Comparison of WBT interfaces
Avendoo supports various interfaces for integrating learning content created in other authoring tools. In this article, we provide an overview of what these are and a recommendation on which ones you should use.
| LTI | CMI5 | xAPI | SCORM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specified content call | ✓ | ✓ | – | ✓ |
| Detailed Reporting | ✓* | ✓* | ✓ | – |
| Distributed content (also external) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | – |
| Extensibility | – | ✓ | ✓ | – |
*Reporting is visible in the provider’s system.
LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability)
LTI is a standard for linking and communicating Learning Management Systems (LMS) with external systems, e.g. for the use of external learning content. It enables the flexible integration of external tools into the LMS and focuses on integration and collaboration between different learning tools.
Advantages
- Easy provision of learning content in the consumer’s system.
- The provider system is responsible for the level of reporting detail, but this is very comparable to SCORM.
- The provider is responsible for updating content.
- Not many providers yet for the only valid version LTI 1.3
- Supports the anonymous transfer of user data when switching to the provider system.
- Integration of LTI content is possible as a “learning object in learning paths” by encapsulation in a WBT, but also as a “course object” (direct release via remote content releases).
Disadvantages
- The provider system is responsible for the level of reporting detail, but this is very comparable to SCORM.
- Not many providers yet for the only valid version LTI 1.3
CMI5
CMI5 is a newer standard that combines many advantages of SCORM and xAPI. It offers the structure and standardization of SCORM for packaging content and tracking learning progress, but with the enhanced flexibility and interoperability of xAPI. It enables more comprehensive tracking of learning experiences across different platforms.
Advantages
- Modern standard and includes a specified content call and other features. The xAPI specification is used for the return channel)
- Improved interoperability between LMS and learning content.
- Offers advanced functions for tracking learning progress and activities.
- Improved compatibility with various systems.
- Depending on the CMI5 content, an update of contents is not necessary, because these are provided on the side of the content producer.
Disadvantages
- May require manual updating and distribution of content.
- Reporting is currently not fully developed.
xAPI (Experience API)
xAPI is a modern standard for capturing and storing learning experiences in the form of activities. In contrast to SCORM, which mainly works within an LMS, xAPI captures data about learning experiences. It offers a more detailed and diverse way to track, analyze, and report learning activities. xAPI was formerly known as “Tin Can API.”
Advantages
- Newer standard with clearer specification.
- Detailed reporting options through xAPI-LRS.
- Interface communication is in the hands of the content producer.
- Offers flexibility in capturing and organizing learning data.
Disadvantages
- May require manual updating and distribution of content.
- Reporting is currently not fully developed.
- Content initialization is not covered by the specification.
SCORM (Shareable Content Object Reference Model)
SCORM is an older standard that focuses primarily on the provision and tracking of eLearning content in an LMS. It defines how content is packaged so that it can be used in an LMS. SCORM 1.2 is over 20 years old (from 2001) and is primarily based on the AICC standard of the Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee from 1988. Compared to xAPI, SCORM is less flexible and supports less comprehensive data about learning experiences. The function of the SCORM interface is realized via Java-Script in the browser, which is no longer up-to-date or secure in current browsers.
Advantages
- Widespread standard.
- Offers possibilities for the implementation of interactive functions and learning contents for the manufacturer.
- Enables reporting on learning progress.
Disadvantages
- Outdated standard.
- Differences in technology support and development between different standards and browsers. Many SCORM contents would have to be continuously adapted for compatibility with current browsers. So the manufacturer’s program for SCOM and the SCORM content itself.
- Scope and detail of reporting are limited to the completion status. Times are often not delivered or not delivered correctly.
- Compatibility problems between different standards and platforms.
- Manual updating and distribution of content.
- SCORM will become increasingly difficult to use via current browsers in the future due to security restrictions and the shutdown of support for outdated HTML techniques.
- SCORM is not suitable for examinations or audit-relevant qualifications. With the development tools, a user can set the LessonStatus (=result/completion) to “Completed” or “Passed” (completed or passed) and thus successfully complete the SCORM content without having done it.
- Many manufacturers do not adhere to the SCOM standard (e.g. maximum size of the suspend data) and do not fix errors even after years (e.g. updates of SCORM contents repeatedly lead to “white pages” for learners who have used the content before the change).