（ＡＥＮ Project ２００５）

WG1:Interoperability technology of
e-Learning

March.2006
e-Learning Consortium Japan

２ Implementation and support of WG activity (WG1: Interoperability
technology of e-Learning, WG2: Validation system, etc.) in Asiane-Learning Network, hereinafter referred to as “AEN”)
2.1

Interoperability technology of e-Learning (AEN-WG1 activity)

2.1.1

Activity objective

In order to propagate e-Learning, it is necessary to maintain the environment thatvarious types and volume of contents which users require, can be distributed into themarket, and as the large premise, the interoperability between LMS and content must
be kept. As a fundamental technology for the interoperability maintenance, theSCORM standard of ADL has been becoming international defacto standard, and thisactivity is performed to aim at propagation and promotion of the SCORM standard.
Particularly in this year, surveillance and propagation activity regarding the SCORM
2004 standard which is a latest SCORM standard, is to implement as an important
theme.
2.1.1.1

Objective(1) Surveillance and research of SCORM 2004 standard(2) Questionnaire surveillance of interoperability issue, etc. in field(3) Cooperation and information exchange with each AEN country and overseas
standardization organization
2.1.1.2

Target result(1) Surveillance and research of SCORM 2004 standard
The SCORM 2004 standard is to survey, and the following documents shall be
provided based upon the surveillance result.
・Preparation of SCORM 2004 guide・Guide for SCORM 2004 content preparation
・Preparation of content case that SCORM2004 feature was used(2) Grasping and solution planning of interoperability problems being occurred inJapan and each AEN country(3) Tendency and status grasping of each AEN country and overseas standardization
organization

2-2

2.1.2

Activity overview

2.1.2.1

Implementation system
Table 2-1

Implementation system
Enterprise, institute and university nameLeaderKiyoshi Nakabayashi

NTT Resonant

Domestic member

Name
Minoru Toida

SATT

Mitsuru Ikeda

J apan Advanced Institute of Science And Technology

Fumio Hirose

Wilson Learning Worldwide

Hiroshi Miyauchi

Sangyo Notitsu University

Shingo Shibata

CompaqMamoru Ohta

EnegateMR.Sok Tha

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

MR.Om Sethy

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

MR.Ronghuri Huang

Beijing Normal University

MR.Robert Siagian

Ministry of Finance, Directorate General of Budget

Cambodia
China
Indonesia
Korea

Overseas

Laos
Malaysia

Head of devition Region Bandung West-Java

MR.Ju Hyung Lee
MS.Khampheng
Phathadavong
MR.David Asirvatham

Dunet Inc. CTO
Sengsavanh College
Centre for Multimedia Education Development,
Multimedia University

Myanmar

DR.Pyke Tin

University of Computer Studies, Yangon

Philippine

DR.Rufino MananghayaPhilippine ｅlearning Society

Singapore

MR.Lim Kin Chew

Learning Standards Technical Committee Chairman

MR.Lam Quang Nam

Vietnam Information Technology Examination

Viet Nam
ThailandUSA
Secretariat

Lecturerand Training Support Center Vice Director
DR.NiracharaphaThongdhamachart

MICT

MS. Jennifer Brooks

Alexandria ADL

Toshio Munemoto

e-learning Consortium, Japan

Yoshiko Terada

e-learning Consortium, Japan

2-3

Co-Laboratory

Schedule

March

February

January

Decembe r

Novembe r

October

SeptmberAugustApril

Work item

July

Schedule

June

Table 2-2

May

2.1.2.2

・Planning
・SCORM 2004 surveillance/research・Questionnaire surveillance
・Cooperation with overseas
standardization organization
・International Conference・Activity summery

2.1.2.3▲

Committee activity and others(1) Domestic committee activity
Table 2-3
Conference nameCommittee activity

Date held

Major agenda

First routine conference

Jul. 5, ‘05

・Planning and review of activity program

Second routine conference

Jul. 25, ‘05

・Preparation study of SCORM 2004 propagation
promotion document
・Preparation study of SCORM2004 application case・Study of interoperability questionnaire

Third routine conference

Aug. 18, ‘05

Fourth routine conference

Sep. 16, ‘05

Fifth routine conference

Oct. 11, ‘05

Sixth routine conference

Nov. 8, ‘05

・Review of SCORM 2004 document preparation
specification
・English policy study of SCORM 2004 document
・ADL business trip report
・Review of SCORM 2004 document

Seventhroutineconference

・Business trip report of SCORM International
Community Conference (Australia)
・Review of SCORM 2004 sample content
・Agenda review of International Conference
・Review of SCORM 2004 sample content

Dec. 2, ‘05

・Study of International Conference presentation
document
・Review of SCORM 2004 document English version

Eighth routine conference

Feb. 1, ‘06

・Business trip report of ADL Taiwan Conference・Assignment of activity summery, report preparation,
etc.

2-4

(2) International Conference activity
The first International Conference was held in Tokyo in December 14, 2005. The
conference description is described in the sub-section 2.1.5.
2.1.3

Surveillance and research of SCORM 2004 standard

2.1.3.1

Overview

Concerning the latest SCORM 2004 standard, the following issues were found as theresult of review from viewpoint of propagation and promotion.
(a) The simple sequence function that is a feature of SCORM 2004 can prepare
high content that was unable to prepare with SCORM 1.2, however there isdifficult function to use.
(b) The standard is too many volume to learn for a most of content developers.
(c) The ADL standard is English version and is therefore not easy to use.
In order to therefore resolve such problems and to effectively propagate and topromote the standard, the following documents and samples were provided. Supply toeach AEN country by English of documents, etc. provided this time and public releaseby AEN portal site and insertion to content presentation site are scheduled.
Table 2-4

SCORM2004 preparatin document list

Preparation
document
123

2.1.3.2

SCORM 2004 guide
SCORM
2004
content
Preparation guide
Sample content

Preparation purpose (person concerned)
Supplemental explanation of SCORM standard difficult
section (for content developer of LMS and content)
Content should able to create without reading standard(forcontent developer)
Supply of content development case(for content
developer)

Preparation of SCORM 2004 standard(1) Preparation policy
It’s been several years since the SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference
Model) standard regarding WBT (Web-based Training) content had been practicallyused. During this period, many LMS (Learning Management System), contents andauthoring tools complied with the SCORM standard were appeared in Japan andoverseas, and had been widely used.
The standard that is being used is SCORM 1.2 released in 2000. The SCORM 1.2
has been used for many products, while insufficient function, vague standard, etc.
have been pointed out. In order to resolve these problems, the specification newly
released by ADL in 2004 is the SCORM 2004 that is explained by this booklet.
New functions such as sequencing and navigation have been added in SCORM
2-5

2004, and standard description has been detailed. Due to this, these have practically
become almost satisfied contents, while whole standard page number exceeds 800,
it is not easy to grasp all images from the standard.
Based on such statuses, the descriptions of all images of SCORM 2004 standard,
newly added functions and differentiation with SCORM 1.2 were explained for
personnel who has some knowledge regarding SCORM 1.2. The target is topromote for understanding the standard by reading the standard after reading thisbooklet.
(2) Contents
The following is the contents extracted from this booklet:
1. Preface
2. SCORM 2004 overview
2.1

What is SCORM?

