Investigating

Technology-supported

Distance Learning in Prison

Dissertation for

Master of Research (MRes) degree

The Open University

Anne Pike, BSc. (Hons), MSc, PGCE (PCET)

a.e.pike@open.ac.uk

Submitted: 13th September 2010

Re-submitted: 24th December 2010

ii

Abstract

The internet and its new technologies provide many opportunities to support distance

learning (Bates, 2005) but the pace of change has led to a ‘digital divide’ between

those who have the access, skills and desire to use new technologies and those who

do not (Eynon, 2009). There are, however, up to 4000 distance learning inmates in

English prisons who have restricted access to technologies and for whom the ‘digital

divide’ may be even wider.

This research employed a partial ethnographic approach to obtain multiple

perspectives of what technology is available to distance learning inmates, how they

access and use that technology to support learning, and what are the attitudes

towards technology-supported distance learning. Data was collected over two days

within one prison cluster in England which included three prisons housing adult male

inmates. 10 student-inmates and 6 staff participated in the in-depth, semi-structured

interviews and additional data was collected through participant observation, informal

conversations and document analysis. Through a grounded theory style analysis of

access, skills and attitude, three themes emerged: physical environment, institutional

visions and student identity.

This research finds a closed social world where the distance-learning student-

inmates show great determination in maintaining an essential student identity.

However the conflicting institutional visions of the education stakeholders and the

controlled physical environment negatively impact on technology-supported distance

learning. Except in the most ‘progressive’ prison with a learning culture, the student-

inmates perceive very little choice in what technology they use for learning. In the

iii

‘working’ prison with the regimented work culture, student-inmates perceive

insufficient time or space for learning. Having access to a computer and a printer

which are attached to each other is a bonus and the idea of internet access appears

inconceivable to some. In this environment the ‘digital divide’ appears more like a

total ‘discontinuity’.

Keywords: distance learning, prison education, technology-supported learning,

digital divide, identity.

iv

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to staff and students in the prisons who were extremely helpful

and kind. Without their support and enthusiasm I would have been unable to

complete this research.

Thanks also to my supervisors Dr. Anne Adams and Dr. Lesley Anderson who were

amazingly patient and always available to help, even at unusual hours.

I would like to thank the tutors of the MRes modules for helping to provide me with

the skills I needed, especially Prof. Martyn Hammersley and Prof. John Richardson

for their vision which inspired me.

I also acknowledge the support I received from staff in the Institute of Educational

Technology (IET) and the Centre for Research in Education and Educational

Technology (CREET) and fellow students.

Finally, thanks to Steve, Ben and Georgina for supporting me through difficult times.

v

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................21.1 Introduction............................................................................................................21.2 Background............................................................................................................31.3 The research questions.........................................................................................6CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................82.1 Introduction............................................................................................................82.2 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in England...............................................82.3 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in prison................................................112.4 Technology in prison: bridging the ‘digital divide’?..............................................132.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................................16CHAPTER 3: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION..................................................183.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................183.2 Theoretical perspective........................................................................................183.3 Methods of data collection...................................................................................193.4 Data collection methods chosen..........................................................................213.5 Selection Procedures...........................................................................................223.6 Ethical Issues.......................................................................................................24CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS................................................284.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................284.2 The prison setting................................................................................................284.3 Data collection procedures..................................................................................294.4 Problems encountered.........................................................................................354.5 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................37CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETING THE DATA...............................................................425.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................425.2 The physical environment....................................................................................425.3 Institutional visions...............................................................................................475.4 Student identity....................................................................................................55CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION.....................................................................................606.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................606.2 ‘Digital divide’ or discontinuity?............................................................................606.3 Reflections...........................................................................................................656.4 Future research...................................................................................................69REFERENCES..........................................................................................................72Appendix A: Justification of Data Collection Methods..............................................80Appendix B: Extract from email confirmation from SRPP..........................................81Appendix C: HPMEC Request Form.........................................................................82Appendix D: Consent Forms & Information sheets....................................................87Appendix E: Interview Guides....................................................................................91Appendix F: Additional Information request form.......................................................93Appendix G: Student Participant Characteristics.......................................................94Appendix H: Conceptual Labels................................................................................95Appendix I: Some additional/ more complete quotes for Chapter 5..........................98

vii

viii

CHAPTER 1: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 Introduction

Up to 4000 prisoners per year study through distance learning1 while in prison

(Schuller 2009), potentially equipping them with better qualifications, skills and

values for a crime-free future (Hughes 2007; Prisoners Education Trust 2009a). The

internet and its new technologies2 provide many opportunities to support distance

learning (Bates, 2005) but studies of technology-supported distance learning in the

general population of England have identified a ‘digital divide’ between those who

have the access, skills and the desire to use new technologies and those who do not

(Eynon, 2009). Many prisoners come from those socio-economic groups in England

where exclusion or truanting from school is commonplace (SEU 2002) and which are

considered to be most at risk of marginalization through the ‘digital divide’ (Clarke,

2008). However, in terms of the technology which they can access in prison, they

have been labeled “cavemen in an era of speed and light technology” (Jewkes and

Johnson, 2009). The aim of this research is therefore to investigate if and how

distance learning in prison is supported by new technologies.

1 Distance learning is the main progression opportunity for those prisoners who attain level 2 (GCSE equivalent) either before or inside prison (Open University, 2008) 2 New technologies are defined here as the information and communication technologies (ICTs) developed since the advent of the WWW, such as networked computers, internet, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and more recently Web 2 technologies and social networking tools.

ix

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The ‘digital divide’ in England

Since the development of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1995, the use of new

technologies in everyday life and learning has grown almost exponentially; leading to

an information revolution (BIS and DCMS 2009; Schuller and Watson, 2009).

However, the pace of change has caused a ‘digital divide’ for those who have been

unable to keep up and are ‘digitally disconnected’, either because they cannot

access new technologies or because they lack the skills or confidence to use them

appropriately (Kirkwood, 2006a). The nature of inequality is complex (Schuller and

Watson, 2009) and the interpretation of the ‘digital divide’ varies but some research

suggests that it has widened over recent years (Morris, 2009). The previous

Government stated,

“We are at a tipping point in relation to the online world.

It is moving from conferring advantage on those who are

in it to conferring active disadvantage on those who are

without” (BIS, 2009, p11)

They prepared to address the issue and the Digital Britain report highlights how

those who want to participate in the information revolution may be enabled, and have

the capability to do it (BIS, 2009). Considerable research, both quantitative and

qualitative, has been devoted to investigating the ‘digital divide’ in Britain and its

implications for learning but students in prison are rarely included in these studies.

x

1.2.2 The prison context

The principle aim of prison is to protect the public (NOMS, 2007). However, the

balance of security, control and justice is complex and those who manage prisons

have conflicting aims in providing secure containment and a rehabilitative

environment (King, 2007). This complexity in the prison’s role causes tension in

determining what prisoners should be allowed to do or have (Schuller, 2009). The

security category of a prison normally determines the level of physical containment.

