Although open access publishing has been available since 1998, we know little regarding scholars' perceptions and practices toward publishing in open access outlets, especially in the social science community. Open access publishing has been slow to penetrate the field of education, yet the potential impact of open access could make this publishing method an important innovation for understanding how to support the publishing needs of education scholars. To discover these perceptions and practices that education scholars have toward open access publishing, a 51-item web-based survey was provided to scholars with known investment in open access publishing. Participants had either (1) a publication in one of 34 United States education-based open access journals or (2) a manuscript submitted for peer review in one of those 34 journals. The survey contained subscales focusing on contemporary open access themes--issues identified through a comprehensive analysis of the major outlets for scholarly news in education. Through open and axial coding, several themes were extracted. They included rights and ease of access, ease of publishing, costs, support from colleagues and administrators, and perceived quality of open access outlets. The survey showed moderate to high reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Correlation and MANOVA testing showed significant results in scholars' teaching status and peer review status of manuscripts. Additional findings indicated that non-tenured education scholars responded more strongly than tenured scholars to issues related to rights and ease of access, promotion, and quality. Scholars with manuscripts currently in peer review felt strongly about themes of rights and ease of access, cost, and promotion. The results imply the following: (1) If scholars want their research read by a wider audience, they should publish in open access journals. (2) Pro-open access policies and procedures could gain more support by ensuring open access is promoted to non-tenured scholars seeking to publish. (3) More research, forums, discussions, and education about open access need to occur in greater abundance to continue to ameliorate scholars' views about the benefits of open access publishing. (4) Institutions and departments can offer their unconditional support for open access publishing as a method of meeting promotion/tenure requirements.

Introductory programming courses, also known as CS1, have a specific set of expected outcomes related to the learning of the most basic and essential computational concepts in computer science (CS). However, two of the most often heard complaints in such courses are that (1) they are divorced from the reality of application and (2) they make the learning of the basic concepts tedious. The concepts introduced in CS1 courses are highly abstract and not easily comprehensible. In general, the difficulty is intrinsic to the field of computing, often described as "too mathematical or too abstract." This dissertation presents a small-scale mixed method study conducted during the fall 2009 semester of CS1 courses at Arizona State University. This study explored and assessed students' comprehension of three core computational concepts - abstraction, arrays of objects, and inheritance - in both algorithm design and problem solving. Through this investigation students' profiles were categorized based on their scores and based on their mistakes categorized into instances of five computational thinking concepts: abstraction, algorithm, scalability, linguistics, and reasoning. It was shown that even though the notion of computational thinking is not explicit in the curriculum, participants possessed and/or developed this skill through the learning and application of the CS1 core concepts. Furthermore, problem-solving experiences had a direct impact on participants' knowledge skills, explanation skills, and confidence. Implications for teaching CS1 and for future research are also considered.