2.2

History of SCORM standard

2.3

LMS model

2.4

SCORM 2004 overview

2.5

SCORM standard transition (SCORM 1.2 from SCORM 1.0)

2.6

Changed points from SCORM 1.2 to SCORM 2004

2.7

Future SCORM

3. Sequencing
3.1

Content construction and learning target

3.2

Tracking information

3.3

Navigation request, sequencing request and completion request

3.4

Sequencing rule

3.5

Attempt

4. Navigation
4.1

Navigation control overview

4.2

Navigation command send and SCO completion

4.3

LMS navigation GUI control

5. RTE
5.1

Overview of SCORM runtime environment

5.2

Startup of learning source

5.3

API

5.4

Data model

6. Realization of sequencing
6.1

Sequencing process

6.2

Dummy code

7. Realization of runtime environment

2-6

7.1

Startup

7.2

Installation of API instance

7.3

Installation of data model

7.4

Correspondence with tracking information and RTE data model

7.5

Installation of navigation function

8. Transition from SCORM 1.2 to 2004
8.1

Difference and transition of manifest file

8.2

Difference and transition of RTE

2.1.3.3

Preparation of SCORM2004 content preparation guide(1) Preparation policy
Most large feature of SCORM 2004 is that the standard regarding sequencing andnavigation was newly added, in addition to content aggregation model and runtime
environment. Due to this, the behavior of dynamic content corresponding tolearning sequential planning and learning status of learner that was not able todescribe in previous version became possible to control. Furthermore, thecommands such as “Advance to next” and “Back to before” became possible tocontrol at content side, and freedom of material design and development by content
creator became high.
In addition, the content aggregation model and runtime environment such as
improvementofinteroperability,

reductionofstandard

vaguenessandcorrespondence to sequencing and navigation that were newly added, were alsochanged. Due to high performance function of such standards, the contents of
SCORM 2004 standard are widely spread, in proportion to increase of possibility ofcontent preparation and there are some issues that do not easily understand by thecontent creator.
In this booklet, subject to the content creators who have some knowledge of
SCORM 1.2, practical explanation will be also made by mixing partial sample codes
regarding overview and concept of SCORM 2004, points in content preparation andinstallation method of standards. Furthermore, The points to shift the SCORM 1.2
compliance contents to the SCORM 2004 contents will be also explained.
This booklet explains practical and useful information in order to understand
SCORM 2004 more for mainly targeting the content creators, however it does notdirectly involve in content creation, and it will be explained as the guide that can beused for personnel who involve in planning, design and development of e-Learning.
(2) Description contents
The following is the contents of this booklet extracted. The description contents in
sections 1 – 5 are the same as the SCORM 2004 guide.

2-7

1. Preface
2. SCORM 2004 overview
3. Sequencing
4. Navigation
5. RTE
6. Actual content of SCORM 2004
6.1

Actual sequencing

6.2

Actual 2004 SCO

7. Point of shift from SCORM 1.2 content to 2004 content
7.1

Manifest file and SCO

7.2

Shift of manifest file (imsmanifest.xml)

7.3

Shift of SCO

7.3.3

Change of data model

7.4

Change of error code

7.5

Possibility of SCORM 2004

2.1.3.4

Development of SCORM 2004 standard compatible sample content(1) Preparation purpose
SCORM 2004 compared with SCORM 1.2 is succeeding version, however
differentiation is occurring in a large portion.

Since standard volume was extremely

increased, it is very difficult status to understand SCORM 2004 by reading thestandard from the beginning. As one of approach to understand SCORM 2004, theSCORM 2004 standard compatible sample contents were developed. By operatingthese contents, it has been contrived to be able to intuitively understand theoperation of sequencing, etc. that was not able to realize in SCORM 1.2.
(2) Feature of SCORM 2004 that SCORM 1.2 does not have
Before the sample contents are created, an effort was made to create the contents
that are unique SCORM 2004. Before creation, the following points of SCORM 2004
were re-checked.
(a) Content interchangeability is highThis was operational problem because SCORM 1.2 was separated into
mandatory portion and option portion and existence of option had to always
check in the case the content was loaded on LMS. Since all things weremandatory for SCORM 2004, the interchangeability was remarkably increased.
(b) Difference on control between SCO and LMS
As shown in the following figure, SCORM 1.2 was able to realize inherent logic
inside SCO by stating the Javascript, etc. if the content creator intended tocreate an effective content. However, as the result, the interoperability will

2-8

disappear, and meaning as common possible part that is feature of SCO will be
lost. Furthermore, since the logic was hidden behind SCO, maintenance andimprovement were difficult.
Distribution

RecordDistribution

RecordFigure 2-1

SCORM 1.2 construction

Contrastively, in SCORM 2004, logic has been written in XML of the Manifest file,and has been shifted in LMS. By doing so, the SCO interoperability is increased,
resulting in expansion of usability as part. Furthermore, the logic can be seen form
outside, resulting in easy maintenance and improvement. Sequence can be also
described, resulting in becoming possible distribution request to LMS from SCO, andeffective contents became possible to create.

