• Download PDF (348KB)

Classifying the level of training is a flexible metric. It is important to have a general framework for such levels, however, so both the project sponsor and the developer have a standard reference point to ensure scope and requirements are aligned. For example, when a company requests a bid on an eLearning project, everyone should have the same point of reference to determine what is being requested – resulting in pricing that is accurate and comparable.

We therefore need fairly strict definitions of what the levels are, or else they are not of any practical value. One such attempt is known as “CBT Levels”, a term reflecting its age since ‘CBT’ is somewhat dated terminology these days. So while perhaps better titled “Levels of eLearning” (or “Levels of e-Learning”, depending on your hyphenated preference), the concept remains the same: how can training be classified for purposes of style, presentation, depth and, perhaps most importantly, cost?

As applied to eLearning, such classifications are impacted by general complexity, range and richness of multimedia, and – perhaps most dramatically – the depth of interactivity. Of course, defining “interactivity” can be a nebulous quest in itself! Clicking on a ‘Next button’ requires the user to interact with the lesson, but that’s a pretty tame definition. On the other hand, it is generally accepted that the more interactive the module, the more effective it will be in achieving the objectives.

Interestingly, the actual levels defined within this class are somewhat arbitrary. Some sources suggest there are three levels of interactivity, others say four, and still other specify five! For customers looking to work with our group of eLearning experts, we’ve settled on a simple 3-level definition focused on the interactive complexity as well as the range of potential media, from simple images and photography to video and complex 3D animation.

Level 1: What are commonly referred to as ‘page-turners’, purists grumble that such courseware shouldn’t even be considered ‘eLearning’ as its efficacy is questionable. However, in our experience, such modules can be effective for communicating simple concepts and rules, and are indeed relatively inexpensive to develop. Most current ‘authoring tools’ publish these (Level 1) types of modules by default – commonly through simple PowerPoint conversions – though how truly effective they are depends on the author, the presentation, and the content. Overall, such Level 1 eLearning titles offer very little interactivity beyond ‘clicking Next’ and basic quiz questions, and simple media elements like stock images, transitions, and general narration.

Level 2: At this level, courseware starts to get a bit more complex with a moderate level of interactivity and multimedia assets (such as audio, video, and animation). Often the objectives are geared more toward more involved concepts, single-path simulation, and procedural tasks. Many customers shoot for Level 2 courseware as a compromise providing an effective course at a moderate cost. Aside from some content-related interaction, the lesson navigation expands to menus, submenus, branching, glossaries, and links to outside resources. The actual learning content within these lessons is somewhat static, aside simple transitions and animation, and often accompanied by simple exercises (i.e. drag-and-drop, matching, and identification components) and professional narration. Multilingual versions of the courseware are also a consideration at this level.

Level 3: Level 3 eLearning courseware includes sophisticated exercises, such as software or hardware simulation, a variety of ‘branching’ to reflect and provide feedback at decision points, and serious games. These highly-interactive modules may include very complex simulation with multiple response and feedback pathways, and most certainly include a liberal assembly of multimedia assets from pre-recorded or live video to interactive 3D objects, and perhaps the use of digital ‘avatars’. Such courseware could be defined as a ‘serious game’.  The oft-referenced ‘flight simulator’ remains a good example of Level 3 training.

Those three levels generally suffice as general guidelines, but variations are easily configured. A ‘Level 1’ page-turner could quickly reach the ‘Level 3’ price-point with addition of custom video. A ‘Level 3’ piece with complex navigation could have a lower cost by using simple stock art resources. As noted above, content, style, presentation, images, animation, audio, video, and overall instructional design – all are crucial factors in creating ‘good’ training material, as well as factors that will affect the development effort (cost) of the courseware.

With so many potential components of an eLearning courseware, it can be difficult to estimate the pricing for such development; the more that is known up-front on the style, media, presentation, and interactive components of the desired modules, the more accurate the cost estimate will be. As mentioned, while the levels of e-Learning provide solid guidelines for initial approach and pricing, each level can contain its own set of variation, requiring a clear definition of the project.

Splitting the project’s development into two phases facilitates this process. The first Instructional Design analysis phase helps to identify the style, audience, content, media, etc. of the desired courseware – not only making the final development costs more accurate, but also identifying key objectives and processes that may be enhanced through multimedia and interactivity. The results are generally detailed in a Design Document deliverable, including the scope, tasks, and pricing for the subsequent Development phase.

