SCORM vs The Tin Can API
Why should I adopt the Tin Can API?
Learning technology specifications have been around for a long time, and they serve a good purpose. They ensure that content creators and content consumers are able to work well together and with ease — but they’ve had their flaws. The Tin Can API builds on over a decade of industry-wide experience, relieving many of the biggest drawbacks of previous standards. It’s a simple but powerful specification that many companies and products have adopted already, and it will be the backbone of learning technology for a long time to come.
What’s in it for me?
As a specification, the Tin Can API opens up a world of data you can share with and receive from other tools. By sharing, everyone benefits. You can provide more relevant suggestions to learners because you know the activities they have completed. You can participate in a much larger learning economy than has been possible before. No matter where the experience happens, it can be recorded with Tin Can API.So what are the differences between SCORM and the Tin Can API?
The chart below sums it up pretty well.| SCORM |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | |
| Track time | Yes | Yes |
| Track pass/fail | Yes | Yes |
| Report a single score | Yes | Yes |
| Report multiple scores | -- | Yes |
| Detailed test results | -- | Yes |
| Solid security | -- | Yes |
| No LMS required | -- | Yes |
| No internet browser required | -- | Yes |
| Keep complete control over your content | -- | Yes |
| No cross-domain limitation | -- | Yes |
| Use mobile apps for learning | -- | Yes |
| Platform transition (i.e. computer to mobile) | -- | Yes |
| Track serious games | -- | Yes |
| Track simulations | -- | Yes |
| Track informal learning | -- | Yes |
| Track real-world performance | -- | Yes |
| Track offline learning | -- | Yes |
| Track interactive learning | -- | Yes |
| Track adaptive learning | -- | Yes |
| Track blended learning | -- | Yes |
| Track long-term learning | -- | Yes |
| Track team-based learning | -- | Yes |