2-9Distribu-tion

RecordDis t ri but i onrequestDistribu-tion

RecordDis t ri but i onrequest図 2-2
Figure 2-2

SCORM 2004 construction

The superiority of SCORM2004 was described in the above, SCORM 2004
sequence control is not always simple. Therefore, as template using several
sequences, the method that content can be easily created, was considered. Fromsuch viewpoints, the following 3 types of template were concreted as sample
contents.
(3) Sample content overview
3 types of SCORM 2004 standard compatible sample content were created.
The first one is the content package aiming at entrance examination measure of
information processing engineer examination. This is the content to check learner’s
skill.
The following shows the features of this content package:• Supplies learning quota corresponding to information processing ability oflearner,• Shall consecutively learn the activity,• Can execute the skill check by each field,• Executes comprehensive skill check by dummy examination, and• Issues passing certificate in the case of passing of dummy examination.
The following shows the learning procedure of this content package:

2-10

Comprehensive guidance
entrance examination

activityofInformation processing ability examination
activityMore than 60
scoresLess than 60
scoresBasic information engineer examination
cluster

Entrance examination guidance
activity

Software development engineer examination
cluster

Skill check by each filed

Dummy examination activity

Less than 60
scoresMore than 60
scoresPassing certificate issue activity

Figure 2-3 Learning procedure (information processing engineer skill check)

The target of this content is to make correction deficits of that even if learners who
have different conventional skill answer all same questions, only very rough skill
check can be done. At first, in order to grasp correct skill by classifying into morethan and less than 60 scores and by letting them answer the questions
corresponding to such skill, correct skill can be grasped as well as the examination
time can be shortened without performing several examinations.
These sequence controls became possible to realize by first use of standard (tag)in SCORM 2004.
The second one is to be same subject of the entrance examiner of information
processing engineer examination but is the content aiming at skill up of learners.
The following shows the features of this content:• Supplies learning quota corresponding to the information processing ability oflearners,• The activity is mixed by consecutive learning and selective learning,• Can execute the skill up by each field,• The skill up cluster (unit) includes multiple activities, and consists of perusal
type activities with n numbers and examination type activity with 1 number(unit end examination),• When learner did not pass execution of first unit end examination, he reviews
from first activity within the unit. Advance to the next without control in the

2-11second execution.
• Provides activities that past questions were randomly prepared to aim at theskill up of learner, and• Check the skill up by dummy examination.
The following shows the learning procedure of this content package:Comprehensive guidance activity ofentrance examination

Information processing ability examination
activityLess than 60
scoresMore than 60
scoresBasic information engineer examination
cluster

Software development engineer examination
cluster

Entrance examination guidance
activity

Past question excise cluster

Dummy examination activity

Skill up by each field
Perusal activity [0]Perusal activity [1]Perusal activity [n-1]Examination activity
When it did notpass at first
execution

To next field

Figure 2-4

Learning procedure (Information processing engineer examination
Skill up edition)

This examination is also divided into more than and less than 60 scores, and skill

2-12

up of learners who are low skill is to be performed. Perusal shall be performed byeach field to examine whether learner was able to understand. In the case therecord does not reach passing score, retry shall be enforced. If passing score, let
him understand the next field. Thus, understanding shall be raised in each field toincrease skill up.
The third one is titled as the boy’s baseball “Let’s play catch ball” that the contents
consist of 2 sections, and the following figure is the learning flow.
Entire contents
Content introduction page

TargetWishes to able to play catch ballthat is base of baseballSection 1
Introduction pagePre-examination
Explanation

At first, it is necessary to know
“Base ball rule and fun”

Post-examination

In addition, knowledge require forcatch ball should understandSection 2
Introduction page

Explanation
Check examination

It should deem “Content purpose
was achievedContent completion page

Figure 2-5

Learning procedure (Boy’s baseball content)

Section 1 is the “Flow” type realized in the SCORM 2004 sequencing.
10 quiz (questions) has been recorded in pre-examination. Explanation SCO
corresponding to each question has been provided. It has been realized with thesequence function by reactivating only SCO of explanation that was wrong answer.
In learner stance, only “Advance to next” button at content screen is pressed, andthe operability has been excellent.
Post examination has realized “Retry” function in sequencing. If 1 question iswrong in the post examination, learner cannot leave from this post examination.
Learner can advance to the section 2 by correct answer of all 10 questions.
Section 2 is the “Choice” type realized in the SCORM 2004 sequencing. Learnercan directly start up from menu that each topic was provided by LMS. Due to this,learner can learn from the topic that he is interested in.

2-13

(4) Utilization method, etc.
The guide has been provide in each sample content, and each content constitution
and the detailed explanation of movement are described. Refer to the guide when
the sample content is to operate.
Furthermore, the boy’s baseball “Let’s play catch ball!” effectively utilizes video,
and since the diversified types of user interface are employed, in quiz portion, thiswill become reference of SCORM content production.
2.1.4 Technical tendency of e-Learning in each country
2.1.4.1 Technical tendency of standardization, etc. in Japan
Questionnaire in this year was performed to the eLC members (100 companies) andthe e-Learning related business enterprises (50 companies) of non-members.
Furthermore, the questionnaire was performed to e-Learning business responsible
personnel and development managers, and 63 persons from eLC members (30companies, Business responsible personnel: 30/development managers: 33), 17
personnel from eLC non-members (10 companies, Business responsible personnel:
10/Development managers: 7) were replied.
The breakdown of e-Learning business of eLC member 30 companies replied by thisquestionnaire surveillance (duplicated answers) is as follows: about 1/3 of vendors
performs LMS related business (development and sales), 2/3 of vendors performs
content related business (development and sales), and 2/3 of vendors is performing
e-Learning operation service and educational supply service by e-Learning.
At first, as the result of that the standard being employed by 23 companies who aredeveloping was investigated, SCORM 1.2 is 11 companies (48%) highest, SCORM
2004 is 5 companies (22%), non-compatible general standard is 5 companies (22%),
and 70% of them is developing with general standard recognized. Since the SCORM
compatibility in last year was approximately 52%, the standardization compatibility has
been remarkably increasing. Furthermore, same surveillance was also performed toｅLC non- members. It was only reference data because the number of reply was 10companies low, however general standard compliance is 30% (3 companies), generalstandard compatibility is 40% (4 companies) and the result was that eLC member
companies who were promoting for standardization was higher than non-members.
Concerning the content development that interoperability operated with different
several LMSs were considered, the companies who considered to operate withdifferent several LMSs by employing general standard such as SCORM, etc. inadvance are 14, and movement to keep the interoperability along with the generalstandard was observed.
Regarding the tackling with SCORM 2004 which is latest standard, standard alreadytackled is 22% (3% in last year), scheduling to tackling within 1 – 2 years is 48% (48%in last year) and 70% of the all will be employing SCORM 2004 in near future.