While the goal of this paper is to better define the levels of eLearning, other considerations must be considered in defining the project’s scope and timeline, such as:

• Availability of subject matter experts (SMEs); can the customer provide the SME or should the developer find and price an outside party into the project?
• What is the customer’s expected response time for discussions and product review?
• Is a project site required to manage the assets and deliverables?
• What are the overall ‘seat time’ minimum or maximum requirements?
• Are government requirements, such as Section 508 specifications, a factor?
• How will the courseware be delivered – via CD, Kiosk, web, or a SCORM-compliant learning management system (LMS)?
• Does the delivery method impose any restrictions on the types of preferred media or the development approach?

Understanding these factors, along with the overall required ‘level’ of your eLearning courseware will assure accurate pricing, a streamlined design and development process, and an effective training product. With over a decade in the eLearning field and extensive experience with custom content design, development, and SCORM implementations, ICS Learning Group can assists with all these components. Contact us for discussion, industry resources, and reference papers to help quantify your project.

This whitepaper assists you in understanding the pieces involved with the eLearning puzzle, from the basic requirements to the pros and cons of various options.

• Download PDF (59KB)

Introduction

While many larger companies have already transitioned into e-Learning and embrace it as a vital component of their overall training efforts, many mid-size and smaller companies have been waiting on the sidelines observing how the technology, methods, and costs evolve. As with any relatively new industry, things have indeed changed and evolved. Many new products and technologies are available and, in general, the industry has matured. These new options have made e-Learning much more achievable for smaller companies with limited resources and budgets.

However, with the new choices come complexity and the need to understand how the pieces all fit together. The purpose of this article is to assist you in understanding what the pieces of the solution are, along with the associated choices that you will have to make. While there are many new possibilities, there are also many potential pitfalls that if not understood, can cause delay, frustration, increased costs, and disappointing results.

The key to success is in understanding what the possibilities are and how they map into your needs and requirements. This article is a roadmap of the decisions that you need to make along with the pros and cons of the different options that should be considered.

Content versus System

To begin with, it is important to realize that any on-line training solution should be divided into two key components. First, there is the content which consists of your lessons, courseware, quizzes etc. Secondly, there is the infrastructure or system that you will use to deliver the content. The system will perform all of the management, tracking, reporting, and administrative functionality. The system that provides this infrastructure is generically called a Learning Management System (LMS) and is a software program or web application that you will either develop or purchase. The key point to make is that these two components, content and system, are separate and should be addressed individually.

The SCORM Specification

So, we have these two pieces – the instructional content (or “courseware”) and the LMS. The key to allowing these two components to be separate is providing a framework for them to work and communicate with each other.

An analogy would be a CD and a CD-Player. You can be fairly confident that if you purchase a new audio CD and go home to play it, that it will work regardless of the brand of player that you have. The manufacturers of both the CDs and the CD players developed a common specification that allows for this type of plug and play interoperability.

The e-Learning industry has developed several specifications of its own whose goal is to allow courseware to be “plugged” into any LMS so that it can be properly launched and tracked. While there is some history behind the evolution of the specification, it is generally accepted that the prevailing industry standard is the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specification that was developed by the Advanced Distributed Learning (www.adlnet.gov) organization.

In laymen’s terms, it is this SCORM standard that allows courseware or Sharable Content Objects (SCOs) of all types to be loaded into any SCORM-compatible LMS. The LMS will be able to launch the SCO and communicate with it, so that things like status and quiz scores are passed from the SCO back to the LMS and recorded as part of the student’s records. The development of the SCORM specification is essentially what has allowed the e-Learning industry to make a clean division between LMS solutions and content/authoring solutions. This development has allowed for and encouraged the many new options with regard to purchasing:

• Previously developed “off-the-shelf” SCORM content
• New SCORM compliant content authoring tools
• SCORM compliant Learning Management Systems

Developing your Instructional Content

We will first discuss some of the options regarding how you can obtain your instructional content. This involves determining whether or not you can purchase your content or whether you should develop it yourself. If you develop it yourself, there are many issues to consider regarding the necessary skill sets, tools & technology, and outsourcing and teaming with experienced vendors.

