management systems (LMSs), and have many similarities with standard content management systems (CMSs). LMSs are used by schools, universities, and organizations who incorporate e-learning into their training programs.

Both open-source and proprietary VLEs are popular. Blackboard is the most common proprietary VLE, and Moodle the most common open-source option (see Resources).

The limitations of content packages and interoperability

Content packages are not easy to use. For Sam's teacher to successfully provide a content package to Sam, she must find it, know what it's for, work out how to import it into her VLE, import it, and then deploy it. That's a lot of steps, especially given that she can't preview the package for suitability before importing it: the content package won't play outside the VLE.

A further problem with interoperability of content packaging standards is that they are not yet fully interoperable. There are several competing standards for content packaging, and not every VLE will support every standard. For Sam's teacher this can be a significant problem, as it can be difficult to find and deploy content that the VLE will recognize. Sam's teacher may find the perfect package for Sam's class, but if it is in the wrong standard for the VLE, it will not play.

Paula's trainer is less likely to have this problem. Paula's company will probably have hired an instructional designer who will have created tailor-made content packages for the company in accordance with the requirements of the VLE.

These content packages, however, are the company's intellectual property. That means that, for Paula's company, interoperability is at best unimportant and at worst a potential liability if the content packages are ever downloaded and appropriated by a competitor.

The limitations of VLEs

VLEs are a source of some debate in learning and teaching communities. The VLE model is about ten years old, and many VLE features have not been modified significantly since they were first developed. VLEs can be seen as 'walled gardens' — it is difficult to link into and out of a VLE, and many elements of social functionality that have become common across the Web are not available. Some users complain of usability problems, and many teachers will opt to use non-VLE technology if it is available.

Back to top

Technical features of content packages

There are currently four standards that can be used to define a content package:

• IMS Content Package (IMS CP)
• SCORM 1.2
• SCORM 2004
• IMS Common Cartridge (IMS CC)

Each content package must be stored as a zip file, and must contain:

1. Learning content — can be any format (for example, Flash animation, video, or PDF)
2. Instructions on how to deploy the learning content

The variations among content packaging standards have to do with how the instructions are written, and the complexity of the interactions they support.

Self-contained content packages

Basic IMS CP, SCORM 1.2, and SCORM 2004 have one key difference from IMS CC in that they are completely self-contained. IMS CC was specifically designed not to be self contained; its special features are discussed later in this article. The IMS CP is the most basic form of content packaging. It is also the one on which the other three are based. SCORM 1.2, SCORM 2004, and Common Cartridge can all be seen as variations of the basic IMS CP.

Basic IMS CP and SCORM content packages are format agnostic. They are not dependant upon server-side scripting languages nor upon external files or URLs. (See Resources for a link to the JCA Solutions site that contains more information about SCORM.) In addition to this type of criteria, the content package must also contain:

1. A manifest file (titled imsmanifest.xml)
2. All schema and definition files referenced by the manifest file
3. Content — all the resource files referenced by the manifest file

The IMS manifest contains instructions that tell the VLE how to deploy the content. Every file in the content package must be referenced by the manifest file, and every file referenced in the manifest file must be contained in the content package.

For the user, these are invisible features. Sam's teacher and Paula's trainer will never see the IMS manifest as they use the object. The structure of the content package does create a specific limitation that creates a problem that affects Sam's teacher more than Paula's trainer. It makes it extremely difficult to edit the content package, which means that Sam's teacher will not be able to customize the content for the needs of her class.

The manifest file is an XML file (see Figure 1). It contains some mandatory elements and attributes, and some optional ones. The top-level element is <manifest>.

There are three possible child elements within a <manifest>. They are:

• <resources> This defines the files that constitute the learning parts of the content package — the things that will be shown to the learner during the learning experience. There are two types of resources: Shareable Content Objects (SCOs) and Assets.
  
  • SCOs are the parts of the learning object, either single files or aggregated groups of files, that communicate with the VLE — for example, to return test results.
  • Assets are static files that are presented to the learner, but that do not communicate with the VLE. A printable PDF worksheet in the learning object would be an asset, as would a JPG containing a logo that is referenced by the SCOs.
• <organizations> Organizations put the resources into order, so that they can be shown to the learner in the intended sequence. It is possible to have many organizations of the same resources, although typically, a SCORM object will have only one, the default.
  Through the VLE, Paula's trainer and Sam's teacher can choose which organization they prefer for their students.
• <metadata> Metadata refers to "information about information". Metadata plays a crucial role in content discoverability; it is through the metadata that learners can find new content in content repositories. In its most basic form, the metadata element should describe the schema of the content package (for example, ADL SCORM) and the schema version (for example, 2004 3rd edition). More complex metadata to facilitate search is defined in the Learning Objects Metadata (LOM) standard (see Resources).