2-14

Table 2-5

Employing status of SCORM

Question content

Item replied

Main general standard ofdevelopment

SCORM
Non-compatible general standard
Already tackled with
Scheduling to tackling within 1 – 2years
No scheduled
No replied
General standard such as SCORM,
etc. was employed, and was
operated with both LMS
It was re-created so as to operate
special LMS compatible standard
with other LMS
Non-distribution purpose
Distribution purpose
SCORM compatible standard of
distribution purpose

Compatibility to SCORM
2004

Content development
operated with different
LMS

Content to be developed
this year

This
year
70%
22％
22%

Last
year
52％
33％
3％

48％

48％

22％
8％

36％
5％

100％

41％

0％

41％

73％
27％

59％
41％

41％

50％

Secondarily, concerning meaning, importance, etc. of standardization, the followingshows replies from the eLC member 30 companies (e-Learning business responsible
personnel (30 persons replied)) and e-Learning development division managers (33persons replied).
% figures with gothic are highest answers, and screening figures are items with large
difference of business responsible personnel and development managers.

Do

you thinkstandardization is an① important to develop your department

business?
you think Standardization has been
② Do
penetrating into Japan?
you think standardization becomes③ Do
an important for e-Learning users?
Do you think standardization SCORM) is④ enough specification for education
service supplied?
you think standard is necessary for⑤ Do
distribution and reuse of content?
Do you think standardization relates to⑥ reduction of development cost ofcontent?
Do you think standardization expands⑦ content product selection range ofclient?
Do you think standardization is not⑧ desirable due to restricting productfunction frame?
related information for realizing⑨ Is
standardization currently sufficient?

know

Not

judge

to

Hard

e-Learning
development
manager

No

know

Not

judge

Hard

standardization

to

for

No

Item

item

Yes

e-Learning business
responsible personnel

Replier

Questioned

Necessity of standardization

Yes

Table 2-6

63
%
30
%
70
%
13
%
77
%
37
%

13
%
37
%
13
%
40
%
13
%
20
%

23
%
30
%
17
%
33
%
10
%
40
%

0
%
3
%
0
%
13
%
0
%
3
%

61
%
39
%
52
%
21
%
67
%
42
%

15
%
33
%
3
%
42
%
12
%
27
%

21
%
24
%
39
%
24
%
21
%
24
%

3
%
6
%
12
%
0
%
6
%

67
%

7
%

27
%

0
%

67
%

15
%

18
%

0
%

17
%
30
%

37
%
50
%

43
%
13
%

3
%
7
%

6
%
27
%

45
%
55
%

48
%
12
%

0
%
6
%

2-15

3

Negative opinions for standardization are entirely plenty, and large difference
between business responsible personnel and development managers are not observed.
When looking at the item numbers that such conscious difference is conspicuous,
there is strong opinion that this is penetrated into the business responsible personnel
at ②, however there is strong feel that this has been penetrated into the development
manager. Furthermore the standardization is considered to be important as thebusiness responsible personnel at the item Nos. ③ and ⑤, however the conscious
difference from site developer is slightly observed. In addition, Concerning thequestion of “Is standardization at the item No. ⑧ restricted by the product function
frame?”, gap that the business responsible personnel has slight conscious framed
imaginatively while the site developer almost does not have such opinion, is observed.
Anyway, in order to promote standardization more, the opinions that further information
release is mandatory, exceeds 50%.
When this questionnaire was summarized by 17 business responsible personnel anddevelopment managers of eLC non-member 10 companies, the result was as follows:
Table 2-7

Necessity of standardization viewed from eLC non-member
Business responsible personnel
and development manager

Replier (eLC non-member)
Questioned item forstandardization
Do you think standardization is an
important to develop your department
business?
Do you think Standardization has been
penetrating into Japan?
Do you think standardization becomes animportant for e-Learning users?
Do you think standardization SCORM) is
enough specification for education service
supplied?
Do you think standard is necessary for
distribution and reuse of content?
Do you think standardization relates toreduction of development cost of content?
Do you think standardization expands
content product selection range of client?
Do you think standardization is notdesirable
due to restricting product function frame?
Is related information for realizing
standardization currently sufficient?

yes

No

Hard
to judge

Not
known

35%

12%

35%

18%

29%

18%

35%

18%

47%

6%

29%

18%

0%

6%

47%

47%

45%

0%

18%

36%

18%

35%

29%

18%

56%

17%

17%

11%

19%

25%

44%

13%

6%

61%

6%

28%

The feature of eLC non-members is that the reply ratios of “Not known” and “Hard tojudge” are comparatively high, and it is seemed that public information forstandardization will be insufficient. Furthermore, the conscious of standardization isseemed to be weak compared with eLC members.
Recognition and tackling of the development managers regarding the latest SCORM
2004 standard are as follows:
・74% of the development managers knows SCORM 2004 (eLC non-members
know only 43%),
2-16

・Expectation (may be used for content development) to the SCORM2004 newfunction (simple sequence function, etc.) is 62%, and it is observed to highly
expect the new function.
・The correspondence to SCORM 2004 is “Perform aggressively (27%)”, “Perform
if client needs are high (54%)” and “Not interested in tackle with (4%)”, and it isseemed to currently watch client tendency.
・Most of opinions on necessary condition for introducing SCORM 2004 were as
follows:
1. Japanese language of SCORM 2004 standard (73%)
2. Content production know-how manual (65%)
3. Guide for standard (62%)

2.1.4.2

Technical tendency of standardization, etc. overseas

The number of replies was 15 persons in 9 countries. The breakdown was 1 for
China, 1 for Indonesia, 2 for Korea, 3 for Laos, 2 for Malaysia, 1 for Philippine, 2 forSingapore, 1 for Thailand and 2 for Viet Nam. The number of replies is only 15 persons
low, however the all is AEN members, and it is considered that the content reliability ishigh due to e-Learning professionals. Furthermore, different replies from same country
used high ranking number. Table 2-8 shows the survey result.
Item No. 1

Propagation is asked by the item No. 1, and ① almost not propagated is
0 country, ② being propagated is 3 countries, ③ propagating is 2
countries and ④ already propagated is 4 countries, and the difference islarge depending upon country.
Item No. 2 Content distribution was asked by the item No. 2, and ① content
product that had not almost distributed in the market ( - several ten
products) was 2 countries, ② some amount of content products that had
been distributing in the market ( - several hundred products) were 5
countries and ③ many content products that had been distributing in themarket ( - several thousand products) were 2 countries.
Item No. 3 SCORM standard application was asked by the item No. 3, and ① theproduct employing the SCORM standard was less than 10% but 3
countries, ② the product employing the SCORM standard was 10 – 30%
but 3 countries, ③ the product employing the SCORM standard was 30 –50% but 1 country and ④ the product employing the SCORM standard
was 50 – 70% but 1 country and ⑤ the product employing the SCORM
standard was more than 70% but no country. As the results, the countries
complying with SCORM standard with more than 30% is 3, and Japan isbehind in this area.
Item No. 4 The SCORM standard version was asked by the item no. 4, and ① 1
country was not almost used the SCORM standard, ② 5 countries used a