Category A (High Security) normally houses longer-sentenced, dangerous criminals,

Category B (fairly high security) closed environment and receives prisoners directly

from the courts. Category C is lower security closed prison often aimed at providing

vocational training. The category D open prison is the lowest security prison and

allows some prisoners to leave the prison to work or get home leave in preparation

for release/resettlement. Prisoners often move through the categories, entering a low

security, sometimes open, prison shortly before release. Most prisons are managed

by the Ministry of Justice but eleven prisons in England are privately managed

(NOMS, 2007) and there is significant variety in the way prisons are run which is not

always related to security category (Adams and Pike, 2008; Liebling 2007).

1.2.3 Education in prison

In all except a few private prisons, the classroom-based prison education in England

is provided by the Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS)3 whose contracted

Further Education (FE) providers concentrate on addressing basic literacy and

numeracy needs. This is not considered sufficient to meet many prisoners’ personal

or employment needs (NAO, 2009; Owers, 2007) and distance learning provides a

higher level learning option in most prisons. However, prisoners must apply through

3 OLASS is managed by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) (previously the Learning and Skills Council)

xi

complex screening procedures and fund themselves or apply for funding through

charitable trusts such as the Prisoners Education Trust. As with non-prison students,

student-inmates4 organise their own learning but communication with distance

learning providers is complicated by the need to go through an intermediary in the

prison; often the OLASS contracted education staff or, more recently, Careers,

Information and Advice Service (CIAS) staff. The Open University (OU) provides

some support through face-to-face or telephone tutorials when possible (Hancock

2010) though there are many other providers. Recent research suggests that lack of

internet access may be a barrier to this mode of study since student-inmates are

unable to access online materials, assessments, tutors and other students (Pike

2010, Prisoners Education Trust 2009a)

1.2.4 Educational technology in prison

The previous government committed to a long-term strategy of online secure access

in prison and planned for the development of a campus model for learning in prison

which has more flexible access to skills and employment support, with effective use

of ICT (BIS, 2006). OLASS has recently invested heavily in upgrading and replacing

its ICT infrastructure in many prisons in England and has financed suitable

maintenance arrangements. Most education departments in prisons in England now

have at least one IT suite which has modern computers with CD ROM drives, some

of which may be internally networked (Learning and Skills Council, 2008). A variety

of different technology solutions have been developed, including a new secure, fire-

walled resettlement tool, the Virtual Campus, which is being trialed by the Prison

Service in prisons in two English regions and there are plans to roll out across all

prison in England over the next two years (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009b).

4 ‘Student-inmates’ are defined here as those prisoners who study through distance learning while in prison

xii

Internet access in a prison environment is problematic; apart from obvious security

concerns it is politically sensitive as there is significant negative public and media

opinion (Jewkes, 2007) but it is also dependent upon Prison Service management

and each prison establishment has its own unique culture (Liebling and Price, 2001).

1.3 The research questions

The literature review which follows draws upon research on the ‘digital divide’ from

the broad field of distance learning in the community at large, exploring its relevance

in a prison context and comparing it with the limited research literature of distance

learning in the prison environment. The research questions which emerge are as

follows:-

Qu1. a) What technology is available to the student-inmate?

b) How does the student-inmate access and use technologies for learning in

prison?

Qu2. How does the student-inmate develop the skills required to use technologies

for learning in prison?

Qu3. a) What are the student-inmate’s perceptions of technology-supported

distance learning in prison?

b) What are the attitudes of others towards technology-supported distance

learning in prison?

xiii

xiv

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In an attempt to understand how technology supports distance learners in prison,

this review draws on the wealth of research literature on technology-supported

distance learning in England and explores its relevance for distance learning in a

prison context. Section 2.2 reviews the definition of the ‘digital divide’ for non-prison

distance learners. Section 2.3 reviews the small amount of empirical research which

relates to a ´digital divide´ for distance learners in prison. Section 2.4 reviews the

literature which investigates improving technologies in prison. The review concludes

that some solutions to the ‘digital divide’ in the community at large could relate to a

prison context, but there may be specific issues related to the closed prison context

which require further exploration.

2.2 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in England

2.2.1 Introduction

A large proportion of adults in England learn through distance education (Clark

2008). New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) such as Virtual

Learning Environments (VLEs) and collaborative learning tools are perceived as

having the potential to widen participation in education by providing accessible and

flexible learning at a distance, though they also present many challenges (Becta,

2008; Clark, 2008) as some students are unable or unwilling to use them (Kirkwood

2006a). From some perspectives the ‘digital divide’ is a socio-economic divide,

involving students who live in deprived circumstances and cannot undertake online

xv

study for financial or social reasons (or both)’ (Clark, 2008). Others argue that the

‘digital divide’ is shaped by factors which go beyond simple access to hardware and

skills; that use of ICT is also related to the cultural and political context in which they

operate, hence the inequalities are not being reduced by simply improving the

availability of ICT (Selwyn and Facer, 2007; Selwyn, Gorard and Furlong, 2004).

Eynon (2009) however, defines the ‘digital divide’ as a “continuum of access and

use” and suggests that access, skills and attitudes may explain patterns of use of

new technologies. These are useful distinctions for ICT and learning issues and align

well with suggested concepts of ‘access’, ‘awareness’ and ‘acceptability’ for an e-

learning framework in a secure environment (Adams and Pike, 2008a) so have been

used to structure this literature review.

2.2.1 Access

Kirkwood and Price (2005) reported on studies which used a variety of surveys to

generate quantitative and qualitative data regarding access and use of computers,

ICT and media technologies among 80,000 active OU students over the period 2001

to 2005. They found a variety of practical access issues, such as home computers in

noisy family areas which were unsuitable for study or shared access time

restrictions. Some students had problems associated with their employers, such as

prohibition of loading ‘external’ software including course resources onto employers’

computers and they found that access and use of IT inversely related to age. Eynon

(2009)’s statistical analysis of Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS)5 data also identified

age as a significant factor in explaining access to online learning but social class,

level of income and level of education were also highly significant factors. Although

these findings may translate to a prison context, there is a fundamental assumption

5 Multi-stage face-to-face surveys on internet use of 2000 random people in UK (see http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/oxis/)

xvi

in this literature that students have some choice in how they access and use

technology for learning and this may not be the case in a closed prison environment.

2.2.2 Skills

Increasing sophistication in new technologies and level of competency expected of

learners may widen rather than bridge the digital and educational divide (Lane,

2009). Allen (2009) identified a lack of confidence in the use of ICTs among new OU

students who lived in areas of high deprivation6 in the UK. They had negative

experiences of formal learning of ICT skills, undervalued skills developed through

informal learning and were nervous about engaging in courses which required

significant ICT usage. Many perceived the need for specific face-to-face ICT training

early in the course to develop required skills. Kirkwood and Price (2005) found that

students needed to understand why as well as how they should use ICTs for study.