“Make” versus “Buy”

The first determination you will need to make is whether you will purchase your training content or attempt to development it yourself. It is likely that some of your training requirements will be common enough that a market already exists for the content. This enables you to purchase standard “off-the-shelf” products. Doing so will allow you to obtain better quality for a substantially lower cost than that of developing it yourself. So, if you have training needs that you feel are fairly standard such as basic IT skills, accounting skills, sexual harassment prevention training, safety training, or office productivity training, you should perform a search to find out what is already available for purchase.

The other advantage to this approach, beyond cost and quality, is time. You can purchase the product and load it into your LMS in a matter of days. Custom development will usually take weeks or months.

Options and Strategies for Creating your Own Training Content

So, while some of your training needs may be satisfied with off-the-shelf training products, it is probable that not all of them can be. Most companies have training needs that are unique to their company and, therefore, can’t be purchased as pre-packaged products. In this case, you will need to create your own instructional content. The approach you take will largely be dictated by the resources that you have available to you – both in terms of capabilities and availability. Of course, the classic three parameters; quality, cost, and schedule will also play a determining role.

Developing the Content In-house

There are many books dedicated to the design of engaging and effective on-line training and getting into the details of good design is beyond the scope of this article. Regardless of specific design and instructional approaches, there are many decisions that need to be made as to how you will create custom courseware.

If you have available in-house resources with the proper skill set, then you are in a good position to do it internally. This will probably cost less than hiring an outside vendor and may give you more control over the project. However, the skill set to create quality custom training is diverse and may be difficult to obtain. For example you will need a team with the following capabilities:

• Subject Matter Experts (SME) – the people who are the experts in what needs to be taught
• Instructional Designers and Technical Writers – are experts in knowing how to convert your SMEs knowledge into quality computer based instruction
• Graphic and Interface Designers and Production Staff
• Animation, Video, and Audio Production Staff
• Multimedia Programmers – that also understand SCORM and your LMS
• Project Managers – that have experience in developing e-Learning content

The other very important topic to discuss with regards to “do-it-yourself” e-Learning development is that there are many good authoring tools now on the market. These tools allow you to rapidly produce content and are much easier to use than what was once available.

For example, it used to be that on-line content would be developed using powerful but fairly complex tools such as Adobe Flash. While Flash is still a preferred tool for most professional developers, it is too complex for most non-developers to master. Newer tools may not allow as much creativity and flexibility as Flash, but they are much easier to use and quicker to learn. Additionally, most of these new authoring tools will automatically handle a lot of the behind the scenes programming such as SCORM communication or quiz engine functionality.

These tools can range significantly in their cost and capabilities, so it is important to understand what each tool can do and what its strengths and weaknesses are. You will find that, in general, the tools are designed for a very specific type of content and are very limiting beyond the original design intention. For example, some tools are good at creating training for software applications, while others are designed to convert Microsoft PowerPoint presentations into SCORM-compliant training modules.

Typically, the more flexible and powerful the tool, the more complex it will be to learn, and likely, the more expensive to purchase. The cost for all the tools may pale in comparison to the potential time and energy they could save. Most of these tools are relatively easy to learn and can be mastered by non-developers in a matter of a few days to a couple of weeks.

A word of caution however; while these tools lower the technical barriers and experience necessary to create SCORM-compliant training content, they do not provide any of the other design and production skills necessary in creating quality instructional content. The strength of these tools is typically to enable non-technical staff to rapidly create SCORM content. To create high quality content, there is still a need for skilled designers and production staff. Also, it should be mentioned that highly interactive content typically cannot be created with many of these basic tools.

Outsourcing the Development

In many cases, it may not be possible to assemble a complete team with only internal resources. The alternative option would then be to outsource the development to a vendor that specializes in e-Learning development. To successfully outsource a project to a vendor takes some special knowledge and skills of its own. These skills are primarily related to project management, the most important of which is the knowledge and skill necessary to prepare a good request for proposal (RFP). Unfortunately, custom training development projects are sometimes hard to define in terms that allow you to get accurate and comparable bids – especially before any of the detailed design work has been performed. It is equivalent to asking a builder to quote on the construction of a house before an architect has created any plans. It can only be done in very general terms and is, therefore, not very accurate.

This inaccuracy or vagueness must be avoided in your RFP if you want good competitive bids. One approach: if you do not have the experience to prepare an accurate RFP, hire a consultant or a development vendor specifically to help you prepare the RFP. It can be a situation of “not knowing what you don’t know”, and having the help of an experienced developer in preparing the RFP will allow you to avoid scope creep and misunderstood expectations.

