What do I gain from publishing in TinCan as opposed to SCORM

May 17, 2014

I am a bit confused regarding, in practical terms, what do I gain if I publish and upload to my LMS a Storyline course in Tincan format as opposed to do it in Scorm?

I just published in TINCAN for the first time, my LMS is Docebo 6.3 SaaS Version and it supports Tincan, but the options for reporting in Storyline are the same.

So.... What's the difference in practical - usable terms?

Best Regards,

Otto

5 Replies
Andrew Downes

Another big advantage of using Tin Can for your e-learning courses is that you can collect Tin Can data from a range for learning experiences and then combine all the data to do interesting analytics or support better blended learning. You can read more about the benefits of Tin Can at TinCanAPI.com

Another option to achieve the same results if your e-learning course is only doing what was already possible with SCORM and no further you can continue to track with SCORM and then convert the SCORM data to Tin Can

Let me know if you have any follow up questions. 

Andrew

John Black

Originally, Tin Can was intended to replace SCORM. But, in reality, it only replaces a portion of what SCORM accomplishes. Tin Can provides specifications for a Learning Records Store (LRS), a versatile system for collecting data from a wide range of learning activities, including SCORM packages. There are several LRSs available now. However, Tin Can theorists originally conceptualized something called a "Training Delivery System” (TDS). A combination of LRS and TDS would replace SCORM entirely. Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any actual developments in TDS technology. When it comes to delivering content, I know of nothing intended to replace SCORM.

I will be delighted if someone informs me that I am mistaken.

Andrew Downes

Hi John, 

I think it's both technically true but also very misleading to say that Tin Can doesn't fully replace SCORM. Let me explain:

SCORM essentially has two elements, the Content Aggregation Model which deals with packaging up content to be bundled up and uploaded to an LMS, and the RunTime Environment which deals with communication between the learning experience and the LMS. 

Tin Can fully replaces the RunTime Environment element which handles communication between the learning and the LMS. Content aggregation is out of scope for Tin Can so in that regard it doesn't fully replace SCORM.

The reason why Tin Can does not include a content aggregation model is because data is transferred over the internet and content can sit anywhere. It doesn't need to be uploaded to an LMS so doesn't need to be aggregated.

If you have a separate need to aggregate content, you can use another standard to do this, or do something completely bespoke, as far as Tin Can is concerned, it doesn't matter - you can still communicate the data in a standard way. 

A TDS is one way of launching content, but not the only way. A TDS is simply a tool that launches learning experiences. Most LMS include these capabilities. There are informal agreed ways of launching Tin Can content and the CMI5 specification which is under development is looking to address this formally. 

Tin Can also enables a lot of things that SCORM can't do

Andrew

John Black

Thanks, Andrew. That's very interesting and informative.

I'm an instructional designer who frequently deploys Storyline content on Moodle. We don't use tablets for delivering instruction. It seems, in terms of practical application, the Tin Can capabilities you mention probably won't have any benefits for us in the foreseeable future.

Actually, I'd be pretty happy with the Storyline/Moodle combination if someone would add the Result field to the SCORM Interactions Report. This would enable educators to quickly perform an item analysis, e.g. what percentage of students missed a given question. If anyone agrees, please vote for MDL-45712 in the Moodle Tracker.

This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.