If you’re not familiar with SCORM in some depth, this post may well be gibberish to you.  That’s okay; I’m not entirely certain that it’s not written in gibberish (grin).  If you aren’t familiar with SCORM, I thought this SCORM overview at Toolbook.com was somewhat useful, and I’m digging through a number of other resources that appear useful, at first glance at least: ADLNet.gov’s explanation of SCORM (ADLNET is the home of SCORM), Aaron Silvers blog SCORM category, and Ostyn Consulting’s Understanding SCORM page.  Also, I’ve bookmarked a number of applications and resources relevant to SCORM.

I’m working with SCORM in some depth for the first time; “in some depth” is the key phrase in that statement.  I’ve been researching, reading and looking for help in a variety of spaces - twitterverse, conference proceedings/notes, general web tutorials, product forums etc.  This post will describe my current issue in more detail with the hope that someone will be able to help.  Plus, I’m hoping that my questions in this post and any additional questions in subsequent posts may prove helpful to others that may travel the same gauntlet I’m currently enduring.   ;-)

I have two SCO’s (shareable content objects) in folders/zips published by two tools I’m using currently: Soft Chalk and Adobe Captivate 3.  Both SCO’s work correctly when viewing with Reload SCORM Player 1.2.  Both SCO’s work correctly when loading to the LMS I’m using (Avatar, a professional development management system).  What I need to be able to do is package the two SCO’s into a single SCORM package to be uploaded to the LMS.  I’ve tried a number of tools to accomplish this; the one with which I’ve had the most success is the Reload SCORM Editor.  The Reload SCORM Editor has a good tutorial to get started.  With that help, I’ve been able to create a basic package that includes the SoftChalk and Captivate SCO’s.

First problem. Despite the fact that it works in the Reload SCORM Player, the Captivate SCO does not work properly when added to the package.  I’ve tried adding the entire folder for the simulation to the main organization in the manifest; that folder includes all of the files generaged by Captivate output - the manifest and other xml files, the SWF files output and the “SCORM Support” folder.  I’ve also tried adding just the primary HTML file within the main organization of the manifest with the folder being added to the resource section.  Nothing seems to work when adding the Captivate generated SCO to a new package developed within Reload SCORM editor.

Second problem. This issue is one I’m anticipating rather than have experienced it directly and am currently researching it.  For this project, I have four series of content sections followed by a simulation based assessment.  Ideally, I’d like to package the four sets together in a single SCORM package.  However, I encountered a comment in a discussion forum suggesting that SCORM 1.2 does not support navigation between SCO’s within a package in a manner that supports reporting to the LMS.  So, if I have four simulation SCO’s, the package will only report the score from the first one rather than aggregating the scores for the user across all assessments.  I need someone to confirm or deny that statement.

SCORM 1.2 does not allow for ’sequencing’, which is jumping between separate SCOs without returning to the LMS. SCORM 1.3/2004 allows for that but, of course, the LMS has to support that functionality as well…which isn’t an easy task.

Without sequencing support, the SCO has just one ID which everything is tracked-back to in the LMS. And in either version of SCORM, there can only be one lesson_status and one score_raw value - so each lesson can only have one such value.

So if you put your SCOs together into one lesson and one manifest, unless the manifest lists each SCO separately with their unique IDs (I think, I’m not clear on how sequencing actually works), each time a quiz score/status is sent back to the LMS it’s being recorded for that one overall SCO ID.

Far better to just keep your SCOs as separate lessons, upload them into the LMS, and let the LMS manage the organization and launching of them, especially as SCORM 1.2 so each SCO’s score can be recorded separately.

I appreciate any help (via comments), and I intend to post any solutions or future progress/frustration in this space.

Dragging through RSS feeds, noticed a recent post by Darren Draper at Drape’s Takes highlighting George Siemens tweeted question, “Anyone want to share their working definition of emerging technologies for teaching/learning?”

Rather than starting from scratch, I’ll start with Darren’s initial stab (as he calls it) at a definition,

Emerging technologies for teaching and learning consist of all hardware, software, concepts, and ideas that can be employed to advance social, connective, and educational processes.

I think I would add to Darren’s definition by inserting

Emerging technologies for teaching and learning consist of recently developed and mostly untested applications of technology hardware or software (including web-based tools) to facilitate educational processes.

I agree with Darren that an idea can qualify as a technology if the idea is a new and different application of a technology to the learning process.  I believe “recently developed and mostly untested” provides the necessary reference to limit “emerging” technologies to those that are truly emerging; those for which the applications are being discovered and tested.  Once a technology application - hardware or software - has been tested or used in classroom environments by a sufficient number of teachers, I believe it transitions from an emerging technology to a developing or established one.

George posted some of the twitter responses he received to his original question.

Your thoughts?  How do you define “emerging technologies?”  What distinguishes “emerging” technology from non-emerging technology?

Randy Nelson’s presentation Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace provoked and helped coalesce a range of recent thoughts and ideas. In addition to ideas on collaboration described in a previous post, Nelson also commented on mistakes which immediately took me back to a post by Gardner Campbell almost a year ago, Mistakes as Portals.

In relation to Pixar’s search for innovative potential employees, Nelson commented:

The core skill of innovators is error-recovery not failure avoidance.

Nelson explained that resiliency and adaptability are critical skills.  I interpreted Nelson’s conversation to suggest - to me at least - that avoiding failure may just as likely indicate an overly cautious individual as it will an overly proficient one.  It is far more important to try, fail and recover from failure than it is to avoid the failure altogether.