In working with outside vendors, the other approach to consider is using an experienced developer as a way to augment your internal team. This can be a very effective method for optimizing the use of your internal resources, while bringing in the specialized talent and knowledge that a vendor may have. For example, you may decide to team your internal subject matter experts and some of your experienced training and IT staff with the specialized instructional design skills and production skills that a vendor can provide. Most vendors are very happy to team with you and realize that it is in their best interest to provide you with the best quality in the most cost efficient manner. The vendor often brings a wealth of experience in terms of best practices, as well as their own existing technology which can be used to more efficiently and rapidly create your content.

Choosing a Learning Management System

There are many LMS solutions on the market, all with a variety of capabilities offered over a surprisingly wide range of costs. While providing different capabilities, most LMS products fundamentally provide the following functions:

• User Access to the instructional content – students will login and launch the training modules that they have been enrolled in
• Enrollment Functionality – students need to be enrolled in courses either automatically, through self-enrollment (browsing a course catalog), or individually by a supervisor or administrator
• Content Configuration – the ability to upload and manage all content and training events. This would include uploading the SCOs into the LMS, establishing Instructor Lead Training events, and creating Course Catalogs and Curriculums
• Administration and User Management – setting up and managing all user accounts, managing permissions, and group management
• Tracking and Reporting – the LMS will record all student activity and provide ways to run reports on that activity
• Miscellaneous – functionality such as creating and granting certificates, e-commerce if you are selling access to your content, content authoring, employee evaluation, gap analysis and curriculum planning are all examples of features and capabilities that many LMS systems can provide.

So, how do you find the best system for you? The starting point is identifying your needs. You should prioritize your requirements into the “must have” and “nice to have” categories. You will find that as your list of needs gets larger and larger, the LMS that satisfies all of those requirements likely becomes exponentially more expensive. Additionally, it is not just cost that becomes an issue; the more complex systems will also take much more time to implement and the “user friendliness” of such systems can be seriously compromised.

It stands to reason that unnecessary complexity is a bad thing. The key is to get the LMS that truly satisfies your basic needs. Don’t be lured to a system having so many bells and whistles that it ultimately costs a lot of extra money, and ends up being under utilized because of the associated complexities.

In sum, there are a variety of approaches one can take to transition into e-Learning for their company; from developing the LMS and content in-house, outsourcing either requirement, or a combined approach. Brandon-Hall has a good review of many LMS products on their website (http://www.brandon-hall.com) which may be a helpful place to start. Otherwise, one key approach to a successful e-Learning implementation is finding an experienced company who can help guide you through the process.

For more information on ICS Learning Group or how we can help you develop and integrate your online training program, visit us on the web at http://www.icslearninggroup.com or give us a call: (410) 975-9440.

• Download PDF (87KB)

Overview

Until recently, anyone who wanted to author SCORM-compliant content had few choices. Not many authoring programs existed and the technical knowledge to create compliant content was and, in fact, still is beyond the reach of most training developers. Now there are many affordable, easy to use content authoring programs to create SCORM-compliant content that can be deployed to learning management systems (LMS). Adobe, a leader in the multimedia authoring and programming industry, has recently thrown their hat into the ring and released Adobe Captivate – a SCORM-compliant authoring tool that includes screen capture, simulation, automated testing and more.

ICS Learning Group was a beta-test facility for Adobe Captivate and has an ongoing dialogue with Adobe representatives discussing how to improve Captivate and its LMS integration with relation to SCORM-compliance. Our Inquisiq R3 Learning Management System is also featured in Essentials of Adobe Captivate from IconLogic and underwent extensive testing with Captivate lessons in preparation for the book’s release.

Adobe Captivate and LMS Integration

When exporting content from Adobe Captivate, you have the option of making your package SCORM 1.2 Compliant. Specifics of the SCORM specification could fill an entire book (in fact, it does!), so let’s just say that SCORM defines what must be included in a content package (certain files which contain certain information in a certain format) and the methods that the content package must use to communicate information (student name, score, etc.) to and from the LMS. The idea is that content authoring programs and learning management systems would all be programmed to comply with the spec and therefore be compatible with each other. Unfortunately, reality has not lived up to the vision.

