10 responses

  1. Rob Abel
    January 24, 2011


    That is a great suggestion: “The better thing to do would be to require that grantees include in their proposal a plan for promoting re-use, which would include the selection of appropriate format standards.”

    You are right, I would not need to “rant” about SCORM if there were a balanced perspective coming from the U.S. government on this. But, that is not the case. So, permit me to rant a bit until we get some understanding in Washington DC. The mandates for SCORM have been very costly, and in the case of education, pretty much non-sensical to this point in time. I cannot tell you how many suppliers I have talked to that have been forced to implement “SCORM solutions” due to government mandate that never exhibit even a bit of reuse once deployed. To me, this is very bad for standards in general – it poisons the well for guys like us who require voluntary adoption in the market. Luckily, we are succeeding now. But it hasn’t been easy. SCORM, while potentially having a role, as you say, has created a significant headwind for us.

  2. Mark Berthelemy
    January 24, 2011

    It’s the same in the UK where the Learning Platform framework for schools included a requirement for SCORM. So few people really use it effectively, it’s a complete waste of effort…

  3. John Fontaine
    January 31, 2011

    I’ve posted some detailed thoughts on my own blog. I’m also supportive of content being packaged as openly as possible. I’m concerned that this focuses too much on a runtime instead of open materials. As an example many SCORM packages are heavily dependent on Flash. Good luck playing that on your iPad. It would be better if the focus was on using open technologies e.g HTML5 rather than a runtime. IMS cc is the most open format for packaging up these resources and sharing them. This is a bit like mandating distribution of music in an 8-track format.

Back to top
mobile desktop