With Storyline and SCORM 1.2., the minimum value for passing the final quiz in a course is contained in the imsmanifest.xml file, in a line like this: <adlcp:masteryscore>80</adlcp:masteryscore> (the learner has to get at least 80% to pass).
In SCORM 2004, this is now called the Scaled_Mastery_Score.
Question: Where in the Storyline output for SCORM 2004 is this value stored? Using the example above, where would I find the value of "80" for the Scaled_Mastery_Score?
Scaled score values are passed in through the API. It's just part of the data model. I believe when the spec updated from the simple threshold to a min, max, raw scaled value - it made more sense to pass this through the API in a JavaScript call.
To answer your question, I don't think any tools pass in the min, max, raw values via the manifest since the LMS side isn't setup to expect these values in that container.
What is curious to me is the fact that the article I referenced was written by SCORM.COM (aka Rustici software) who also does Articulate's AICC and SCORM code (and I'm assuming Tin Can also).
So when they say it is usually done in the manifest for SCORM 2004 and then they do it a different way for Articulate, I just find that "mildly interesting." (In no way a criticism--just an observation.)
This is important to me in that for SCORM 1.2 to work in my client's Saba system with a course that has a final quiz, I need to remove the mastery score value from the manifest file--otherwise Saba takes over determining completion from the content, which we normally do not want. We usually want the content to determine completion and Saba to follow that.
If we don't remove the mastery score value, Saba may fail a learner for not passing a quiz and move the registration to the transcript as unsuccessful instead of usually accepting the incomplete that we have the content send so the registration would stay on the learner's enrollments.
Not sure yet if I have to do that (remove the mastery score value) for SCORM 2004 or not. That's why I was checking. I'll be doing some testing later tonight.
Ah, so it is... I've never noticed this in any of the manifest files I've generated. I have always seen it passed in when the score is submitted. I don't think there's an advantage one way or the other - except in the case you're describing
And because SCORM 2004 3rd and 4th Editions provide for larger suspend data, my client may want to move to SCORM 2004 3rd or 4th Edition and move from AICC and SCORM 1.2--that is, until Saba gets off their _ _ _ _ s and supports Tin Can (and my client can then implement it).
You may want to look at how the LMS handles suspend_data. When ours moved to support larger fields for 2004 4th, it was the same field for 1.2 so we also got the larger field size for 1.2.
8 Replies
Okay, I think I found it. Normally it should also be in the imsmanifest file per this.
According to that SCORM.COM article, putting it elsewhere would be the exception.
In Storyline output, the passing (or mastery) score appears to come from the story.js file in the output's story_content folder, like in this example:
function QuizData(strQuizId, strQuizName)
{
this.strQuizId = strQuizId;
this.strQuizName = strQuizName;
this.arrQuestions = new Array();
this.dtmFinished = new Date();
this.strStatus = "";
this.nScore = 0;
this.nPassingScore = 80;
this.nMinScore = 0;
this.nMaxScore = 100;
this.nPtScore = 0;
this.nPtMax = 100;
Can someone from Articulate confirm this? And--just curious--why would you move it from the manifest file?
Scaled score values are passed in through the API. It's just part of the data model. I believe when the spec updated from the simple threshold to a min, max, raw scaled value - it made more sense to pass this through the API in a JavaScript call.
To answer your question, I don't think any tools pass in the min, max, raw values via the manifest since the LMS side isn't setup to expect these values in that container.
Thanks, Steve.
What is curious to me is the fact that the article I referenced was written by SCORM.COM (aka Rustici software) who also does Articulate's AICC and SCORM code (and I'm assuming Tin Can also).
So when they say it is usually done in the manifest for SCORM 2004 and then they do it a different way for Articulate, I just find that "mildly interesting." (In no way a criticism--just an observation.)
This is important to me in that for SCORM 1.2 to work in my client's Saba system with a course that has a final quiz, I need to remove the mastery score value from the manifest file--otherwise Saba takes over determining completion from the content, which we normally do not want. We usually want the content to determine completion and Saba to follow that.
If we don't remove the mastery score value, Saba may fail a learner for not passing a quiz and move the registration to the transcript as unsuccessful instead of usually accepting the incomplete that we have the content send so the registration would stay on the learner's enrollments.
Not sure yet if I have to do that (remove the mastery score value) for SCORM 2004 or not. That's why I was checking. I'll be doing some testing later tonight.
Ah, so it is... I've never noticed this in any of the manifest files I've generated. I have always seen it passed in when the score is submitted. I don't think there's an advantage one way or the other - except in the case you're describing
And because SCORM 2004 3rd and 4th Editions provide for larger suspend data, my client may want to move to SCORM 2004 3rd or 4th Edition and move from AICC and SCORM 1.2--that is, until Saba gets off their _ _ _ _ s and supports Tin Can (and my client can then implement it).
You may want to look at how the LMS handles suspend_data. When ours moved to support larger fields for 2004 4th, it was the same field for 1.2 so we also got the larger field size for 1.2.
GREAT tip. Thanks!
This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.