2.1 Review on Technology Education for Incarcerated Students
A number of research has been done to elucidate information on the extent to which education in prison has helped to curb recidivism. In the section, we consider some of the publications that gives insight into technology enhance learning.
In order to investigate the relationship between correctional education and decreases in recidivism, increases in employment after release from jail, and other outcomes, Davies (2013) performed a thorough literature review, which was followed by a meta-analysis. According to the study, getting correctional education while incarcerated lowers the likelihood that prisoners will commit crimes again and may increase their chances of finding employment once they are released.
Davis et al. (2014) conducted an empirical research study that examine the effect of correctional education programs on the three outcomes of interest—recidivism, postrelease employment, and reading and math scores. This search yielded 1,112 documents, of which 267 were identified as primary empirical studies. To be in our meta-analysis, the study needed to meet three eligibility criteria: (1) evaluate an eligible intervention, defined here as an educational program administered in a jail or prison in the United States published (or released) between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2011; (2) measure the effectiveness of the program using an eligible outcome measure, which include recidivism, postrelease employment, and achievement test scores; and (3) have an eligible research design, which, for this purpose, is one where there is a treatment group comprising inmates who participated in or completed the correctional education program and a comparison group of inmates who did not. Out of the 267 primary empirical studies, 58 met all three eligibility criteria. With respect to recidivism, based on the higher-quality research studies, the authors established that, on average, inmates who participated in correctional education programs had a 43 percent lower odds of recidivating than inmates who did not, thus indicating that correctional education is an effective strategy for reducing recidivism.
This estimate is based only on 9 effect sizes from studies that met higher levels of rigor (i.e., earned 4s or 5s on the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale), but the results were very similar even when the lower-quality studies were included in the analysis. This translates to a reduction in the risk of recidivating of 13 percentage points for those who participated in correctional education programs versus those who did not. When aggregating across 18 studies that used employment as an outcome, the authors observed that the odds of obtaining employment postrelease among inmates who participated in correctional education (either academic or vocational/CTE programs) were 13 percent higher than the odds for those who did not. However, the findings are only suggestive about whether correctional education is an effective strategy in improving postrelease employment outcomes because only one of the 18 studies were of higher quality (level 4 or higher), thus limiting our ability to make a more definitive statement. When aggregating across four studies that used achievement test scores as an outcome, it was established that learning gains in both reading and in math among inmates exposed to computer-assisted instruction were similar to learning gains made by inmates taught through traditional (face-to-face) instruction methods.
A thorough investigation was conducted by Davis et al. (2014) to evaluate the efficacy of education for pupils who are incarcerated. According to the authors, there are more than 2 million individuals incarcerated in US prisons, and every year, over 700,000 people are released from federal and state prisons and go back to their communities. The author noted that 40% of people will be behind bars again in three years. They claim that one reason for this is that ex-offenders lack the education, experience, and abilities necessary to support an effective return to society. According to their study, states should spend money on inmate education and training in order to lower the rate of recidivism. The authors made an effort to determine the cost- and effect-effectiveness of correctional instruction.
Specifically looking at European jail inmates, Monteiro et al. (2015) did a review to determine the potential of e-learning in supporting the digital inclusion of adults who are experiencing social exclusion. It concentrates on the ideas of digital inclusion, lifelong learning, and literacy in the digital age from a theoretical standpoint. In order to identify the challenges and opportunities of e-learning in this setting as a way of digital inclusion, European projects of e-learning in prisons were examined from a methodological point of view. The main obstacles are connected to concerns with security, accessibility, upkeep of technological equipment, and people’ motivation to engage in learning activities throughout their lives. E-promise learning’s is associated with expanding learning opportunities, a variety of resource options, and the ability for personalization and teamwork.