Peasgood (2007), supported Kirkwood and Price’s results for OU Openings

students, who usually utilize telephone tutorials, but also found that many students

preferred personal contact from a tutor instead of electronic communication.

However, the fact that all her interviewed students were elderly may have biased her

results. As Openings courses are often compulsory for new OU students in prison

these results may be particularly relevant.

2.2.3 Attitudes

Eynon (2009) found that those internet users with a positive attitude towards ICT

were significantly more likely to use the internet for formal and informal learning.

However, Peasgood (2007) found contrasting attitudes towards use of ICTs for

assessment and suggested that although the convenience of online assessment

procedures could be motivating its unfamiliarity could cause significant anxiety which

6 the lowest 25%, using the UK Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007

xvii

may be alleviated through appropriate informal support. Kirkwood (2006b) argues

that distance learners only ‘go outside the box’ to learn if they are given a reason to

do so and need encouragement to communicate with their peers. He suggests that

online and collaborative activities should be clearly linked to outcomes and

assessment. Although this argument may encourage participation for those with

easy internet access, it may negatively affect those in less connected environments.

In comparison, Helsper and Eynon (2010) discuss the ‘digital natives’7 who can

receive information really fast, parallel process and function best when networked.

They argue that these skills are not necessarily purely generational and suggest that

the ‘digital native’ label could lead to unhelpful attitudes from educators who may

think that technology is a ‘quick fix’; an attitude which would certainly be unhelpful to

those with more restricted access.

2.3 The ‘digital divide’ for distance learners in prison

2.3.1 Access

Hughes (2007)’s mixed methods study of distance learners across 9 prisons in

England and Wales in 2001-2003 found variety in computer facilities and highlights a

lack of access to information generally since libraries had inadequate academic

literature or modern computers. Her research was not focused on technology,

however, and lacked technical detail. Braggins and Talbot (2003) found perceptions

of ‘old and outdated’ hardware and software in their study of young prisoners in

prison education. Some distance learners were included but were not

distinguishable. Pike (2010)’s study of 35 OU distance learning students across 15

7 One of a number of labels to describe young people born into the WWW generation, now studying at school or University

xviii

prisons in England in 2007 also found that access to computers and storage devices

varied significantly from one prison to another and most access was in shared areas

with very restricted times. She found some use of in-cell laptops which was

perceived as ‘empowering’ and almost 10% of participants had internet access but

her findings were biased by 2 students in one prison who had internet access

through their employment and her method and analysis were not clearly defined.

However, none of these studies focused on how students used computer facilities for

learning.

2.3.2 Skills

Hughes (2007) found distance learning tutors very supportive but also a perceived

lack of email correspondence with tutors meant that students felt isolated. Adams

and Pike (2008a) also identified some isolation from lack of interactive tutor support

but added that lack of communication with peers was also significant. They

suggested that OU tutors or prison education staff often needed to ‘bend the rules’ in

order to provide good support, such as copying DVDs or downloading material onto

prison laptops. However, these accounts provide very little detail of how support

impacts on students’ skills and they are unable to identify preferences for specific

types of support in order to compare with non-prison studies (Kirkwood and Price

2005).

2.3.3 Attitudes

Most prison distance learning literature provides evidence of positive perceptions of

distance learning, for improved confidence and self-esteem (Prisoner’s Education

Trust 2009; Wilson, 2000). However Braggins and Talbot (2003) found negative

attitudes from staff and huge differences in attitudes of the prison management

xix

regarding what technology is or is not allowed for educational purposes. They

commented on the ‘stupid rules’ such as lack of access to in-cell electronic

calculators which could relate to biased cultures within the prison community.

Hughes provides an example of one student whose application for a word-processor

for typing up coursework was refused. “Security said ‘no’ because of the memory”

(Hughes, 2007, p204). This highlights two specific issues: firstly the possibility that

technological advancement in prison at that time was several years behind that in

the non-prison community and secondly the institutional fear of technology which

may or may not be related to genuine security concerns. Adams and Pike (2008b)

identified similar tension among some prison staff regarding prisoner access to

unfamiliar technology which, they argue, related to the IT literacy of those in control.

However, there was no detailed review of these issues in their paper and they

suggested that further investigation was required. Although ‘attitude’ is a theme in

the literature of the ‘digital divide’ in the non-prison community, the aspect of control

which this literature suggests, may be peculiar to a prison environment and requires

further consideration.

2.4 Technology in prison: bridging the ‘digital divide’?

2.4.1 Access

Jewkes and Johnson (2009) suggest that 7 prisons in England and Wales provide

internet access though they do not provide any detail and their estimate of 300

students annually studying with the OU disagrees substantially with other literature

(Hancock, 2009; Jones and Pike, 2010). The OU and other distance learning

providers are participating in trials of the new Virtual Campus by providing a small

xx

number of courses (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009b) though evaluation is limited.

Pike (2009) suggests other prisons have networked their new computers internally,

allowing software and printers to be shared so students can appear to access

uploaded courses ‘online’, though she mentions only one High Security prison. There

are many other initiatives across prisons which are making use of e-learning

(Englebright and Essom, 2009; Englebright and Petit, 2009). Although this work

represents a big step forward, most of the individual initiatives use non-interactive

technology such as digital cameras and are limited in their effectiveness because of

lack of access to the internet in prisons. Also there are many cases where the

materials are prevented from working properly due to the security tools used to lock

down the computers to the satisfaction of the authorities (National Learning Network,

2010).

2.4.2 Skills

Computer skills in prison are provided in the form of European Computer Driving

Licence (ECDL) or Computer Literacy and Information Technology (CLAIT)

qualifications and some prisons have introduced e-skills though these IT skills are

usually only available to students attending standard classroom education and are

not available to those doing distance learning (Prisoners Education Trust, 2009a).

Some prisons also provide IT qualifications through CISCO academies or

Learndirect courses (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009). In the non-prison community,

Kirkwood (2006a) indicates effective networked learning requires specific skills

though it is not known whether student-inmates either have or need such skills.

Hancock (2009) suggests an Essential, Desirable or Optional (EDO) framework to

structure centralised support for specific distance learning courses which require a

VLE. Acknowledging this as an improvement and potential for a valuable short-term

xxi

solution, Pike (2009) argues that alternatives are not the long-term solution and

further research is required to identify barriers to online resources.

2.4.3 Attitude

Braggins and Talbot (2003, p29) commented

“It is difficult to believe that the obvious risks and temptations

associated with unfettered access to the internet could not be

overcome with a little imagination, computer know-how and

institutional courage”.

Modern technology is able to provide secure access and a number of successful

initiatives suggest technical solutions are possible (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009).

