SCORM vs e-Learning 2.0


scormOne good question to asked by one of my developers during our weekly meeting. Should we support SCORM for a new e-learning 2.0 platform?

For me, SCORM and e-learning 2.0 totally different world.

SCORM, centralized, institution centered and IP ownership vs. e-learning 2.0, on the other hand decentralized, learner-centered. See the picture?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying SCORM is bad or anything, it just that it doesn’t make sense to incorporate features of SCORM in e-Learning 2.0 for the reasons below: -

  • SCORM does not support learning through remixing of pre-authored content.
  • Some SCORM content does have IP or copyright to control distribution and content.
  • Collaborative effort in making contents for SCORM just so that, can be applied in e-Learning 2.0 seems pointless.

So far, there’s still no clear indication of SCORM integrating into e-Learning 2.0. What do you think?

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
April 14th, 2008
3 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Web 2.0
eLearning

Other Posts
Trends and Impacts of E-Learning 2.0 Video
Microsoft WorldWide Telescope - A new way of learning astronomy

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Ryan Lanham
Posted on:
June 8, 2008 at 5:01 am

Isn’t the hope for SCORM 2.9 that it be more learner-centric, less proprietary, etc. as you want Learning 2.0 to be seen?

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Chris Shaltry
Posted on:
June 17, 2008 at 4:40 am

SCORM is a standard, SCO is what you should concern yourself with. SCO’s (shared content objects) are very flexible when designed properly. New tools are coming out every day to insure quick, cheap and simple creation of SCORM compliant content pieces a.k.a. SCO’s. Instead of creating entire SCORM compliant courses, educators should create single objects which can then be strung together in any manner. Clayton Christensen’s book “Disrupting Class” references the idea of shareable pieces of content (without actually saying the word SCO). I am working on a sort of “YouTube” for SCO’s as we speak. I believe this will bring the idea of flexible and resuable educational content to fruition. This “disruptive innovation” will take a while to mature, but you can bet it will!

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Ben Stoas
Posted on:
August 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm

The trouble with frameworks is that soon after they’re created, someone wants to extend them in a way they can’t be extended…

The main issue is that there is no bandaid solution that is going to address all of your eLearning. For example, take http://www.moodle.org vs http://www.helpwize.com . Moodle is basically designed to be used by universities for their whole online learning program, while Helpwize is designed to demonstate how to demonstrate products and websites for business. While both are very good at what they do, neither is appropriate for the role of the other.

My attitude is that if you want to have a truely ‘web 2.0′ elearning platform, the focus should be on integrating third party websites into the technology, rather than just trying to add blogs etc. and calling it web 2.0. For example, the OpenID or login system for 3rd party websites could be used for “guest” users (it could also incorporate elements of tagging and rating etc.).