It is a fundamental Human-Computer Interaction problem to design a tangible programming environment for use by multiple persons that can also be individualised. This problem has its origin in the phenomenon that the meaning an object holds can vary across individuals. The Semiotics Research Domain studies the meaning objects hold. This research investigated a solution based on the user designing aspects of the environment at a time after it has been made operational and when the development team is no longer available to implement the user’s design requirements. Also considered is how objects can be positioned so that the collection of objects is interpreted as a program. I therefore explored how some of the principles of relative positioning of objects, as researched in the domains of Psychology and Art, could be applied to tangible programming environments. This study applied the Gestalt principle of perceptual grouping by proximity to the design of tangible programming environments to determine if a tangible programming environment is possible in which the relative positions of personally meaningful objects define the program. I did this by applying the Design Science Research methodology with five iterations and evaluations involving children. The outcome is a model of a Tangible Programming Environment that includes Gestalt principles and Semiotic theory; Semiotic theory explains that the user can choose a physical representation of the program element that carries personal meaning whereas the Gestalt principle of grouping by proximity predicts that objects can be arranged to appear as if linked to each other. / School of Computing / Ph. D. (Computer Science)

One of the goals of college student development professionals is to help undergraduate students develop a meaningful sense of personal identity. Early in the history of the profession, practitioners borrowed freely from related fields such as sociology and psychology to guide their practice, but beginning around the 1960s, scholars began in earnest to develop their own unique body of literature. In this work I examine the development of that scholarly work as it relates to identity development—specifically the evolution of understanding around the issues of sex and gender identity development. Beginning with William Perry, whose work has impacted so many theories that followed his, I review the work of Nancy Chodorow, who was among the first to note that student development theory based on male samples disadvantaged women, Marcia Baxter-Magolda, Carol Gilligan, Ruthellen Josselson, Mary Field Belenkey, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule…and…. I discovered that each of these scholars approached sex and gender from a binary, essentialist, deterministic position which served to limit the understanding of sex and gender issues in the field of college student development. During the same period, work in the fields of anthropology, gender studies, psychology, sociology, and women’s studies were greatly expanding their understanding of sex and gender as components of identity. In this work I identify the deficiencies and limitations in the research in the field of college student development related to sex and gender identity development; note the challenges to our work with college students because of those deficiencies and limitations, and make practical recommendations to three groups of professionals who operate in the field of college student development—theorists and scholars, practitioners, and educators and provide a model for efficiently effecting change in the field.