SCORM on Google Trends

Interesting stats from Google: SCORM is clearly on the decline, as is AICC, but both still much stronger than xAPI (aka Tin Can), which is barely registering.

2004-present (10 years)

2009-present (5 years)

2012-2014 (2 years)

“experience api, tin can api weren’t searched for often enough to appear on the chart. Try selecting a longer time period.”

Does this mean anything? I dunno. But it’s interesting to see SCORM’s steady decline over the last 10 years. Also, please forgive the un-responsiveness of the graphs, Google hard-codes the width in px.

pipwerks SCORM Wrappers now available on GitHub

I’ve been considering adding my pipwerks SCORM wrappers to GitHub for a very long time, but my n00bness and general lack of free time were major obstacles. However, the time has finally come to buckle down and get these puppies OUT! So without further ado, I present:

https://github.com/pipwerks/scorm-api-wrapper

I should note that these are my original SCORM wrappers (JavaScript, ActionScript 2 and ActionScript 3); I’ve been (very slowly) working on a completely new SCORM support codebase that I plan to release separately. However, these oldies are still running like a champ, so don’t be afraid to use them.

Many people have contacted me over the last few years with suggestions for improvements, but due to my general busy-ness I haven’t really made any modifications for a long time; I recently made a few small tweaks, including updating the StringToBoolean function that caused problems in Plateau, but the bulk of the code remains largely the same.

If you’re one of those die-hards eager to tweak the source code, you’re in luck! This is a public repository, which means anyone and everyone is now free to fork and edit the code as they see fit. If you have any suggestions or ideas, please go to GitHub and show us what ya got!

And for the curious, I’m using Tower to handle my Git commits — command lines are not my cup of tea. Tower is a very nice Git GUI that integrates seamlessly with GitHub. I’m new to Tower, but so far I like it very much.

Instructional Technologist, Explained

I bill myself as an instructional technologist, which means I’m often met with blank or puzzled stares. I thought it might be useful to explain my rational for using this title.

Warning: this post may bore you to death, or cause you to get caught up in a tangled web of semantics.

In my opinion, an instructional technologist is a person who specializes in utilizing technology for instructional purposes. (Duh!) It’s a very broad title that can cover many different and often only tangentially-related duties.

When I was younger (so much younger than today), I worked in a number of educational and non-profit organizations in a technology support capacity, including print production, radio broadcasting, audio engineering and video production. With the dawn of the internet, I expanded my skill set to include web development. I relished working in a variety of mediums, and began to think of myself as a media generalist. Being a jack of all trades* was fun, and it felt good to know that most of my projects were educational or somehow helped the community.

When I decided to go to grad school, San Francisco State University’s Instructional Technologies (ITEC) program seemed like a perfect fit. I assumed that the program’s title meant that we would learn how to use technology in an educational capacity. Turns out I was only half right — technology was definitely involved, but I was also informed that “technologies” sometimes referred to adult learning theories and principles, not just just tools. Instructional design, which is completely independent from common notions of technology, was the primary focus of the program. I learned a lot about educational psychology and learning theories while in the ITEC program, and oddly didn’t really learn much about technology as I had traditionally defined it.

Once I graduated from the ITEC program, I jumped right into e-learning development, as both a content author, a course developer, and a course delivery systems programmer (SCORM, course development tools, etc… probably what pipwerks.com is most associated with).

As a content author, I often performed instructional design tasks, including needs assessments, research, writing, and content sequencing. For these tasks, instructional designer seemed most appropriate. However, because I also handled the media authoring and programming side of the courses, many people thought of me as a programmer, web developer or e-learning developer — all of which I felt were also too restrictive. I don’t want to be stereotyped or painted into a corner.

What to do? Well, I hearkened back to my grad school days and copped the title instructional technologist. It felt flexible enough to work for my needs, while still being accurate and even a tad mysterious. Mystery is fun, especially when most of your co-workers have bland titles like “analyst.”

Instructional technologist is also portable. Last week I left my old job and started a new one. While I used to focus on e-learning development and LMS administration, I now work with classroom support in a university setting, with a focus on administering a lecture capture system. Although I’m working in a completely different environment with very different technology, I’m still working with technology in an instructional or educational capacity. I was able to retain my working title of instructional technologist (kudos to my new bosses for agreeing to it).

Many people in universities use a title such as educational technology specialist. That’s a nice title, and very fitting for what they do. However, it also has the connotation of educational institution, such as university or even high school. Since my work has spanned corporate training as well as community and university work, I prefer the word instructional over educational.

So there you have it. Instructional technologist, explained. Think it’s great? Ridiculous? Have a better idea? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

* “Jack of all trades, master of none, though oftentimes better than master of one”
[ citation ]

Speaking of IMS…

IMS produces standards they want everyone to use.

Why, then, do I have to log in to their site in order to VIEW the documentation for their standards?

Situation: I found a link to a PDF on their site. When I clicked it, I was presented with this warm greeting [link no longer available]:

Sorry
The page you are trying to access is reserved for participants in the IMS GLC Public Community or is reserved for IMS GLC Members, Affiliates or Alliance Members.

If you have already set up an account and just need to login, please do so here. If you would like to register for a free public community account, just head on over to our registration page.

So… in order for me to even read their standards, I have to tell them who I am and put my personal information in their database? How does this foster adoption of standards?

Geez these guys burn my britches…

UPDATE:

The IMS site requires the following information before you can view any of their documentation: Name, email, organization name, job title, job description, country

Pretty invasive if you ask me.

UPDATE #2:

After registering for site access, I was greeted with a second page asking for persona information, and asking me to agree to IMS’s licensing terms. They require the following information: Name, email, “entity on whose behalf you are accepting this agreement”, street address (includes city, zip, country), phone number

(Phone number? Seriously?)