Taylor (2005) explained that although no firewall is completely safe some prison

governors prefer the ´trust´ method of internet access (as adopted by some

European countries) along with censored email, to the current system of letter-

checking. Adams and Pike (2008a) argue that negative perceptions of information

security and control which impede the development of open and distance learning

are not specific to the Prison Service and other closed institutions such as the NHS

have similar perceptions. However, they argue that in order to find appropriate

solutions to the ‘digital divide’ there is a need to understand the culture within the

environment.

xxii

2.5 Conclusion

This review suggests that the ‘digital divide’ is not a static gap but a complex and

evolving phenomenon for both the prison and non-prison distance learner. However

the prison context is under-researched and in order to adequately address the ‘digital

divide’ in this closed environment there is a need to identify patterns of access and

use, levels of competence and support, student preferences and cultural attitudes as

in the community at large. This research project therefore aims to identify how the

developing technology is supporting distance learning in a prison environment; what

technology is now available to the student-inmate, how they access and use that

technology and what are the perceptions and attitudes regarding access and use of

the technology (see research questions in section 1.3 above). Chapter 3 discusses

the methods and ethical issues related to the data collection.

xxiii

xxiv

CHAPTER 3: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research design. The adopted research approach is

described, a number of possible data collection methods discussed and the rationale

for the chosen methods of data collection provided. The table in Appendix A, which

is adapted from Mason (2002), justifies how the chosen data collection techniques

specifically address the research questions. The selection process for the prisons

and the participants is then outlined and some of the many ethical issues are

addressed.

3.2 Theoretical perspective

The prison, being a ‘total institution’8 (Goffman, 1961), is a difficult environment to

research (Liebling, 2001) and one that requires a special research stance

(Piacentini, 2008). Student-inmates have actions, thoughts, attitudes and a story to

tell about their hidden social world. A qualitative approach is considered most

appropriate as it could generate rich descriptions of participants’ perceptions of

technology-supported distance learning in a prison context9, which would be flexible

and sensitive to the complexity of this closed social world (Mason, 2002). Some

qualitative researchers such as discourse analysts argue that language is

8 A total institution is described as an isolated, artificially created, world in which people are subjected to a depersonalizing and totalitarian regime. Goffman considered prisons, mental asylums, monasteries and boarding schools as total institutions and his version of ‘inmate’ included staff as well as prisoner/patient.9 The education department in the prison is not the prisoners’ natural setting in terms of their accommodation and leisure activities but with respect to the educational technology focus of this research it is considered to be acceptable

xxv

constructive, constitutive of social life, so the social world only exists through human

meaning-making (Potter and Wetherill, 1987) and nothing beyond the discourse is

valid. However in line with a ‘subtle realism’, perceptions may differ but an

assumption can still be made that the described phenomena are as they are and not

just how they are perceived to be, as long as threats to validity are minimised

throughout the research process (Hammersley, 1992; Hammersley and Gomm,

2006).

A grounded theory style of analysis is therefore considered to be most appropriate

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998) as it may capture the social complexity of the closed

prison environment. However, to improve validity, multiple sources with different

perspectives could provide a better understanding of the complexities and a variety

of different collection techniques which have different kinds of validity threat may

also check interpretations (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).

3.3 Methods of data collection

A mixed-methods approach generating both qualitative and quantitative data is

initially considered as it could provide multiple perspectives (Blaxter et. al., 2006). A

quantitative research method, such as a survey, could be useful at a macro-level,

providing large-scale, structural features of technology-supported learning in the

larger prison community as it is more concerned with identifying patterns and causal

relationships between variables which can be measured (Bryman, 2001). It could

also provide evidence on which to base a qualitative research method for the micro

perspective. Surveys have been used successfully in a prison context as part of a

mixed-methods approach (Hughes, 2007) but delivery, completion and return is

xxvi

dependent on the prison authorities and can be an issue. Although open questions

could provide some qualitative data, a survey alone would be unlikely to provide

sufficiently detailed information of the participants’ perceptions of technology-

supported distance learning under investigation and there is insufficient time to use it

as a complementary method.

Since the way people think and feel affects the way they behave and interact with

others (Blaxter et al., 2006), observation of student-inmates in their learning

environment could provide insight into their social world. Participant observation is

one of the primary tools of ethnography which has proved to be a valuable approach

to studying social relations and cultural codes in a prison context (De Viggiani, 2007;

Jewkes, 2002). However, time restrictions make the sustained observation required

for an in-depth ethnographic study inappropriate for this small-scale research. Also

as much of the study time of the student-inmate is in the confines of the cell which is

not observable, participant observation does not adequately address all of the

research questions. However, some observation could provide a complementary

method of data collection and a partial ethnographic approach is considered

feasible10.

In-depth interviews are considered to be the most appropriate for the primary

research data collection method as they may produce rich descriptions of

participants’ accounts, both for information about how student-inmates access and

use technology and for analysis of the perspectives they imply (Hammersley and

Atkinson, 2007). They would also potentially provide data which would not be directly

observable such as in other prisons and in-cell activities. 10 It is acknowledged that a full ethnographic approach would require more than two days in the field but data collection was approached in a reflexive manner over the two days.

xxvii

Group interviews are briefly considered as they could potentially capture more

participants at one time and encourage less formality, but it is likely that narratives

would be affected by participants’ inability to divulge personal information in the

company of others. One-to-one interviews in a quiet setting are considered to be the

most likely possibility of providing the participants with the privacy to be able to talk

freely. They are also likely to provide flexibility for the researcher within the confines

of the prison regime. Only face-to-face interviews of the student participants are

feasible as the likelihood of being able to access prisoners by telephone is slim. Less

formal interviews with staff are possible, both face-to-face and telephone, and could

be arranged opportunistically to improve flexibility.

Document analysis is used in some form or other in most social research projects. It

is a valuable resource and particularly useful in a prison context because it can often

be completed without a site visit. This method is not suitable as a main data

collection technique as it could not obtain perceptions of technology-supported

distance learning. However pertinent procedural and policy documents could provide

information about distance learning and technology across the wider prison estate

and individual learning plans or class registration documents could provide useful

background information.

3.4 Data collection methods chosen

A systematic analysis of the above data collection methods leads towards a partial

ethnographic, multi-method approach with in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face,

interviews as the primary data collection method for the majority of the participants.

xxviii

Additional data will be generated from participant observation and informal

conversations with staff and students; providing direct situational information and

ideas to bring meaning to the data collected through the interviews. Government,

Prison Service, Ofsted and Third Sector documents will also be examined where

appropriate to provide background information and aid selection criteria. Appendix A

provides a table which justifies how these data collection methods address the

research questions.

This multi-method approach should provide multiple perspectives and improve

validity. In an attempt to further improve validity, interviews will not follow a strict

sequence but be allowed to flow as in a natural conversation. What questions are

asked and how they are asked would be considered in the analysis and an

awareness of the researcher’s participation in the research process could also be

exploited with respect to the information gained from the participants’ reaction to the

researcher (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Research in prison must adhere to

the strict security regime (Jewkes and Johnson, 2009; Piacentini, 2007) and this

multi-method approach provides the flexibility to accommodate this.