A meta-analysis of 18 studies that were relevant to educational interventions used in juvenile detention facilities was conducted by Steele et al. (2016). The investigations cover five types of interventions: academic remediation, computer-assisted learning, individualized learning, vocational training, and GED completion. Four outcomes—academic success in reading or mathematics, diploma completion, post-release employment, and post-release recidivism—are used by the authors to assess effectiveness in their research. According to their findings, computer-assisted teaching has a positive and statistically significant impact on reading comprehension, and personalized learning has a positive impact on diploma completion and post-release employment. Large, well-conducted randomized trials of the Read 180 program by Scholastic and the Avon Park Youth Academy in Florida served as the basis for these results.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs offered inside prisons, Ellison et al. (2017) performed a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). The review included assessments of the educational programs offered in prison, including those for vocational, academic, basic skills, accredited, and unaccredited programs, where recidivism and/or job results were tracked. Initial searches by the writers produced 4304 titles and abstracts. Out of these, 28 articles were eligible for inclusion. To be included in the meta-analysis, only 18 papers offered enough data and a solid enough study design. The provision of schooling in prison settings has a favorable effect on recidivism, according to a Meta-analysis of 18 reoffending studies. The overall pooled odds ratio (0.64 = 64%/23) shows a reduction in the probability of recidivism of about one-third. The authors also stated that a meta-analysis of five job studies revealed that education in incarceration settings has a favorable effect on employment. Overall odds ratios showed that participating in prison education increases a prisoner’s chance of finding work by 24%. This, however, is founded on a small number of papers with less reliable statistical findings and evidence primarily from the USA. In order to clarify data on the connection between education obtained while incarcerated and risks of recidivism and enhance postrelease job prospects, Bozick et al. (2018) performed a thorough meta-analysis. The authors combined 37 years of study on correctional education (1980–2017) and used meta-analytic methods. The authors found 21 studies that used work as an outcome and a total of 57 studies that used recidivism as an outcome. According to the results of the studies, prisoners who took part in correctional education initiatives had a 28% lower chance of recidivism than prisoners who did not. Additionally, the outcome demonstrates that prisoners who received correctional education had an equal likelihood of finding work after their release as prisoners who did not receive such education. In conclusion, the authors showed the importance of offering inmates educational chances while they are serving their sentences if the program’s aim is to lower recidivism.
The European Framework of Reference has identified digital literacy as one of the fundamental skills for lifelong learning. This has recently taken on more significance in academic papers, studies, and the international policy agenda. Even though adult education delivered through a virtual environment may present a chance for digital inclusion and knowledge acquisition, there are some situations where involvement, usage, and access are severely restricted or even prohibited. One of those settings is a prison. Barros et al. (2021) conducted a literature study using the keywords education, prison, and technology in order to map trends in academic research regarding Adult Learning supported by digital tools in prisons. It is interesting to know that the analysis of the 20 identified articles provided insights into the emergence of prison education resources, learning outcomes, educational staff, and cultural aspects and policies. The fact that these studies have a worldwide representation, with a strong focus on Europe, indicates the growing interest in prison education and its importance in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism rates.
Drane et al. (2021) provided a scoping review on the approaches taken to manage unanticipated school closures due to COVID-19. The review’s findings highlight the different approaches taken by countries regarding school closures and the potential consequences of full closures for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The review’s analysis of the long-term educational impacts of navigating the COVID-19 disruption emphasizes the importance of targeted support for vulnerable students to ensure they do not experience persistent disadvantage. This includes addressing barriers such as digital exclusion and poor technology management, as well as providing psychosocial support to students facing increased challenges. Overall, the scoping review provides valuable insights into the educational issues faced by young people during the pandemic and emphasizes the need for targeted support to ensure that all students can continue to learn and succeed despite the challenges posed by the pandemic.
In order to shed light on the degree to which digital rehabilitation of offenders ensures successful re-entry and improves post-prison life in a digitalized society, Zivanai and Mahlangu (2022) performed a systematic review. Successful re-entry, post-prison life, and the digital society were the three areas of digital jail rehabilitation that the authors looked into using the Good Lives Model and the Critical Theory Approach. The research found that the majority of prison rehabilitation practices and policies are still implemented in-person and do not take into account the internet. The authors concluded by saying that, in a technologically advanced society, the use of digital rehabilitation could guarantee a smooth transition out of prison and an improved quality of life once released.
As the popularity of online learning delivery continues to increase, the study by Renee’ Chambers (2022) investigated the experiences of online correctional education instructors who teach English composition. The study used a qualitative approach, specifically a transcendental phenomenology methodology, and aimed to identify the instructors’ pedagogical strategies, methods of cultivating relationships with students, and areas of needed professional development and support. The study’s findings indicated that online correctional education instructors modified their teaching practices to suit the online modality, particularly with regards to providing feedback and the focus of their writing instruction. Instructors also noted the importance of tone and consistent encouragement when communicating with incarcerated students. However, they also faced challenges in forming relationships with students in the online environment. Regarding professional development, the instructors highlighted the need for more training in technology, cultural sensitivity, and forming professional bonds with fellow instructors. The study’s insights can be used by correctional education program directors and administrators to enhance their programs and provide better support for instructors and students. Also, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into the experiences of online correctional education instructors and can guide the development of effective practices and support structures in this field.