I create multi-scene courses and export each scene as a standalone packet to load into my LMS as its own activity in a course. We recently switched to Tin Can API. Every scene I export from the project file has the same identifier. Is my LMS going to understand that these are separate files? Feeling a little out of my depth with this since I'm a Tin Can newbie. TIA!
I don't understand why you would need/want to export the scenes to run outside your course, but okay. I'm familiar with xAPI, but not how your LMS handles it, or the trade-offs to doing single course with multiple scenes or the all scenes as separate packages.
I would think that if going as separate packages, you'd still need a unique identifier for each, so that each activity completed can send the correct statements to your LRS.
A large number of my learners use dial-up internet or cellular data connection to access our LMS (very rural US state) so we have found that shorter SCORM/XAPI packets are more stable for their UX -- higher likelihood that completion status gets reported to LMS and user does not have to repeat a packet.
I included a screenshot in my OP to show how a typical course is structured -- mix of activity types, including LMS-based quizzing and HTML files.
Ahh, that makes some more sense, although I thought the behind the scenes front-loading of content would get around most of that. Interesting to know.
I guess since you want to uniquely identify each "section" of the larger "course" for tracking purposes, I would use a common prefix (course) and unique id (section/scene) combination.
I don't know how much that helps with your original question.
i’m concerned with the LMS (Talent) acknowledging completion of each xapi packet as its own record. It’s my understanding that Articulate autogenerates the identifier and it can’t be modified.
Perhaps you could use a learning plan, and/or prerequisites as a way to make them appear as a collection to the learner.
And to your point about the auto-generated id, that kind of leans toward making a choice of either breaking out your current scenes to separate StoryLine files, or publish as-is in one packet.
Aside from that, unless your LMS allows some fancy associations of separate things to be used to mark a single thing as complete, you're stuck with these options, as far as I know.
Each course in the LMS is made up of multiple activities, including multiple Storyline units as SCORM (now XAPI) packets, HTML documents, LMS-based quizzing, and videos. EG, the user registers for Topic 101, a 6-hour course, they have to complete Introduction HTML, SCORM #1, LMS Quiz #1, SCORM #2, HTML #2, LMS Quiz #2, etc.
To update with a response to my own question: Yes, my LMS recognizes single scenes from the same .storyline file as the same object, even when exporting the scene with a new name. EG, both Scene 1: ABC and Scene 2: DEF show up in the course timeline as Scene 1: ABC, even though the scenes were published with the unique names Scene 1: ABC and Scene 2: DEF.
I'll be resaving each scene as its own .storyline file.
7 Replies
I don't understand why you would need/want to export the scenes to run outside your course, but okay. I'm familiar with xAPI, but not how your LMS handles it, or the trade-offs to doing single course with multiple scenes or the all scenes as separate packages.
I would think that if going as separate packages, you'd still need a unique identifier for each, so that each activity completed can send the correct statements to your LRS.
A large number of my learners use dial-up internet or cellular data connection to access our LMS (very rural US state) so we have found that shorter SCORM/XAPI packets are more stable for their UX -- higher likelihood that completion status gets reported to LMS and user does not have to repeat a packet.
I included a screenshot in my OP to show how a typical course is structured -- mix of activity types, including LMS-based quizzing and HTML files.
Ahh, that makes some more sense, although I thought the behind the scenes front-loading of content would get around most of that. Interesting to know.
I guess since you want to uniquely identify each "section" of the larger "course" for tracking purposes, I would use a common prefix (course) and unique id (section/scene) combination.
I don't know how much that helps with your original question.
My learners are 100% asynchronous and self-paced.
i’m concerned with the LMS (Talent) acknowledging completion of each xapi packet as its own record. It’s my understanding that Articulate autogenerates the identifier and it can’t be modified.
Perhaps you could use a learning plan, and/or prerequisites as a way to make them appear as a collection to the learner.
And to your point about the auto-generated id, that kind of leans toward making a choice of either breaking out your current scenes to separate StoryLine files, or publish as-is in one packet.
Aside from that, unless your LMS allows some fancy associations of separate things to be used to mark a single thing as complete, you're stuck with these options, as far as I know.
Each course in the LMS is made up of multiple activities, including multiple Storyline units as SCORM (now XAPI) packets, HTML documents, LMS-based quizzing, and videos. EG, the user registers for Topic 101, a 6-hour course, they have to complete Introduction HTML, SCORM #1, LMS Quiz #1, SCORM #2, HTML #2, LMS Quiz #2, etc.
To update with a response to my own question: Yes, my LMS recognizes single scenes from the same .storyline file as the same object, even when exporting the scene with a new name. EG, both Scene 1: ABC and Scene 2: DEF show up in the course timeline as Scene 1: ABC, even though the scenes were published with the unique names Scene 1: ABC and Scene 2: DEF.
I'll be resaving each scene as its own .storyline file.