3.5 Selection Procedures

3.5.1 The prison

Only one prison setting is considered as Prison Service Research regulations require

complex and time-consuming Home Office approval for research in more than one

prison and difficult access arrangements are eased by a good rapport which usually

takes time to develop.

xxix

The selection criteria for the prison are as follows:-

1. Potential of new technologies for learning.

2. Sufficient number and variety of distance learners.

3. A variety of learning environments (some prison clusters contain several prisons

in one site with multiple security categories).

4. Ease of access, including known gatekeepers and distance from the researcher’s

home as at least two full day visits are required and the day starts early.

3.5.2 The participants

An application to the Student Research Project Panel (SRPP) is not required as the

focus of the research is on all distance learning students in prison, not just OU

students (see email confirmation in Appendix B).

Purposive sampling is planned, to handpick student participants across a range of

prison security categories and distance education providers (Blaxter et. al., 2006).

This is chosen because there are few distance learning students available and the

aim is to interview as many as possible with a variety of experiences. Sampling of

the staff will be more opportunistic though partially ‘theoretical’ (Strauss and Corbin,

1990, p177), as the data will be partially analysed and emerging themes may affect

further selection.

xxx

3.6 Ethical Issues

3.6.1 Introduction

This research adheres to British Educational Research Association (BERA) ethical

guidelines as well as OU ethical guidelines, and is cleared by the Human Participant

and Materials Research Ethics Committee (Appendix C). However, research involving

prisoners is “fraught with ethical challenges” (Roberts and Indermaur, 2008) and a

number of specific issues require consideration at different stages of the research.

These are highlighted below under the five main principles which can be considered

to underpin the majority of ethical concerns in social and educational research: harm,

autonomy, privacy, reciprocity and equity (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007;

Hammersley and Traianou, 2007).

3.6.2 Harm

For the participant: Every attempt will be made to avoid sensitive or distressing

subjects. The prison and the participants will be anonymised to prevent harm from

any adverse publicity or publications at a later date.

For the researcher: Enhanced CRB disclosure has been obtained and the

researcher, as an ex-prison tutor, is fully conversant with prison security procedures.

3.6.3 Autonomy

Participation will be completely voluntary and participants must sign a consent form.

The rights of prisoners to make free and informed decisions may not be appreciated

by prison gatekeepers who consider prison management as the only authority

deciding prisoner participation (Waldram, 1998). Thus to ensure that participation is

xxxi

voluntary and student-inmates understand the implications of the research and its

subsequent report, easy-to-read information sheets will accompany the consent form

and the main points discussed at length prior to the interview. The option to withdraw

at any stage up to analysis and the opportunity of not being recorded will also be

stressed, and time given for reflection before the end of the interview.

Roberts and Indermaur (2008) argue that signed consent forms may pose a threat to

confidentiality, for example, to a prisoner’s future wellbeing. However, this is not

expected to be an issue as: firstly, the research is focused on educational technology

not their crimes; secondly, the student-inmates will be specifically informed that other

topics are not for discussion; finally, a suitably confidential room for the semi-

structured interviews will be identified where possible (though regime restrictions

may affect interview space).

3.6.4 Privacy

All data will be anonymised and subject to the requirements of the Data Protection

Act. The required OU Data Protection form has been completed and all necessary

measures to ensure the security of the data will be taken. Audio files and/or

transcripts and other electronic data will be stored in password-protected files on an

OU laptop, printed material in locked cupboards at the OU, personal data kept

separately from the interview schedules to protect confidentiality and preserve

anonymity. Anonymity and confidentiality will be stressed before and after the

interview (especially relative to staff/ student relationships).

xxxii

3.6.5 Reciprocity

Access to prisons is difficult and people who are inconvenienced or disrupted by the

research may require recompense, in order to allow access to more research in the

future. The researcher will attempt to fit in with the prison regime and be guided to

the participants and spaces available. The researcher is aware that prisoners may

request favours but they will be informed of the researcher’s role, working within the

BERA ethics code and that she has no influence in relation to their studies, nor could

she provide any other privileges.

3.6.6 Equity or justice

An attempt will be made to treat all participants equally within the research process

and not discriminate against or exploit anyone.

xxxiii

xxxiv

CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides information about the data collection and analysis procedures.

It describes the prison setting, including how the prison was selected and access

gained. The discussion of data collection procedures includes adaption for

unforeseen problems and ethical issues considered. Finally, the analysis process is

described and the emerging themes of physical environment, institutional visions and

student identity are introduced.

4.2 The prison setting

The initial gatekeeper was the OLASS National IT manager who, in order to improve

the potential for technology, recommended those prisons which were successfully

using the Virtual Campus (see section 1.2.4). Distance learner numbers in the

recommended prisons were estimated by analysing data at the Prisoners Education

Trust (PET) and the OU. Ofsted reports provided background information. The prison

chosen was a cluster prison11, trialling an OU Openings course on the Virtual

Campus and provided the potential to investigate distance learning at three security

levels, B to D.

The OLASS manager introduced the researcher to the second gatekeeper, the Head

of Learning and Skills (HoLS), a Governor level manager at the site. He gave

permission for access to all three prisons on the site and completed security

11 A cluster prison contains several prisons within one site which act as one establishment and aim to progress prisoners through the different security levels as they complete their sentence.

xxxv

arrangements for the audio equipment. It was agreed that the research would be

completed over two days with a gap of approximately 2 weeks for reflection, analysis

and staff holidays.

A third gatekeeper, an education staff member became the visit coordinator,

providing support and an escort12 around the establishment. The HoLS, the visit

coordinator and the Virtual Campus were all in the Category (Cat) D Open prison, so

that was where the research was mostly focused.

Initial enquiries established that out of the 1400 prisoners, there were possibly only

13 distance learners though actual numbers were unknown. Through liaison with the

visit coordinator and various other education staff at the prison, the participants were

selected according to the sampling criteria (see chapter 3). However, data collection

could not be fully planned prior to the first visit as student availability and staffing

arrangements were unknown and the final decision on who participated was with the

prison management.

4.3 Data collection procedures

4.3.1 The Visits

Data collection was completed over two full-day visits in June 2010. During the first

visit, data was generated from students and staff in the Cat D prison and one student

from the Cat B prison. The second visit generated data from additional students and

staff in the Cat D and Cat C prison. Movement around the cluster site was eased

substantially by the visit coordinator, who also provided an excellent source of

12 Visitors to prisons must be escorted at all times by a key-holder, not only to open the many locked doors but also to adhere to security regulations.

xxxvi

background information, though most of the informal conversations took place ‘on

the move’ and were recorded from memory in hand-written field-notes.

4.3.2 The Interviews

In all, 10 students and 6 staff were interviewed. Details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Prison and interview details

Prison

Category

Number and type of prisoner Number of interviews

Staff* Students#

B 1074 remand, sentenced and vulnerable

prisoners.