2-17

number of SCORM 1.2, ③ 1 country used a number of SCORM 2004 and④ 2 countries used 50% of SCORM 1.2 and 50% of SCORM 2004.
Concerning the above results, gap that SCORM 2004 was not almost
propagated in Japan, was observed.
Item No. 5 The number of LMS vendors was asked by the item No. 5, and average
reply is 16 companies, however the breakdown is 25 – 50 companies in 3
countries, and others are 0 – 10 companies.
Item No. 6 The number of contents was asked, and average reply is 90 companies,
however the reply of 60 – 700 companies is 3 countries, and others are 2– 30 companies.
Item No. 7 The total sales of e-Learning relation was asked. Since the question
might be difficult, the number of replied countries was only 4, and ① $10 million was 0, ② - $100 million was 2, ③ - $1 billion was 0 and ④
more than $1 billion was 2.
Table 2-8Item No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Technical tendency of standardization, etc. overseas
Questionnaire
Concerning stage of e-Learning propagation, selectappropriate item in your country.
Are the many e-Learning related products available
in the market?
Are the content products in domestic market
compatible with SCORM standard?
Which SCORM standard of content products areused in domestic market?
Assume the number of content vendors related todomestic e-Learning business and fill out.
Assume the number of vendors related to domestic
e-Learning business and fill out
How much is annual total sales of domestic
e-Learning business?

①

②

③

④

⑤

0

3

2

4

-

2

5

2

0

-

3

3

2

1

0

1

5

1

2

-

16

-

-

-

-

90

-

-

-

-

0

2

0

2

-

Note: Meaning of questionnaire choices is as follows:
Item No. 1①: e-Learning has not almost propagated (less than 2%)/②: e-Learning
has started propagating (2 - 10％)/③: e-Learning is propagating (10 30％) ④: e-Learning has already propagated, and leading universities andenterprises are almost using (more than 30%).

Item No. 2①: most of content products is not distributing in the market ( - several ten
products)/ ②: many content products are propagating in the market ( several hundred products)/③:a number of content products is distributing
in the market ( - several thousand).

Item No.3①: the products employing SCORM standard are less than 10%, ②: theproducts employing SCORM standard are 10 – 30%, ③: the products
employing SCORM standard are 30 – 50%, ④: the products employing
SCORM standard are 50 – 70% and ⑤: the products employing SCORM

2-18

standard are more than 70%.
Item No. 4 ①: the SCORM standard is not almost used/②: SCORM 1.2 is many/③:
SCORM 2004 is many/④: SCORM 1.2 and 2004 are 50% - 50%.
Item No. 5: Total average value of countries answered
Item No. 6: Total average value of countries answered
Item No. 7: ①: $ - 10 million/②: $ - 100 million/③: $ - 1 billion/④: more than $1 billion.
2.1.4.3

Occurrence status and analysis of interoperability problem(1) Surveillance result at this time
8 problems were arisen as an interoperability problems. Of 4 problems
corresponded to item Nos. 1, 14, 15 and 16 of cause classification table. Other 4
problems are as follows:① Even the test result does not fulfill the masteryscore, it is to complete ascourse.
② Since the standard itself is vague, interpretation of the lesson_status differed
between LMS and content side.
③ Hierarchy of manifest is limited.
④ If the identifier value of SCO written in the manifest file is not started by special
character, it did not operate
These are analyzed. At first, ① is that setting of lesson status by comparing themasteryscore with the score is not performed, and is considered to correspond to theitem No. 9 of the cause classification table. ② is also considered to be problems oflesson status of the item No. 8 or 9. ③ is not included in the following cause
classification table, however assessor short course, etc. of eLC is handled as failurecase. ④ is first case, however it is considered to be problem that can be detected byapplying LMS by the ADL test suite. Thus, newly appeared problem is 1, and it isconsidered to be avoidable using the test suite when developing product.

2-19

Table 2-9Item Large
No.
classification

Cause classification table

Small classification

Explanation1

Differenceofcharactercode of manifest file

Character code of manifest file has not been
unified. Both Shift-JIS character and UTF-8
character exist.

2

Distinctionof
capitalandsmallcharacters of URL of
SCO

Since the web server distinguished capital andsmall characters, 404 error occurred.

Manifest
file

Absolute bus andrelative bus of URL
of SCO

3

4

SCO
startup

Retrieval order ofFindAPI
Argument

5

LMSInitialize

of
does

not

exist

6

API
function7

Return value of
LMSInitialize is
BooleanRepetitionof

LMSInitialize

andLMSFinis

8

9

10

11

Data model

Vocabulary oflesson_status isincorrect
LMS
that
lesson_status operation
has not been installed

LMS that learning
time is measured bylesson_status value
Premise condition andlesson_status value

URL of SCO written in the manifest file has
becomeURL (URL “absolute bus” starting from “/”) fromsite
top, LMS cannot interpret, resulting in nooperation.
The retrieval order of FindAPI does not go up
from SCO to main frame, has set to retrieve fromtop frame to down, and due to this, API frame
cannot be found, resulting in error.
There is SCO that calls LMSInitialize without
argument, and due to this, LMS detects error,
resulting in no operation.
There are SCO created by assuming that return
value
of
LMSInitialize
becomes
Boolean(theoretical value), and due to this, LMS detected
error, resulting in no operation.
There was SCO that did not call LMSFinish but
frequently called LMSInitialize, and error
occurred.
The value of lesson_status sent from SCO is"pass" and "fail", and LMS value cannot beproperly acquired.
There was LMS that lesson_status had
reflected only SCO write value and initializationand status change thereafter was not properly
installed.
There is LMS that learning time from setting“imcomplete” to lesson_status till setting“completed” is measured, and due to this, thelearning time cannot be properly measured.
“Passed” was needed to receive in order tosatisfy the premise condition at LMS side, but
SCO outputted “completed”.

12

Value ofcmi.core.score.raw isout of range

13

LMS
operation
when
Masteryscore is 0

Operation is not stable depending on LMS whenmasteryscore is 0.

