Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: SCORM runtime environment and IMS Simple Sequencing

Collapse
Posted by Ola Hansson on
I'm a little late to this discussion due to a day's downtime at my ISP end ...

I think Matthias has got the general picture right, as Ernie has already acknowledged. IMS Simple Sequencing is as powerful as SCORM when it comes to the functionality. In fact, SCORM essentially just adds a strictly specified front-end to IMS Simple Sequencing, which mandates a javascript client called "runtime environment". IMS Simple Sequencing explicitly does not specify the exact delivery UI (nor the platform used to implement the base sequencing functionality). For example, it doesn't specify whether a learning activity (learning object or assessment, for instance) should be presented as a link in a curriculum toolbar or be redirected to automatically. The good thing about this philosophy of theirs is that IMS Simple Sequencing becomes suitable for implementing in OpenACS (with its preference for server side scripting) and we don't have to customize our content to fit SCORM's javascript adapter.

However, Matthias, the following statement contains two misconceptions, IMHO:

" ... and I think as soon as LORS specifies and tracks a few values, like one for "every selection within the hierarchical webcontent tree is always allowed" and "value for success on return from activity, defaulted to success if content was visited" (I didn't yet look into the specs to identify the proper variable names but I'm sure they exist) then we had what IMS expects."

1) It is NOT enough to "specify and track a few values" to meet the expectations of IMS - there is a simple sequencing specification which must be followed to the letter if we are to comply with this global standard (which we should).

2) There is no reason to build this spec into the LORS package, since simple sequencing isn't necessarily dependent on learning objects being stored in this or that package - the simple sequencing package has to be integrated with Assessment, too, for example.

Hi Ola,

In fact, SCORM essentially just adds a strictly specified front-end
to IMS Simple Sequencing, which mandates a javascript client called
"runtime environment".

Yes. However, that is partially true.

SCORM uses an API adapter on the client side not just for IMS SS
purposes but also to manage most of its interaction between the user and
the course content. For instance, on startup the content looks for the
API adapter (which it could be a javascript, an applet, activeX, flash,
or whatever) to initialize the course delivery. Then the content "talks"
to the LMS only thru the API.

While it is correct to say that the API tracks the student progress and
delivers the content following the course sequencing, it also passes
score results, information about the user, etc back and forward from the
LMS and the user.

2) There is no reason to build this spec into the LORS package, since
simple sequencing isn't necessarily dependent on learning objects
being stored in this or that package - the simple sequencing package
has to be integrated with Assessment, too, for example.

Yeah, that is right. That's why LORS is a library of IMS specifications
(so far IMS CP and MD) available for all packages to be used.

Back in May 2003, I suggested you to do the implement IMS SS as a
library so other applications could make use of it, and this was your
answer:

Ernie: To answer your questions - no, I don't believe there will be a
public API to the simple sequencing engine. Since there is no
obvious client to the SS engine besides the Curriculum package, I
think it's quite clear that SS could as well reside within the
Curriculum package borders.

https://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=102631

So, I'm happy you have changed your mind 😊

Do you think we can have an API for IMS SS soon?

Ernie

the simple sequencing package has to be integrated with Assessment, too, for example.

Ola, could you describe where you see the simple sequencing package (which, to my understanding is an extension of curriculum not yet written ?) being integrated into Assessment. If you talk outside integration I utterly agree, if you talk inside integration (branching, sequence of sections), I'm not so sure.