The SCORM 1.2 specification is long, open to some interpretation and not always logical. Developers have had to make some assumptions and, at the same time, had to predict and hope that other developers made the same assumptions! Our experience with the workings of Adobe Captivate and the development or our own SCORM-compliant LMS has given us some insight to help you get the most out of Adobe Captivate and your LMS – even if it’s not our LMS! Note that we are only focusing on SCORM 1.2. The SCORM 1.3 specification was recently released, however most learning management systems and authoring tools, even those recently released, still support SCORM 1.2 and rightfully so.

Making Sure Your Captivate Lesson is Compliant

Problem #1:

I’ll get right into it here. If you export a Captivate package that does not have any graded questions in it, it will not be SCORM-compliant. I don’t mean that it just won’t track because it has no grade to send; I mean it is not compliant. In tracing method calls from Captivate lessons, we’ve found that a lesson with no questions will not make the required call to the LMS to initialize itself upon startup. It will make the finalize call upon exit, however any compliant LMS will throw back an error when this happens. The spec dictates that a content package must initialize itself before it can finalize itself. Makes sense, right?

A tangential problem to this is that a lesson with no questions (even if the correct initialize and finalize calls are made) has no way to tell when it’s been completed, so it does not send that information to the LMS either. This secondary problem is not an issue of compliance as the SCORM specification does not require this information to be sent, but more an issue of usability. What’s the point of making a SCORM-compliant lesson and loading it into an LMS if you never find out when your users have completed it?

The Solution:

The resolution to both these problems is easy – just make sure that you have a graded interaction in your lesson. It can be an interaction that is actually presented as such or even a button or hot spot that you are sure your users will click while viewing the lesson. The possibilities here are endless, so be sure to test your solution, but the bottom line is that there needs to at least one graded interaction in your lesson.

Passing the Proper Lesson Status Value

Problem #2:

Adobe Captivate lets you choose whether to report ‘pass/fail’ or ‘complete/incomplete’ values for lesson status, but this is not an arbitrary choice. The spec dictates that this shall be determined by the lesson after querying the LMS and deciding based upon the response it receives.

When publishing with Captivate, if you select complete/incomplete, and the user fails or fails to finish the lesson, the value of ‘incomplete’ will be reported to the LMS. In the event that the user completes or passes the lesson, the value of ‘complete’ will be reported to the LMS. Likewise, if you select pass/fail, then the value of ‘pass’ will be used instead of ‘complete’ and the value of ‘fail’ will be used instead of ‘incomplete’.

Additionally, Captivate lessons never query the LMS for the value of ‘credit’, which is the element that the lesson should be using to determine whether to use ‘complete/incomplete’ or ‘pass/fail’.

The Solution:

Solving this problem may or may not even be necessary – it’s a rather minor issue. The best thing to do is make sure that you coordinate the credit setting you use in the LMS with the lesson status value you select here. Lessons that are for credit should use ‘pass/fail’ and lessons that are not for credit should use ‘complete/incomplete’. However, one thing to note, and this takes us indirectly to Problem #3 and beyond, is that the spec dictates that the LMS reevaluate the score and change this value if you have set a mastery score. We’ll come back to this when we get to Problem #4.

Passing Score In The Proper Format

Problem #3

The ‘Publish’ interface in Adobe Captivate lets you choose whether to report score as a raw value or as a percentage while the spec dictates that this value must be ‘normalized between 0 and 100′ (meaning it must be a percentage score). When you choose to report this value as a raw score, your lesson is not compliant.

Adobe tells us that they put this option for a very specific reason. The spec defines 3 values relating to score and all shall be normalized between 0 and 100 – minimum score, maximum score and what they call raw score (oddly enough, the spec calls it ‘raw score’ and at the same time dictates that it be normalized – no wonder everyone is confused!). Logically, since they are required to be normalized between 0 and 100, minimum score would always be 0 and maximum score would always be 100 so why even use them? Because of this confusion, Adobe decided to allow the content author to decide whether to report score as raw or normalized.

The problem occurs when you choose to report score as raw and then load your content into an LMS that has been implemented according to the SCORM spec because it will expect to receive score normalized. Confusion ensues!