14

LMS operation whenmasteryscore is empty

There is LMS thatmasteryscore is empty.

The value of cmi.core.score.raw outputted from
SCO is not within range.

2-20

does

not

operateifHandling of option
data
element
notinstalled

15

16

It is SCORM complied
LMS, but material cannot
be transplanted

LMS

When SCO using option element was operated
by LMS without installation of option element,
error occurred.
Authoring tool attached to SCORM complied
LMS can only create material of unique style, andcannot transplant to other LMS.

(2) Transition of surveillance result
Up to this time, 3 surveillances of occurrence status of interoperability problem were
performed about 1 and half year interval. Table 2-10 shows the number of occurrence
and the number of types of new failure. As shown in the table, the number of failure
occurrence has been remarkably decreasing every each surveillance. Furthermore,
new type of failure has occurred only 1 type at last and this time. From the result, it isassumed that problem regarding interoperability has been converging.eLC hasreviewed the interoperability problems found up to date, and has stated and released
the content and countermeasure in “Application technology for SCORM interoperability
improvement by case study”. The policy is seemed to remarkably contribute prevention
and solution of the interoperability problems.
Table 2-10

Transition of number of interoperability problem occurrence

Date surveyed

January 2004

December 2004

October 2005

54

34

8

Type of failure

33

―

―

Type

33

1

1

Numberoccurredofnewfailure2.1.5

Information exchange regarding interoperability maintenance, etc. with each

AEN country and standardization organization
2.1.5.1

AEN-WG１ International Conference(1) Conference overview
The AEN-WG1 International Conference was held in Tokyo in December 14, 2005.
The participants from overseas were 13 of 12 countries, 4 participants wereparticipated from Japan, and presentation of each country status and opinion
exchange regarding the interoperability were performed. 1 observer from ADL wasalso participated, and addressed the activity status of ADL.
(2) Participants

2-21Table 2-1

International conference participant list
Participant nameCountry nameCambodia

Mr. Om Sethy

Cambodia

Mr. Sok Tha

ChinaMr.Ronghuai HUANG

Indonesia

Mr. Robert Siagian

Korea

Mr.Ju Hyung Lee

Laos

Ms. Khampheng Phathadavong

Malaysia

Mr. David Asirvatham

MyanmarDr. Pyke Tin

Philippine

Prof. Rufino Mananghaya

Singapore

Mr. Lim Kin Chew

ThailandDr. Niracharapha Thongdhamachart

Viet Num

Mr.Lam Quang Nam

USA

Ms Jennifer Brooks

Japan

Nakabayashi chairman, Toida, Miyauchi and Shibata(3) Content of major opinion exchange(a) Korea (presenter: Mr.Ju Hyung Lee)Q) We would like you to explain of technical difference and meaning of 2D
and 3D.
A) Basically, These have been realized with local environment of lectureattendants. All of these realize the virtual reality education, however 2Dis ordinal content that realizes by “Flash”. 3D is currently underdevelopment, and the concrete contents are unknown.
(b) Malaysia (presenter: Mr. David Asirvatham)Q) We would like you to explain of the ASEAN e-Learning Center.
A) There is function such as original Proposal Center of the Department of
Telecom, and they are performing the following things:
・Performs development for ASEAN,
・Performs the platform development, and・Obtains feedback.
It is assumed to be future issue how they collaborate with AEN.
(c) Singapore (presenter: Mr. Lim Kin Chew）
Q) We would like you to explain of SCORM compatible LMS.
A) We are using the BlackBoard, and many users are using at earlier stage.
10 schools were using this in last year, and 20 schools are using thisyear. A large issue is how we are expanding this in future.
2-22Q) What kind of private sector has SCORM been using?
A) The current status of SCORM market is still small. Many companies
actually bankrupted or are facing with crisis of bankrupt, and are
suffering from budget cut, many problems and others, however the
SCORM problems are not captured as a large problem.
While, in order to propagate this, we recognize that most important thingis to keep having a patient passion.
(d) Thailand (presenter: Dr. Niracharapha Thongdhamachart)
Q) Do you have any problems in Thai language?
A) Yes, we have. There are many domestic problems. Many products havenot been SCORM compliance yet, and since contents, etc. can not becorrectly imported, they may be problem before language. We aresuffering from various types of error.
Q) We would like you to explain of the e-Learning status of civil enterprisesin Thailand.
A) Actually, there is the NSTDA belonging to National Science andTechnology Development Agency, and they are severely preserving to
the SCORM compliance, and complies with SCORM 1.2.
Q) Concerning the content development, how are you promoting in
Thailand?
A) We are using the open source using CMS (content Management System)
called “noodle” and “Atutor” . We are also developing the contents using
game engine.
2.1.5.2 Corresponding conference with ADL(1) Conference overview
In ADL (ADL Alexandria Co-Lab, Alexandria, Virginia USA) in September 21,
2005, discussion of ADL and AEN cooperation, etc. was performed. As the result of
discussion, understanding of ADL leader regarding cooperation to AEN activity
including attendance to the AEN International Conference was obtained.
(2) Attendant
・ADL attendants
Mr. Phillip Dodds, ADL Chief Architect
Mr. Paul Jesukiewicz, Alexandria Co-Lab Director
・AEN attendant
Nakabayashi, Chairman(3) Major description
・Introduction of SCORM pen source engine, SCORM assessor activity and AEN

2-23

activity. These activities are highly evaluated as ADL.
・Cooperation request regarding SCORM standard translation. This is also an
important activity for general standard propagation to each country, and they
promised they would fully cooperate us.
・Participation request to AEN conference in December. They are excessively
expecting interoperability experiment (ALIVE), etc.

