SCORM 1.2 vs. SCORM 2004: key differences explained

Read-write interactions

SCORM 1.2 has existed since 2001 with only one standard: write-only. This made it challenging for the content author to review earlier inputs, which meant they couldn’t read what they had written. Years later, in 2004, a new version came along with a read-write model.  

This allows for interactions and could be helpful for reporting. Moreover, SCORM 2004 allows authors to check older interactions, see results, and create a plan based on those. Check to see which version of SCORM your authoring tool supports. 

Status separation

SCORM 1.2 has received a lot of negative feedback because it has only one lesson status: “Lesson_Status”. This status can be completed, incomplete, failed, passed, browsed, or not attempted.  

For most authors, this is enough information, but others want more data, such as whether a learner completed a course and what questions a learner passed.  

That’s where the newer version has created a huge difference between SCORM 1.2 and 2004. Why? SCORM 2004 lets authors split the lesson_status into completed/incomplete (completion_status) and passed/failed (success_status). That gives authors more insights and data on which to base improvements.  

Sequencing

When sequencing was first implemented, no one thought it would be possible, and many LMSs did not support the option. When comparing SCORM 1.2 vs. 2004, sequencing stands out as a key feature that allows authors to add rules defining the order in which content is accessed by learners. 

It sets up specific paths that can be adjusted per learner and allows them to save results mid-course and continue later. Sequencing is something you can only do with SCORM 2004.

Enhanced reporting and data insights 

One of the standout features of SCORM 2004 is its improved reporting capabilities. When comparing SCORM 2004 vs. 1.2, the addition of completion_status and success_status gives organizations a deeper understanding of learner performance. These metrics help identify patterns, such as areas where learners consistently struggle or excel. 

For example, a company tracking compliance training can use SCORM 2004 4th edition data to ensure employees meet regulatory requirements. Similarly, this level of detail allows teams to fine-tune their courses, improving content where learners frequently encounter difficulties. 

Compatibility with LMS and authoring tools 

Ensuring compatibility between SCORM packages and LMS or authoring tools is crucial for a smooth e-learning experience. Most modern LMS platforms support both SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004, but it’s essential to verify this in advance. Testing SCORM packages on different platforms can help identify potential issues, such as broken links, incomplete tracking, or run-time environment inconsistencies. 

For example, some organizations use test environments within their LMS to preview and troubleshoot SCORM files before releasing them to employees. If you’re unsure, consult your LMS provider or test sample packages to confirm compatibility. 

SCORM 1.2 and 2004 in the context of modern e-learning standards 

While SCORM standards remain a cornerstone of e-learning, newer standards like xAPI and cmi5 have emerged, offering expanded capabilities. For instance, xAPI tracks a wider range of learning activities, including offline and social learning, making it ideal for modern, dynamic training environments. 

Despite these advances, SCORM still excels in scenarios requiring modular learning content delivery and straightforward tracking. SCORM 1.2 and 2004 are widely supported and ideal for organizations with established LMS platforms and simpler reporting needs.  

In contrast, organizations looking for real-time data and diverse activity tracking might benefit more from integrating SCORM with xAPI or transitioning to cmi5. 

Do I need SCORM 1.2 or SCORM 2004? 

So, when deciding between SCORM 2004 vs. SCORM 1.2, it’s important to consider your organization’s needs. If your main goal is to report on learners’ results, both options will suffice. The core of the reporting elements is the same. 

However, if you are looking for more in-depth options like complex navigation and sequencing, you will have to go with SCORM 2004. If that’s the case, make sure the authoring tool and LMS are SCORM-compliant before choosing them. 

Learn more about SCORM vs. xAPI and how to create a SCORM file.