Scenario:

You create a Captivate lesson and choose to report score as a raw value. Your lesson has 5 questions and your user gets them all correct. Your lesson is going to report ’5′ as the score and a compliant LMS is going to interpret this as 5%. Of course, your lesson should also report a lesson status of ‘complete’ or ‘passed’ (see problem #2) which will truly confuse your user when they look at their stats and see that they passed/completed a lesson with a score of only 5%!

The Solution:

This is an easy one. Unless you are certain that your LMS implements score as a raw value, always select ‘percentage’ to ensure that your lesson is compliant.

Tying It All Together

Problem #4

Take a deep breath, because problem #4 might get a little confusing. The SCORM specification instructs the LMS to change the lesson status (the same value discussed in problem #2) when certain conditions apply. When this happens, the LMS shall use the score to decide how to change the lesson status value. If you remember though, from problem #3, you may be reporting score as a non-compliant raw value, so the LMS may change the lesson status based on bad information.

To get a better understanding of this, let’s introduce mastery score. You set the mastery score by clicking the ‘Manifest’ button on the Publish Interface. mastery score is value stored in the manifest file that is included in the content package you load into the LMS. The LMS reads this value and stores it with the lesson. If you notice, Captivate instructs that this value should be between 0 and 100, or normalized.

Now the SCORM specification instructs the LMS that if mastery score is set, the lesson is being taken for credit and the lesson status is not ‘incomplete’, the LMS shall change the lesson status to the appropriate value (complete, incomplete, pass or fail) by comparing the score reported from the lesson and the mastery score that is defined in the manifest. This occurs even if the lesson has already passed a value for lesson status.

The first thing to notice is that you probably should set the mastery score to the same value that you set passing score. That way, if the LMS re-evaluates the lesson status, it will use the same value as the passing score that the lesson itself does.

Now let’s refer back to Problem #3. You had the option of reporting score as a raw value. If you chose that option, when the LMS performs this re-evaluation of lesson status, it is going to compare a raw score to the normalized mastery score. Since one value is normalized and the other is not, it should be clear that you will have some unexpected results from this.

Scenario:

You create a Captivate lesson with 20 questions. You choose to report score as a raw value (non-complaint per Problem #3, but Captivate lets you do it), choose to use ‘pass/fail’ for lesson status, enter a mastery score of 80% and enter a passing score of 80%. Your user gets 17 questions correct.

When the lesson finalizes, the lesson reports ‘pass’ to the LMS for lesson status and ’17′ for score. Everything looks good until the LMS sees that there is a mastery score and therefore it must re-evaluate the lesson status. The LMS looks at score (’17′) and sees that it is less than mastery score (’80′), so it changes lesson status to ‘fail’. In fact, a lesson created with these settings will always have its lesson status re-evaluated to ‘fail’ by the LMS because even a perfect raw score (’20′) will always be less than the mastery score (’80′).

The root of the problem is that Captivate prompts you to enter mastery score normalized, but gives you the option to report score as a raw value. They need to be on the same scale for the re-evaluation by the LMS to work properly.

The Solutions:

#1: Don’t enter a mastery score. By doing this, the LMS will not re-evaluate the lesson status and you avoid the problem altogether. But don’t forget about Problem #3 and its solution.

#2: Make sure that mastery score and score are both normalized by choosing to report score as a ‘percentage.’ You’ll notice that this is also the solution to Problem #3. If you have confirmed that your LMS expects to receive score as raw, then use Solution #3.

#3: If you must report score as a raw value, then be sure to enter a raw value for mastery score. In our scenario, instead of entering ’80′ for mastery score, you would enter ’17′. That way, when the LMS re-evaluates lesson status, both score and mastery score are on the same scale and the calculation is done correctly. While technically incorrect since the spec dictates that mastery score be normalized, we won’t worry about it because you’d only use this solution in the case that your LMS is also non-compliant because it’s expecting raw values for score. It’s a workaround.

Summary

We’ve seen that Adobe Captivate provides a robust solution for quickly developing online training solutions. But let’s not forget that we need to be mindful of the implementation of the SCORM specification by the LMS and how it’s going to react to our Captivate lessons.

Review the problems and their solutions and you can be sure that your Captivate lessons are going to comply with SCORM 1.2 and function properly when loaded into a SCORM 1.2-compliant learning management system.

For more information on ICS Learning Group or how we can help you develop and integrate your online training program, visit us on the web at www.icslearninggroup.com or call toll-free 877-427-4770.