When I first read Gardner’s post earlier this year, I focused - as my comment suggests - on the “how terrible it was that schooling had kept mistakes from being turned into opportunities while the learning was taking place.”  However, revisiting Gardner’s post within the context of Nelson’s comments, a different statement stood out:

We must be willing to open our minds to each other as we learn, and endure our mistakes, and be alert to the possibilities of learning that mistakes can reveal or even inadvertently stimulate.

Apply this to a workgroup with an organization.  We must open our minds to each other as we work and endure our mistakes . . . to be alert to the possibilities of discorvery that mistakes can reveal or stimulate.  That is the skill and type of work environment Nelson highlights in regards to Pixar.  The ability to fail and recover is critical.  For that skill to be cultivated however, the organization must, as Gardner suggested, induce professionals to trust one another with their individual mistakes.

I took 10 minutes to watch at Edutopia.org Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace - a presentation by Randy Nelson, Pixar University, at the Apple Education Leadership Summit this past April (embedded below). I know there’s a cohesive message in this presentation, but I didn’t quite catch it because the presentation was densely packed with a number of thoughts or ideas that hit upon recent or important topics for me. I’m interested in hearing what you may take from the video.  I focused on several key thoughts that ultimately may help explain to learners several things they can do to help facilitate a collaborative effort rather than a cooperative one.

Collaboration vs. Cooperation

This was the last topic Nelson discusses, but for me, it brought the video segment together.  It hits upon an issue I blogged about a few weeks ago: the distinction between collaboration and cooperation.  Nelson describes the two concepts more succinctly, cooperation is a protocol that prevents people from getting in each other’s way as they work, but their working together is a matter of convenience than true necessity.  Nelson offers an assembly line as an example; each step of the assembly line is clearly defined; the line proceeds in a manner to prevent a worker at step 3 from getting in the way of the worker before or after them.  Other than they’re working on completing a single large task, there’s no real communication or interaction required between the two workers.  A cooperative effort usually helps make up for a lack of time or resources; many people work on the task since it would take one person much longer to accomplish it.  Dr. Reeves described cooperation as “divide and conquer.”  Ultimately though, given time and resources, one person could run an entire assembly line single-handedly.

Collaboration means something very different.  In contrast to cooperation, collaboration is more than simply making a contribution to the work effort.  In a collaborative workspace, people amplify one another; the good work of one person magnifies the work of another.  Individuals enhance the impact of contributions by others on the team; interaction and communication are necessary.   The question is how to teach learners to accomplish that; how to participate in a collaborative manner rather than a cooperative one; and how to design and develop activities which lend themselves to collaboration rather than cooperation.

Nelson described a few approaches taken by Pixar in various business processes that may be relevant.

Apply Key Principles of Improv

Nelson notes Pixar encourages and applies two key principles of improv in an effort to facilitate collaboration and innovation.  The first is, “Accept every offer.”  In improv, when a colleague hands a line (product) off to you, you don’t question what you’ve been given; you accept it and move forward with it.  Questioning the product halts the conversation; the conversation dies.  The alternative is to accept it and move forward with the possibilities. The second is, “Make your partner look good.”  The key is to focus on the positive; don’t judge or criticize as a first step.  Always working to make your partner look good allows you to, as Nelson calls it, “plus something.”  Focus on “This is what I have, what can I add to it?  How do I make my partner look good?”  That’s a more productive approach that leaves open possibilities which contrasts sharply with where the conversation goes if you focus on how to fix or improve a product you’ve been given.  Focus on how you can contribute to the conversation.

Be Interested, Not Interesting

Nelson described several characteristics of potential employees that Pixar hopes to find - innovative, accomplished and resilient were among them. And, of course, when searching for a next employee among a group with those attributes, you find many interesting people.  However, Nelson commented that it’s more important to be *interested* than it is to be *interesting*  When working in a collaborative environment - in contrast to cooperative - the person that’s interested contributes a great deal more.  An interested person leans in and listens closely when group members have something to say; an interested person is curious about solutions other than the first one suggested.  An interested person is more concerned about the process than their role in it.  An interested person does more to amplify the people around them.

Communicate, Not Transmit

I think similarly, Nelson stressed the importance and definition of the ability to communicate.  Communication is more than simple transmission.  Effective  communication inherently involves translation, and the translation must be done by the communicator, not the listener.   For example, most everyone has encountered IT support personnel in some shape, form or fashion.  Some IT personnel “emit” information rather than communicating; they don’t consider the audience and don’t make an effort to translate from tech-speak to English.   Further, communication is bi-directional; you must be able to receive information as well as send it.  Ideally, the information you receive helps shape the information you choose to send.

Collaboration in the Classroom?

So, what do learners need to know to better understand what collaboration really means?

• Collaboration absolutely requires the participation of two or more people; if you could accomplish the work by yourself, you’re cooperating, not collaborating.
• Collaboration Is enhanced by “accepting every offer” and “making your partner look good.”  Focus on what you can add to what others have suggested rather than revising or fixing their ideas or solutions.
• Collaboration is facilitated by group members that focus on being *interested* rather than being *interesting* - be curious about others’ ideas, explore the possibilities, enjoy the process rather than focusing to quickly on the outcome.
• Collaboration demands bi-directional communication in which your ideas are shaped by the ideas of others; you must work to make sure your ideas are comprehensible.