of SCORM 2004, they

promised us someone would directly participate in.
・Development tendency of the ADL technologies such as SCORM, CORDRA,
S1000D, etc. SCORM will enter into the maintenance phase. CORDRA isdispersed lipogitory standard and starts to use within ADL by operating theprototype. S1000D is try that various design documents and learning materials
will integrate.
・Overview of the Mel bourn SCORM Stewardship Conference (refer to sub-section
2.1.5.3) in October. We are expecting participation of each country government
level, and Australia, Canada, England, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are scheduled toparticipate with such level.
2.1.5.3 SCORM Stewardship Conference(1) Conference overview
We participated in the SCORM Stewardship Conference (official conference
name: Advanced ADL through Global Collaboration) held in Mel bourn in October 3– 6, 2005. The sponsor of conference was ADL and the Department of Australia
Education, and the conference was divided into forum and technical workshop.
Nakabayashi , a chairman participated in from Japan as the AEN representative,
and performed presentation, etc. of the AEN activity status.
(3) Participating country and bodye-Learning propagation body related personnel of each country such as
Australia, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, USA and England.
Each standardization body representative of ADL, ADL Co-Lab, IEEE LTSC, IMS,
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36, and CEN/ISSS LT-WS.
(4) Conference background and purpose
・ ADL in USA had been performing various activities such as standard
development, tool development, propagation enlightenment, etc. regarding
SCORM and e-Learning standardization technologies by DOD support since
1997.
・The SCORM standard has been also widely propagating other than USA. On theother hand, in order to maintain and manage the standard, organization andresource that are required, however there is debate regarding the propriety ofthat propagation and maintenance management other than USA is continuously
supporting.
・There is ADL Co-Lab and ADP Partnership Lab as organizations who propagate

2-24and support AD activities. In the past, these organizations were limited touniversities in USA but have been established in Canada, England, Australia,
Korea, etc. by joint with local government institutes in current year.
・Based upon such background, this conference has been held in order that eachrelated country and various bodies gathered and debated regarding the directionin order to succeed and shift various activities of ADL up to date to theinternational organization (Stewardship).
・For the basic concept of succession, there is the document that debate points areshown.
(http://www.adlaustralia.org/aatgc/stewardship-mclean.pdf)
As the Stewardship style, participation of national institutes and NGO bodies
have been emphasized, and the case that internet was shifted from ARPA under
the DOD to IETF of civil base, is assumed as a model.
(5) Conference description① Forum・Concerning the direction to the aforementioned Stewardship establishment, eachcountry and the related standardization bodies presented the position paper
regarding each own position.
・The presentation was almost affirmative. Points of each country presentation are
as follows:・Japan: Open membership even country that does not have back up of
resource can participate. Cooperation with official standardization bodysuch as ISO,・Korea: Operation model that was precisely conscious continuation,・Singapore: Establishment of advisory committee. Regulated model, and・Australia: Establishment of integrated secretariat, user group and advisorycommittee.
・Comment of Robby Robson, IEEE LTSC chairman
・Discussion was performed based on( http://www.adlaustralia.org/aatgc/stewardship-robson.pdf ).
The points are as follows. These will be continually discussed in future.
・What is Stewardship subject to?
・What are common targets of participants?
・What is subject of Stewardship?
・Discussion for Melbourne common statement was performed, and consensus ofeach participating country was obtained.
・International cooperation for common infrastructure promotion of e-Learning
will be performed.
・Based upon current ADL activities, the Stewardship organization will beestablished about 3 years later.
・ADL will take initiative, and administrator conference for promotion and user
meeting will be performed.
② Technical workshop
The technical workshop that performed briefing of SCORM, CORDRA and

2-25

S1000D was held.
(6) Opinion exchange with sponsor
・A representative of ADL is to invite to the AEN conference to be held in Tokyo in
December, and this conference pattern makes each AEN country inputted.
・A representative participates in the International Plugfest to be held in Taiwan innext January.
・Neil Mclean of the Department of Australia Education that is one of sponsors thistime will be visiting Japan early next year, and opinion exchange will be
performed.
・Theme of technical cooperation with Korea, Taiwan and others will be searched.
・Participates in the administrator conference to be held up to the first half of nextyear.
(7) Opinion and comment of participants
・ If necessity of the technical standard for e-Learning propagation is to beconsidered, Japan is necessary to participate in the international activity
regarding development and propagation. However, this is not entire e-Learning
conference, and a care should be taken for only focusing the technical standard.
・It is unknown whether ADL initiative activity this time has any degree of centripetal
force in future. However, the e-Learning standards that are currently andconcretely installed and used are only SCORM and LOM, and it is seemed to be
no problem that this activity obtains a certain support of each country.
・ In this activity, it is assumed that Australia, Canada, Korea, etc. that are
partnership of ADL and domestic system has been established, have influence.
Cooperation with these countries through various opportunities is required.
・Japan has maintained a certain presence up to date, by appealing the propagation
activities to domestic ALIC to oversea. Furthermore, since 2000 when ALIC wasestablished, Japan has been participating in the activities such as ADL, IMS,IEEE LTSC and SC36, and has also established human connection. However,clarified support system does not currently exist in Japan, and it is considered tobe difficult to participate in continuous activities as similar to theabove-mentioned countries. A large future issue is how domestic support systemshould be built.
2.1.5.4 International Plugfest II & SCORM 2006
(1) Conference overview
The conference titled “International Plugfest II & SCORM2000 (official name:International Plugfest II, The 2006 International Conference on SCORM2004)” washeld in Taipei (Taiwan) in January 16 – 19, 2006. The sponsors were ADL and Taiwan
universities Tamkang University, National Central University, Southern Taiwan
University of Technology), and about 300 attendants in total were participated from
Taiwan and overseas. The conference contents were mainly SCORM initiative
conference and validation experiment. 3 memberrs of Nakabayashi, chairman, Toida
and Miyauchi of AEN-WG1 participated from Japan and presented the AEN activity
status, etc.

2-26

(2) Participating country and organizatione-Learning related personnel of each country such as Australia, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, USA, Germany, Italy, India, etc. , ADL, ADL Co-Lab and
IEEELTSC.
(3) Background and purpose of conference
ADL had been periodically holding the Plugfest as purpose of e-Learning standard
propagation in addition to SCORM. This conference was held as the 2 nd
International Plugfest outside USA, following Zurich in 2003. Together with thisconference, the international science council regarding SCORM 2004
“International Conference on SCORM 2004” was also held.
Furthermore, this event is also conference follow-up purpose regarding the
SCORM Stewardship implemented in Melbourn in last October. Due to this, Eachmember of Australia and each country that is interested in SCORM international
propagation gathered, and policy presentation, product and technical presentationand science presentation in addition to interoperability experiment, were performedin parallel by 3 parallel trucks.
(4) Conference description(a) Plugfest
In first day of January 16, tutorial regarding the ADL technologies such as
SCORM, CORDRA, S1000D, etc. was performed, and in 17 – 19 December,presentation was performed by splitting into Plenary Session and SOCRM 2004
Product Demonstration Session. Reporter mainly listened the tackling status
regarding the ADL technologies of each country at the Plenary Session andpresented the activities of Japan and AEN. Major topics are as follows:・As to the Stewardship, presentation that called participation of each country was
performed by Robby Robson of initiative member IEEELTSC and Neil Macleanof the Department of Australia Education. It was pointed out that clarification ofactivity scope, maintenance of activity fund, clarification of membership
qualification were future issues. The opinions of conference showed as follows:
especially searching cooperation way with ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 in future;planning clarification of activity parent body as international activity; due to this,scheduling to hold any conference by SC36 Peking Conference in this coming
September.
・Concerning the Partnership Lab that ADL is point of activity in each country, thefollowing was introduced: England and Canada officially entered into the MOU,
are under activity; Korea, Australia and Mexico are scheduled to enter into the
MOU, are under adjustment; and Taiwan will be entering into the MOU in
future.
・Concerning the Stewardship, the activity statuses were reported from Japan,
Australia, Mexico, Taiwan and Korea.
・Release of the latest edition of SCORM 2004 (3 rd edition) scheduled to modify
was postponed. Currently, draft opening at end of January and opinion