0 1 (OU)

C 170 sentenced prisoners focused on

training

2 (CIAS) 2 (ST)

2 (MC)

D 187 sentenced prisoners in open

conditions (with 25% going outside the

prison to work or study)

1 (CIAS)

2 (Education)

1 (HMPS)

4 (OU)

1 (ST)

Totals 6 10

* Staff employers: CIAS = Careers Information and Advice Service staff, Education = OLASS

contracted education provider, HMPS = Prison staff.

# Student’s current distance learning provider: ST = Stonebridge, OU = Open University, MC

= Manchester College.

Following ethical procedures as discussed in Section 3.6, information and consent

forms for both students and staff were checked with the ethics committee and the

prison before being sent in advance (see Appendix D). These forms provided

xxxvii

information on interview technique, confidentiality, withdrawal options and the

anonymised report procedures. The options and procedures were reinforced before

and after the interviews but this process was not extended to informal staff interviews

as it appeared inappropriate.

The interview guides (see Appendix E) provided questions and probes to focus the

conversation towards the research questions only when necessary. They were

slightly different for students and staff to avoid sensitive issues such as staff-student

relationships and previous history. Student participants were also provided with an

additional request form (Appendix F) which included sensitive information such as

age range, length of sentence and expected release date, as well as a request for

permission to be contacted again either in prison or on release (see 6.3 Future

research). Most student interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. Staff interviews

were mostly shorter as they were opportunistic within their busy schedule.

All student interviews and most of the staff interviews took place in the education

department of the prisons which enabled the researcher to move around relatively

unrestricted and appear less obtrusive. The student interviews in the Cat B and Cat

D prisons took place in relatively quiet staff rooms. There were some interruptions

such as phones ringing and prison or education staff entering for records but these

did not appear to affect the interviewee. The four students in the Cat C prison were

interviewed in a group. This was not planned (see 4.4 below), but was organised by

a staff member who considered that there was insufficient time for students, who had

been released from their work to attend, to be interviewed individually. The room was

large with interviewees seated formally at four small tables facing the researcher,

xxxviii

who was seated between the interviewees and the door (in accordance with prison

security).

4.3.3 Other data collection methods

Observation

Opportunistic observations took place across the prison on both days; they included

observation of what technology was available in the classrooms and the staff rooms,

how students accessed and used that technology and the interaction between the

students and staff. On the second visit, one student, who had been involved in an

OU trial, was observed for approximately 45 minutes using the Virtual Campus.

During most of that time the researcher sat beside the student at the computer,

noting his actions and his comments.

Informal conversation

Informal conversations were carried out with staff and students during observations,

over lunch-times, on the move between prisons or while waiting for formal interviews.

These provided interesting background information to the interview data. Hand-

written field-notes were made unobtrusively, as and when possible.

Document analysis

Documents studied prior to the field visits included various OU and PET records,

recent Ofsted reports and the Prison Service Instruction13 (NOMS, 2010), a recently

published document providing instructions for the allocation and support of distance

learning in prison. Documents studied during the field visits included the prison

13 Mandatory instructions to prison Governors

xxxix

employment guide and induction material. There were unfortunately no distance

learner records available to provide quantitative data as originally planned.

4.3.4 Recording and transcription

Nine interviews at the Open prison were recorded (with consent from the

participants) using the audio recorder. All other data collected was recorded with

handwritten field-notes (see 4.4 below). Additional field-notes were made while

audio recording which provided non-verbal observations such as body language but

also provided a backup in case the audio recording failed. The researcher’s words

and thoughts were always placed in square brackets14. Informal conversations and

observations which could not be recorded at the time due to logistics or

inappropriateness were written from memory as soon as possible and were

consequently less reliable. Audio recordings were fully transcribed by a third party

but only the words were required (not a detailed transcription as would be needed for

discourse analysis). All hand-written field-notes were word-processed later by the

researcher to allow for searches for words and phrases during the analysis phase.

The data was organised and categorised according to where it was collected within

the prison.

4.3.5 Participant Profile

Only the student participant profile was obtained sufficiently completely to analyse

(see problems below). Most of the student participants interviewed were well

educated and had been distance learners in prison for several years; some had

gained all their education in prison. Descriptive statistics of the student participants

14 A lesson learnt from previous research when the researcher was unable to tell whether the comment was her’s or the interviewee’s

xl

are shown in a table in Appendix G and key features are displayed in the following

graphs.

Figure 1 shows the age range of the student participants. All had some IT skills,

though some had developed those skills in prison doing CLAIT and CLAIT Plus. 60%

hand-wrote their assignments but the only student to admit lack of internet skills was

in the oldest age bracket. Sentence lengths ranged from 3.5 years to life.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54

Age range of student participants (Years)

Per

cen

tag

e o

f st

ud

ents

(%

)

Figure 1: Age range of student participants

Figure 2 shows their previous education. Only 20% admitted leaving school with

nothing, but many of the 50% with GCSE equivalent suggested that much of their

education had been completed in prison or Young Offender Institutes. In addition,

xli

80% of the students described poor school experiences and 50% were excluded

from school at various stages of their education (See Appendix G)

Left school with nothing20%

GCSE (or equivalent)50%

A-levels10%

Degree20%

Figure 2: Education level of student participants

4.4 Problems encountered

Permission for the audio equipment was only granted for formal interviews in the

open prison so interviews at the Cat B and C prisons, all other conversations and

observations were recorded with hand-written field-notes. Care was taken to ensure

that the interviewee’s words were recorded as closely as possible however this was

not always possible. The group interview was particularly difficult to record as it was

rarely possible to record who said what and some abbreviations were later

xlii

undecipherable. The group interview was also a problem in other ways as the

researcher was unable to probe potentially sensitive issues such as previous

education, skills levels and prison experiences which require privacy. In addition, the

seating was very formal and did not provide an environment which was conducive to

‘open’ conversation. Also, although well-intentioned, the organising staff member

returned several times which disrupted the flow of the conversation and at one point

one of the students said “Shh he’s coming”,

Prison officer staff were not interviewed at each security category prison as planned

as only one prison staff member was interviewed on the first visit and permission to

speak to prison officers was refused for the second visit.

Many staff were very helpful and forthcoming but the researcher occasionally

perceived some reluctance and decided that some questions such as previous

education and IT history were too sensitive to ask.

For the student participants, age-ranges instead of actual ages were collected as

actual age was considered sensitive and age-range could be compared with

literature on the ‘digital divide’ (Eynon, 2009). However these age-ranges were not

helpful for statistical comparison with prison records15.

The transcriber was not an expert in the field and the transcriptions contained a

significant number of errors which were corrected by the researcher by playing and

replaying the audio files. One or two of the recordings were faded in some sections

15 More than 10% of prisoners are aged over 50 in England and Wales, with more than 2500 over 60 (the fastest growing age group in prison) (Cooney and Braggins, 2010)

xliii

or difficult to hear above the noise of telephones or shuffling of the researcher’s

notes, and the wording was lost. Hand-written notes were used to fill in gaps where

possible.