Limitations of metadata

Paula's company is unlikely to be interested in searchable metadata, as it is not in their interest to release their learning content outside the company. For Sam's teacher, however, the searchable metadata is the best way to find content packages and re-use them as the creators intended.

Because the metadata is both standards-based and embedded, content packages cannot be found using search engines such as Google. For LOM to be searched, the content object must be stored in a repository that is capable of reading LOM.

LOM is the only searchable part of a content package; no assets or SCOs are indexed. So far, however, adoption of LOM by content producers has been limited and searchability remains a problem.

SCORM

SCORM stands for Shareable Content Object Reference Model. It is not a single standard, but a collection of standards and specifications. It defines communications between client-side content and the VLE.

SCORM is currently maintained by Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), a branch of the United States military. Many organizations, however, have had a role in defining SCORM. These organizations include:

• AICC — The Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee
• IEEE LTSC — The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Learning Technology Standards Committee
• IMS Global Learning Consortia (IMS GLC) — A not-for-profit organization dedicated to e-learning standards

In November 2010, Rustici Software announced that they had the support of ADL to research the future of SCORM. It is likely that the next version of SCORM will be informed by their work (see Resources for more information).

SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004

SCORM has two dominant variants: the older SCORM 1.2 and the newer SCORM 2004. Each of these have multiple versions (the current version of SCORM 2004 is SCORM 2004 4th edition).

The two SCORMs are not interoperable: a VLE that can play SCORM 1.2 will not necessarily be able to play SCORM 2004, and vice versa.

SCORM 1.2

SCORM 1.2 is the predecessor of SCORM 2004. There are far more SCORM 1.2 content packages (or learning objects) in existence than SCORM 2004, and many VLEs are still configured to play only SCORM 1.2, but the standard is no longer supported by ADL.

SCORM 1.2 is comprised of two specifications:

• The content aggregation model defines how the content should be packaged in order to be imported into a VLE.
• The run-time environment defines how the content should behave after being launched in the VLE.

To be SCORM conformant, a VLE must implement an API with eight functions. (An overview of these can be found at the Rustica software site — see Resources for more information.) The API is implemented by the API adapter, which controls all communication between the content object and the VLE (such as whether the learner has reached the end of the lesson or not). In this way, the VLE controls the behavior of the content package.

The VLE in turn relies on a person, like Sam's teacher or Paula's trainer, to tell it what to do. A lack of training in how to use VLEs can hinder this stage of the process.

SCORM 2004

SCORM 2004 is more complex than SCORM 1.2. The specifications documents are 3000 pages. It has not been adopted as widely as expected.

Like SCORM 1.2, SCORM 2004 is comprised of a content aggregation model and a run-time environment, but it has an extra specification that SCORM 1.2 does not have. This is the sequencing and navigation specification.

Sequencing adds the ability for two SCORM 2004 content packages to effectively communicate with each other, via the VLE. When a learner completes a SCORM 2004 course successfully, for example, the content package can communicate to the VLE that the course has been passed, and that the VLE should deploy the next SCORM 2004 content package. This functionality is extremely useful when high-level technical training is required. In the case of training airplane pilots, for example, it is necessary that each potential pilot be able to demonstrate that they understand the function of every button in the cockpit, and that their trainers have evidence that they do. In non-technical, non-training based environments, however, this functionality is rarely required and is not frequently used. Sam's teacher especially would be more likely to use her own judgement about Sam's progress than the results from a sequence of SCORM 2004 packages.

Common Cartridge

Common Cartridge is the newest of the content packaging standards. Released in late 2009, it was developed by the IMS without the involvement of ADL. Unlike the two versions of SCORM, Common Cartridge supports IMS standards such as QTI 1.2 and LTI. Question Test Interoperability (QTI) is an IMS quiz standard that can be deployed for student assessment and Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) is another IMS standard that allows remote tools and content to be integrated into a VLE, which effectively circumvents the self-contained package restriction placed on SCORM.

Common Cartridge also accommodates weblinks and forums, which would probably be attractive to Sam's teacher. This step towards social functionality has yet to be taken by SCORM. It is not yet clear whether Common Cartridge will be widely adopted, or if many VLEs will be able to use it, but developments such as a recent player made by Icodeon show promise.

Back to top

Conclusion

The strongest features of content packaging standards are the ones that have also hampered their adoption. A single content object can contain extremely good learning materials, but only for fairly limited forms of learning. When configured well, VLEs can provide an excellent learning experience through content packages, which is of benefit to both the student and their teacher or trainer. Unfortunately, the lack of compatibility between the different packaging standards means that importing content into a VLE can be either frustrating or impossible. Depending on VLEs for content deployment has a further downside in that teachers and organizations that do not have access to a VLE cannot use educational material that is stored in content packages.

The software required to author content packages, especially SCORM packages, is sophisticated, difficult to learn, and expensive. For this reason, few teachers have created their own standards-based learning content. Thus, content creators and publishers who do not necessarily understand the needs of a specific class group produce the majority of learning content.

