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.