4.5 Data Analysis

4.5.1 Procedure

Once all the data had been transcribed or word-processed, it was read and re-read,

with the recordings, where available, in an attempt to “know one’s data”

(Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p162). In line with a grounded theorising approach,

the data was open coded by selecting sections of narrative which were given

conceptual labels (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p65) which were written in the margin.

The words and phrases ‘coded’ were not taken out of context and what happened

before and after the account were also considered. In order to ensure theoretical

sensitivity this open coding was completed without pre-conceived themes or

hypotheses. Themes then emerged from the data.

Later, due to short time-scales, an adaptation of grounded theory, closer to

“qualitative content analysis” (Bryman 2001, p392) was used to group the conceptual

labels according to the three themes which were drawn from the literature and which

formed the research questions. Selections were then colour-coded; access (red),

attitude (green) and skills (yellow) and the grouped concepts were mostly recorded

in a spreadsheet (see Appendix H). Some concepts did not appear to fit into the

themes initially and were left for a later analysis. Some concepts had multiple

themes. The colour-coded data was copied and pasted into a variety of other

documents which were then used to ‘think’ with and look for patterns.

xliv

The aim was to identify “situated meanings” (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p168),

not just what was happening but why it was happening and what perceptions were

behind the words. For example it was often necessary to consider the potential effect

of rules and relationships on a situation and sometimes what was not said was as

important as what was said. Initial ideas were recorded and built upon or discarded,

depending on whether the rest of the data fit into the idea or not. Pre-conceptions of

the researcher, such as empathy with the student’s lack of resources, were guarded

against as much as possible by trying to keep an ‘open mind’ about how the data fit

together. Frequent and fundamental cases (Adams et. al., 2008) were used to set

the limits of what was perceived as the ‘normal’ situation. Identifying the patterns led

to an appreciation of some of the rules, not just the official rules but the everyday,

‘hidden’ rules as perceived by the interviewees.

4.5.2 Emerging themes

Most student-inmates provided rich descriptions of learning journeys through the

prison system; providing comparison of their current prison with other prisons they

remembered and analysing the situation from other perspectives. Their

interpretations were treated objectively as information on other prisons but as a

student’s perspective of different prisons “the social location is no longer a source of

bias, it is a focus for the analysis”, (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, p181). As some

of the narratives were memories from several years previous their validity was

questionable but despite this, they were surprisingly consistent and extremely

interesting so were fundamental in the development of the three emerging themes of

physical environment, institutional visions and student identity. These are detailed

below in relation to the research questions (see section 1.3 above) and described

xlv

more fully in chapter 5, where the participants’ comments are used to highlight key

points.

The physical environment

The physical environment is perceived as a powerful force; controlling the student-

inmate’s ability to access personal space in which to learn or communicate with

peers, providing the technologies to support the learning but controlling access to

those technologies (RQ 1a, b); even controlling the clothes which are worn which

impacts on self-esteem and attitude towards learning (RQ 3a). It also impacts on the

distance learner’s skills by developing the determination to survive (RQ 2).

Institutional Visions

This second emerging theme is related to how students perceive the visions of the

institutions which have control over their learning in some way; that is the Prison

Service, the OLASS Providers, the CIAS Organisations and even the Distance

Learning Providers who all have different attitudes towards technology-supported

distance learning (RQ 3b). These institutional visions are perceived to clash with the

physical environment, thus further controlling the student’s time and ability to access

technology for learning (RQ 1b) and promoting skills which may or may not be

perceived as useful to the technology-supported distance learner (RQ 2).

Student Identity

This third emerging theme is the one thing over which the distance learner perceives

to have some control. The physical environment and the competing institutional

visions together impact on the student identity but ultimately the distance learners

have a perception of their own learning, what access and skills they need to manage

xlvi

their learning and what motivates them to continue with their studies despite the

barriers (RQ 1b, 2, 3a, 3b).

xlvii

xlviii

CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETING THE DATA

5.1 Introduction

The data analysis which has been described in chapter 4 produced three emerging

themes. This chapter describes how these emerging themes impact on the prison-

based distance learner, as he seeks to develop his student identity through

technology-supported higher level learning within the confines of a physical

environment which is pulled in different directions by the conflicting institutional

visions of the educational stakeholders within the prison, who all have a different

perspective of rehabilitation. Participants’ narrative is used to describe key issues but

in order to ensure anonymity; the names used are not the participant’s real names.

Additional and fuller quotes are supplied in Appendix I. Although the research

questions (as specified in 1.3) are answered within each theme, they are more

clearly addressed in chapter 6.

5.2 The physical environment

5.2.1 Introduction

Within this research ‘access to technology’ is defined as being able to physically gain

access to a place where the technology exists and, once there, being able to fully

utilize the technology which exists but it also appears to be dependent on the student

being given the time to study.

xlix

The physical environment is perceived to vary significantly across prisons and

security categories so physical accessibility depends on where the students access

the technology. Often the education department, where the technology is perceived

to be ‘improved’ and ‘good quality’, was in a different building to the library or the

vocational working environment or the student’s cell or dormitory. The time to study

was dependent on where and when the student could access the technology and

also on what other activities the student was expected to do. Both time and space

were seen to be controlled by the various organisations within the prison.

5.2.2 ‘Progressive’ prison versus ‘working’ prison

Most student-inmates had perceptions of a stark contrast between those prisons

which appeared to consider technology-supported independent learning as

something to be encouraged and those that appeared to positively discourage it. To

explain this contrast, the terms ‘progressive’ and ‘working’ have been used for the

prisons at each end of the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, there is the

‘progressive’ prison (often Private) in which higher level distance learning is

integrated within the full-time education programme. It provides an environment in

which prisoners perceived they could learn independently and grow through

reflection, with unrestricted access to computers, DVDs, printers and a place to talk

to like-minded students. Ethan, who was already studying an OU course when he

was transferred to a Category (Cat) C prison, explains how there was supported

internet access to his distance learning materials in the ‘progressive’ prison he had

left behind.

At the other end of the spectrum, the student-inmates talked about the ‘working’

prison (usually Cat C and D) which is highly regimented with an “obsessive work

l

environment” (Freddie), which does not allow space and time for independent

learning and personal development. All student-inmates interviewed provided

examples of severe restriction to computers in these prisons. Even though there may

be modern computers in the education department, the distance learner is not

allowed to study there. Often, they are only allowed in the library, perhaps for one

evening a week where there are a couple of computers which they share with those

who “play solitaire” while talking to their friends, and they try to print on the one

“temperamental” printer. The distance learner appears to be almost invisible in this

type of prison. One student-inmate knew of only one other higher level student who

he could talk to, and that was because he had shared a ‘dorm’ with him.