2-27

collection for 90 days are performing, and official edition will be releasingaround July.
・Concerning Japan and AEN activity, “Assessor”, “Open source engine”, “AEN
WG and ALIVE” were presented as major points. Since the information of“AEN has been completed” was informed, we orally explained “Underadjustment of continuation by ASEAN frame”.
・ In the tutorial program, details was discussed regarding SCORM history,
effectiveness, feature, Co-Lab introduction and future direction. Furthermore,as a large point, ADL was intending to shift from SCORM development phaseto maintenance phase. They clearly says they will not perform large
modification after SCORM 2004. Further, it was that activity center would shift
to CORDRA.
・Regarding the setting program, difference of SCORM conformance and SCORM
certification was also explained. It was explained that certification was
validated by ADL and it was able to check using conformance ADL Test Suite
Software (SCORM2004: Self Test Suite1.3.2 (in case of SCORM 2004)).
Furthermore, it was also explained that it became from SCORM 1.2 to SCORM
2004 an Conformance/Certification Levels became level 1 on both LMS andcontent package. While, it was that SCORM adopter vendor currently reached143. It was also emphasized that very plentiful information had been stated in
the ADL site. Certified LMS and content have been stated on the site.
・As SCORM 2004 content development tool, Reload Editor 2004 was introduced,
and ADL recommend to use this tool.
(b) International Conference on SCORM 2004
The conference was held for 3 days on 17 – 19. The number of presentations
were 29, and the breakdown by country is as follows:
Taiwan: 16, Japan: 4, UAE: 2, India: 2, Italy: 1, Brazil: 1, China: 1, Pakistan: 1
and Holland: 1
Presentations by Taiwan of sponsor were so many, and it was observed that
active activities regarding actual system, tool, content installation and SCORM
propagation had been performing.
Reporter presented installation and performance evaluation of SCORM 2004
open source engine.
(c) Plug N Play
Plug & Play area performed the interoperability experiment of LMS andcontent, and it is place to check interoperability between SCORM 2004 products.
Here, opinion exchange and problem solution can be performed by checking
actual operation. In the place, table, receptacle and LAN cable were provided,and each product could be freely tested. Tables for 15 companies had been
provided, and 5 or 6 companies had been performing tests.
Most of vendors have visited for the LMS testing, and vendors visited forcontent testing were nearly none. Vendors who contents were provided also
2-28

looked to divert the contents for their LMS operation check as for testing.
eLC brought in 2 types of content used for ALIVE testing and the Open Source
LMS (SCORM 2004 execution engine) and performed the interoperability
experiment.
No problem occurred in content registration. However, problems frequently
occurred in character display of Japanese/history keeping and sequencing
operation. In most of LMS, log was collected in detail and was able to use forcheck and others of sequencing operation.
(5) Opinion and comment of participant
・In this conference, it is considered that the fact clarified for targeting SC36 as theparent body for international standardization is one outcome. Japan has been
also aggressively participating in the SC36 activity, and stated that the ISO
general standardization of SCORM would be supported from the viewpoint ofdomestic SCORM propagation status. In future, before movement of SC36 isadvanced, closer cooperation will be continued by information exchange witheach country. Especially, concerning the process that SCORM in SC36 is
concretely standardized, there are many unclear parts, and Japan will also
aggressively join in debate of standardization promotion by targeting Turk
Conference in March and Peking Conference in September.
・In the above-mentions status, it is necessary to make clear the future direction of
AEN activity by communicating to ASEAN. Under the status that Korea andTaiwan are aggressively advancing the activity, it is considered to become an
important by diplomatically making it clear how the activity in Asia is positioning.
2.1.6

Summery of activity outcome

2.1.6.1

Activity outcome(1) Preparation of SCORM 2004 propagation promotion material and content
In order to propagate and promote SCORM 2004, “SCORM 2004 guide”,“SCORM 2004 content preparation guide” and “SCORM 2004 sample content”
were created. When these documents were presented at International Conference
participants and SCORM assessor, it is favorable comment, and there are many
requests for earlier supply. Especially, concerning simple sequence function thatis feature of SCORM 2004, it is scheduled to supply as the e-Learning content that
can actually operate and learn, and it is assumed to be effective for propagationand promotion.
(2) Grasping and countermeasure status of interoperability problem
As the result of that the occurrence status of the interoperability problem in siteof e-Learning had been investigated, it was found that both number of occurrence
and new failure had been converging. This is seemed to be true because creationand opening of “Application technology for SCORM interoperability improvement

2-29

by case study” has been contributing. New type of problem found this time wasonly 1.
(3) Information exchange with each country
We held 1 International Conference this year, participated ２ International
Conference, and were able to perform information exchange with many overseas
e-Learning related bodies and related personnel. Through information exchange,
major points newly found are as follows:
・Korea is aggressively tackling with the e-Learning promotion more than Japan
does, including SCORM by communication to ADL, etc. under his government
instruction.
・ Concerning maintenance of interoperability and SCORM propagation, eachcountry has realized the importance, and is performing various activities.
・Tackling with e-Learning at ASEAN and international standardization activity of
the SCORM standard has been started.
2.1.6.2

Future issue(1) SCORM 2004 propagation and promotion
SCORM 2004 propagation and promotion documents provided this time and
SCORM 2004 propagation and promotion by utilization of sample content andothers.
(2) Continuous cooperation with overseas
Aggressive participation to e-Learning related International Conference andimplementation of continuous communication with AEN overseas members.

2-30