It is yet to be seen whether Common Cartridge and the next iteration of SCORM will be able to overcome these problems, but as consistency rises across all the standards, their value does too.

At the beginning of this article, three hypothetical learners were described. Though she was never mentioned again, it is worth remembering that the informal learner, Jane, is still the most common type of learner, and that she achieves good learning outcomes without the use of standards. For learners such as Sam and Paula, however, the advanced functionality provided by the standards can be extremely effective in achieving desired learning outcomes.

John Casey (Digitalinsite) and Gareth Waller (AGW Software) developed the original outlines for the series of articles.

Resources

Learn

• ASPECT project: Adopting Standards and Specifications for Educational Content is an EU funded project with the goal of improving the use of standards in e-learning. ASPECT is associated with the Learning Technology Standards Observatory (LTSO), which is also EU funded.
  
  
• Learning Object Metadata (LOM)): Find more information about this standard that is maintained by the IEEE's Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC).
  
  
• Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) portal: Review this open portal for schools that contains standards-based educational content in many European languages.
  
  
• Global Grid for Learning (GGfL): Tour this payment-based repository owned by Cambridge University Press (CUP) that contains a wide variety of educational content for schools, including standards-based content.
  
  
• IMS Web site: Find the standards and specifications maintained by the IMS Global Learning Consortium.
  
  
• Learning and Educational Technology Product Directory: Refer to this IMS directory that records products that have achieved conformance marks for different standards.
  
  
• Common Cartridge and Learning Tools Interoperability alliance: Consider joining this alliance, which is run by the IMS, if you're interested in the development of either Common Cartridge or Learning Tools Interoperability.
  
  
• Common Cartridge Test System: Use this complimentary test system to perform your own testing of cartridges for conformance with the IMS Common Cartridge v1.0 specification.
  
  
• Icodeon Common Cartridge platform: Read more about the development of interesting ways to exploit Common Cartridge content without having to rely on VLEs.
  
  
• ADL Web site: Find the documentation and testing suite for SCORM 2004 4th edition. ADL no longer supports SCORM 1.2, but a comprehensive technical overview is available through Rustici Software.
  
  
• SCORM certified products: Explore the list of products that have achieved SCORM certification through the ADL SCORM Certification Program.
  
  
• Scorm Cloud: Any SCORM authors who do not yet require full certification can test or preview their SCORM objects using Rustici Software's Scorm Cloud. This can also be used to deliver content to learners without using a VLE.
  
  
• JCA Software: SCORM Content Aggregation : Learn more from this overview of self-contained content packages.
  
  
• Project tin can: Find both information about the research being undertaken into the next version of SCORM, and opportunities to contribute.
  
  
• LETSI: Explore further discussions about the future of e-learning standards that are underway at the International Federation for Learning, Education, and Training Systems Interoperability.
  
  
• imsmanifest.xml: See the IMS Content Packaging Conceptual Model and the details of the imsmanifest.xml file as depicted in the IMS CP 1.1.4 specification documentation.
  
  
• JISC: provides infrastructure, guidance, and support for the use of technology in UK Higher and Further Education.
  
  
• Dublin Core: The Dublin Core metadata initiative is a commonly used standard for descriptive metadata.
  
  
• Blackboard: develops and licenses software applications and related services for numerous educational institutions.
  
  
• MITs OpenCourseware site or Apple's U: are open repositories for educational material.
  
  
• IBM developerWorks Industries: Find the latest industry-specific technical resources for developers.
  
  
• developerWorks podcasts: Listen to interesting interviews and discussions for software developers.
  
  
• developerWorks technical events and webcasts: Stay current with developerWorks technical events and webcasts.
  
  

Get products and technologies

• IBM trial software: Evaluate IBM software products in the method that suits you best. From trial downloads to cloud-hosted products, developerWorks features software especially for developers.
  
  

Discuss

• developerWorks blogs: Get involved in the developerWorks community.
  
  

About the author

Zoë Rose works in educational technologies for Cambridge University Press. She trained as a high-school teacher before moving into digital publishing for academic journals, and then into e-learning. Zoë is currently the project manager for Cambridge University Press' role in the ASPECT project. Her professional interests include metadata and search technologies, usability, and accessibility of digital content.

Rate this article

Comments

Back to top

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Learning needs in different environments
• What the standards are for
• Content packaging and the case for interoperability
• Technical features of content packages
• Conclusion
• Resources
• About the author
• Comments

Local resources

• IBM Innovation Center - Austin, TX
• IBM Innovation Center - Chicago, IL
• IBM Innovation Center - Dallas, TX
• IBM Innovation Center - San Mateo, CA
• IBM Innovation Center - Waltham, MA
• Technical Briefings in North America

Dig deeper into Industries on developerWorks

Try IBM PureSystems. No charge.

Experience today!

---

Get started with the cloud-based trial and pattern development kit.

Special offers