You are here:

Blended Training on Scientific Software: A Study on How Scientific Data are Generated ARTICLE

, , Athabasca University

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


This paper presents the results of a research study on scientific software training in blended learning environments. The investigation focused on training approaches followed by scientific software users whose goal is the reliable application of such software. A key issue in current literature is the requirement for a theory-substantiated training framework that will support knowledge sharing among scientific software users. This study followed a grounded theory research design in a qualitative methodology. Snowball sampling as well as purposive sampling methods were employed. Input from respondents with diverse education and experience was collected and analyzed with constant comparative analysis. The scientific software training cycle that results from this research encapsulates specific aptitudes and strategies that affect the users\u2019 in-depth understanding and professional growth regarding scientific software applications. The findings of this study indicate the importance of three key themes in designing training methods for successful application of scientific software: (a) responsibility in comprehension; (b) discipline; and (c) ability to adapt.


Skordaki, E.M. & Bainbridge, S. (2018). Blended Training on Scientific Software: A Study on How Scientific Data are Generated. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Adams, A., Davies, S., Collins, T., & Rogers, Y. (2010). Out there and in here: Design for blended scientific inquiry learning. In L. Creanor, D. Hawkridge, K. Ng, & F. Rennie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th
  2. Dearden, R. (1984). Education and training. Westminster Studies in Education, 7, 57-66.
  3. Fischer, G. (2009). End-user development and meta-design: Foundations for cultures of-participation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on End-user Development (pp. 3-14). Berlin,
  4. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1999). The Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  5. Graham, C.R., Henrie, C.R., & Gibbons, A.S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A.G. Picciano, C.D. Dziuban, & C.R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (V. 2; pp. 13-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
  6. Hannay, J.E., Langtangen, H.P., MacLeod, C., Pfahl, D., Singer, J., & Wilson, G. (2009). How do scientists develop and use scientific software? In Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering, (pp. 1-8). Washington DC:
  7. Howison, J., & Herbsleb, J.D. (2011). Scientific software production: Incentives and collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 513-522). ACM. Doi:
  8. Lingard, R.W. (2010). Teaching and assessing teamwork skills in engineering and computer science. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 8(1), 34-37. Retrieved from$/sci/pdfs/GQ816EX.pdf
  9. Ljubojevic, M., Vaskovic, V., Stankovic, S., & Vaskovic, J. (2014). Learning and quality of experience using
  10. Lowe, J.S. (2004). A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults (Doctoral dissertation). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. Retrieved from
  11. Lutters, W.G., & Seaman, C.B. (2007). Revealing actual documentation usage in software maintenance through war stories. Information and Software Technology, 49, 576-587.
  12. McGreal, R. (2009). A case study of an international e-learning training division: Meeting objectives. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 1-20. Doi: 10.10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.619
  13. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  14. Moghaddam, A. (2006). Coding issues in grounded theory. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 52-66.
  15. Segal, J. (2005). When software engineers met research scientists: A case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 10, 517-536. Retrieved from
  16. Segal, J. (2007). Some problems of professional end user developers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (pp. 111-118). Coeur d’Alene,

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact