SCORM 1.2 vs SCORM 2004

Can anyone share their insights about the benefits vs. shortcomings of publishing in SCORM 2004. I've stayed with SCORM 1.2 because I've heard general comments about 2004 being problematic. Now I'm working on a course where my internal client is asking for scoring that looks like the attachment. I've heard that scoring analytics are possible with SCORM 4 but I'm hesitating about trying it because of the vague bad buzz. Any ideas?


4 Replies
Judy Nollet

A company I contract with switched from SCORM 1.2 to 2004 (3rd edition) a few years ago. I don't know of any issues. I do know that SCORM 2004 can "remember" more when someone exits a course, so the user is less apt to lose their progress in a very long/complicated course. In short, I don't know of any reason not to make the switch to SCORM 2004.

Unfortunately, I can't provide any guidance about scoring analytics, because I'm not involved in that aspect at all.

Michael North

Our LMS requires us to use SCORM 1.2 or SCORM 2004 (2nd and 4th Edition), but we generally end up using 1.2 as it can be more ‘reliable’.

My understanding of the differences is that the later editions of 2004 have a larger character count and therefore better bookmarking (memory), so 1.2 could throw a use back a few slides for larger courses.

2004 also allows Interaction level reporting where as 1.2 will just return a score.