The license terms are FIVE PAGES long after pasting into a Word file.

Interesting bits (emphasis mine):

IMS specifications are published solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability among learning products and services used by the education and training communities served by IMS members and are made available under license to Registered Users solely to further that purpose.

I guess this means the standards aren’t meant for public consumption after all, though the end result of the standards are?

Users of the Specification(s) are encouraged to engage directly with IMS as IMS members, including registration of all applications of specifications, in order to enhance the level of interoperability in the education and training industries worldwide.

I read this as: tell us who you are and how you’re using IMS specifications so we can include you in our next press release (you know, the part where we pat ourselves on the back).

Any use of the Specifications(s) or other Materials provided by IMS must be accompanied by the copyright legends provided with full attribution given to IMS.

If this were the case with the HTML, ECMAScript, or XML standards, our documents would be bloated with useless attribution credits. (Side note: I wonder how this affects SCORM, as SCORM uses IMS specifications for packaging? Is anyone who produces a SCORM-based course supposed to pay respect to the Don provide attribution to IMS in their courseware?)

Licensee agrees to publicly and visibly acknowledge and attribute to IMS the Specification(s) upon which products are based to any and all Development Partner(s).

So if Company X uses an IMS specification, they’re supposed to go over to each “Development Partner” — many of whom may be commercial competitors — and let them know?

IMS issues press release for new e-learning interoperability standards

News from the IMS Global Learning Consortium:

The IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS GLC) today announced the public review of the first phase of the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standards to allow open and seamless integration of educational web applications. Called “Basic LTI or BLTI,” this first standard addresses the most common roadblocks to achieving a seamless experience for teachers and students.

Reading this press release, I couldn’t help but notice two things:

  1. There’s an awful lot of chest-puffing and self-congratulation going on here — people’s credentials are thrown around an awful lot, and over half of the press release is filled “Statements of Support.”
  2. There’s no hyperlink to the standards that are being announced, nor is there any information about how you can read the new standard proposal, whether you can try it yourself, how long it’s open for review, etc.

If the new standards are written as poorly as this press release, it’s going to be 1,000 pages of useless spec. All filler, no killer.

Not so crazy about Moodle? Try Chamilo

Moodle, Moodle, Moodle. It’s popular. It has helped many people quickly set up their company’s web-based training. But truth be told, it doesn’t really do much for me. I have never found it fun or sexy or even intuitive. I imagine many people feel that way. So what’s Moodle got going for it, then? It’s FREE, it’s easy to set up, and there’s a thriving development community behind it that can help you when you get stuck.

Well, in case you didn’t know, there’s another game in town by the name of Dokeos. It’s not as well known in North America, but it’s huge in other countries. Dokeos mirrors Moodle in many ways: it’s easy to set up, uses the same technology (PHP/MySQL), is open-source, and has a very large developer community. Dokeos has a much different look and feel than Moodle, which I find a little cleaner and easier to use. (Disclaimer: I test drove Dokeos over a year ago and haven’t tried the latest versions)

But there’s trouble brewing in Dokeosland. Apparently there were significant differences of opinion regarding the future of Dokeos, prompting Yannick Warnier (the lead developer) as well as the entire development staff to leave the Dokeos project [link no longer available]. While this is probably very disconcerting to Dokeos users, Yannick and the former Dokeos developers are not leaving anyone hanging… they’ve forked Dokeos’ open-source code and used it to create a new LMS named Chamilo. It’s basically Dokeos under-the-hood, but with newer features and a new direction. They’re dedicated to the notion of open-source software, and are ensuring Chamilo stays open.

I highly recommend giving Chamilo a spin. I’m looking forward to trying it myself.

Side note: if you’re looking for more alternatives to Moodle, you can also try Ilias. It’s pretty nice, too.

Fear of sharing, fear of failing

Janet Clarey posted a link to a great blog post by Rajesh Setty entitled Why some smart people are reluctant to share? Setty’s insights resound with me, not because I think I’m smart — quite the opposite, actually — but because the more I learn, the more I’m aware of my limitations.

Setty tried to determine why “smart people” are often reluctant to share their knowledge with others. His conclusion was:

Smart people want to give their best and as they learn more, they learn that they need to learn a lot more before they start sharing. They learn some more and they learn they need to learn some more. What they forget is that most of the expertise that they already have is either becoming “obvious” to them or better yet, going into their “background thinking.”

I agree with the points in Setty’s post completely, except in I’d substitute the word “experienced” for “smart.”

Setty’s line “Smart people want to give their best” seems to be something of a passing thought in his post. I’d like to give it more attention, because I believe conscientious experienced folks have a fear of giving bad advice.

Zeldman had it right when he said “If your old work doesn’t shame you, you’re not growing.” Experienced people look back at their younger, inexperienced self and either chuckle at their own gumption or get rosy-cheeked from embarrassment. I’m more of the rosy-cheeked guy. My old work shames me all the time, and it often causes me to hesitate when sharing my work or giving advice to others.

This may sound funny to some of you… anyone who follows this blog probably knows I spend a lot of time doling out technical advice via places like the SWFObject and eLearning Technology and Development Google Groups.  The truth is, I question myself in almost each and every post I write. Why? Because I’m experienced enough to know that maybe I shouldn’t be so quick and cocky with an answer. Maybe there’s a different solution I haven’t heard of. To paraphrase Setty, maybe I need to learn more first.

So why do I even try to give advice if I have a fear of giving bad advice? Because I want to learn more. I often find that helping others is the best way to teach myself. I’ve learned a ton through helping others, and find it rewarding in many ways. Except when I’m wrong, and then it plain sucks.