5.2.3 Trust

In the higher security category prisons (A and B), physical movement is heavily

restricted but as the student moves to prisons with lower security levels (C and D)

they expected more freedom to access technology and learning. However, the

findings from this research were mostly contrary to this. As physical restrictions were

improved, access to technology appeared to reduce. Ethan explained that when he

was in the Cat B prison, he received the help which he considered to be acceptable

for that level of security but he was confused by the level of increased restriction at

the Cat D prison.

“There seems to be more restrictions. We are placed in

somewhere we can be suitably trusted, in open conditions,

but I don’t really see that trust” (Ethan)

li

In the ‘progressive’ prison the student-inmate is allowed to study alone; often given

a room in which to study full-time and unsupervised. The student-inmates respect

that trust. However, in the ‘working’ prison they are often told that they must be

supervised and this restriction is sometimes difficult to understand as “the whole

point about distance learning is that you learn by yourself” (Ethan). However, the

worst effect of the need for supervision is that if the supervising staff are not

available then valuable technology-supported study time is lost.

“If they [the CIAS staff] weren’t in, you couldn’t go to the

library, which meant that’s a day you couldn’t study” (Ethan)

Some student-inmates manage to gain employment in the library. This trusted

position allows them more time to access computers and other material. Charlie

used to work in the library at his Cat C prison where he had access to a “tele and a

DVD player” though he has no access to a DVD player at the Cat D open prison. He

also used the computer in the library but explained that storing your work on the

library computers could be dangerous as it could be deleted by other prisoners

which “can destroy the entire course.” (Charlie)

5.2.4 Personal space

Personal space is at a premium in prison and if the student-inmate is not able to find

study space during the day, the only place to find peace and quiet to study may be in

a cell at night. Single cells were sometimes perceived good for study as once the

door was closed it was easy to focus, though others perceived even single cells were

noisy at night. Some prisons have dormitories which held as many as 9 other

prisoners and student-inmates find it very difficult to study in these conditions as

lii

there is so much else going on. However, the determination to survive enables

student-inmates to find ingenious coping strategies. Those who share a dormitory,

may study in the early hours of the morning before the other prisoners are awake.

Duncan copes by completely ‘switching off’ to everything around him by saying,

“this bed space is mine and what takes place in here is me

and anything else is outside of that” (Duncan)

But that is not technology-supported learning as Freddie highlighted as he told what

happens if, while studying in your cell, you make a mistake on the third attempt at a

hand-written assignment,

“you .. rip off a little white piece of paper and stick it over the

mistake and write on it like it’s a little bit of Tipp-ex. It’s really

medieval like some sort of … struggling communist in a

fascist prison.” (Freddie)

Another aspect of the physical environment is the student-inmate’s clothes. These

have an impact on their self-respect as well as their learning. Freddie did not want to

leave the ‘progressive’ prison where he wore his own clothes though he explained

that it was necessary to keep moving through the prison’s perceived rehabilitation

route; to be seen to be progressing by going to a Cat C prison. But he was shocked

by the “horrible pyjama humiliation” of the ‘working’ prison, where,

“it’s put on your purple tracksuit … at HMP X you are going to

be sewing curtains” (Freddie).

liii

5.3 Institutional visions

5.3.1 Introduction

Although the ends of the physical spectrum are extreme cases, they show the

different institutional visions. In a ‘progressive’ prison the different organisations

appear to work together towards one aim which is ‘student-centred’ or, in the case of

the private prison, there may be fewer organisations to have different visions. In the

‘working’ prison, however, the many different organisations appear to have

conflicting views. The key aim of the Prison Service is that prisoners should be

doing purposeful activity. Distance learning is classed as a recreational activity which

has a much lower priority than prison ‘work’ as Minny explains,

“I do think there is the stigma that it [distance learning] is just

recreational … a lot of the officers think it is just a case of

some purposeful activity that keeps the guys amused”

(Minny, [education staff])

The following paragraphs highlight how the conflicting institutional visions impact on

the student-inmate’s ability to access the space, time and technology to learn or the

ability to gain appropriate skills.

5.3.2 Can you read?

The student-inmate’s perception is that the OLASS provider’s vision is to educate

those who cannot read and write. The higher level learners feel unwanted in the

liv

prison education department and consider there is very little help for those who

already have literacy and numeracy skills,

“can you read and write? Yes you can? In that case you are

educated. As far as anything further, there is not a lot of

support.” (Charlie)

The student-inmates are also saddened by the fact that there are good computers in

the education department which are standing idle. Education in the ‘working’ prison

is not compulsory and many of the classrooms are only half-filled.

“It [education department, Cat D] has got a lot of resources

and life and a lot of good stuff, but it hasn’t got any people.”

(Freddie)

The student-inmates feel they should be entitled to use the facilities but they are not

allowed to use the idle computers as distance learning is not an OLASS accredited

course. The education staff acknowledge that access to computers for student-

inmates is not as good as it could be and that “increasingly there is less opportunity

for students to access resources where there isn’t necessarily accredited learning”

(Minny, [education staff]).

Many of the student-inmates have the perception that the education staff are just

following orders which are “coming from above” (Ethan). This is corroborated by

education staff who put the blame for the orders at either the door of the Prison

Service or the OLASS provider.

lv

“There is all sorts of rules and regs that we just have to work

within. There are boundaries and OU is just one part of

prison life where we have very tight boundaries…..but I do

think it is very difficult for them to do an OU course in prison,

because education departments (and obviously I’m extending

this back to prison) are only open for so many hours. XX [the

OLASS provider] restricts the hours that we can offer them….

my understanding is that OLASS providers are not supporting

them” (Molly, [education staff])

Most education staff are sympathetic to the plight of the student-inmate and try very

hard to help but feel that their “hands are tied”. Officially, there also appears to be

some confusion about who should be taking responsibility for distance learning and

the staff are concerned about those who “are falling completely through the cracks”

(Molly, [education staff])

5.3.3 Tagged on

Student-inmates are sometimes attached to a taught accredited course in the

education department. Often this is facilitated by supportive education staff. Andrew

used the Computer Literacy and Information Technology (CLAIT) course to access

computers every day. Officially he was doing CLAIT but he purposely had not

finished the course as he was concerned that he would then no longer be able to

gain access to the computers and would have to ‘work’ elsewhere. One student had

already “done the highest level of IT in here, CLAIT Plus and Advanced and all that”

lvi

(Ethan). He was allowed to sit in the CLAIT class and do his distance learning work

instead.

However, not all students liked being tagged onto someone else’s class. Despite

being grateful to the “friendly and sociable” education staff for enabling them to

access computers in this way, they really wanted their own space where they could

access technology for their own study, rather than being “just tagged on”.

Ben sums up why technology-supported distance learning in a ‘working’ prison can

appear so difficult,

“I can’t do my work here [education], because they wouldn’t

pay me …So I have to get a job so therefore the only chance

of work [study] is of an evening and the only place I can do it

is over there [library] and the only place I can print is over

here” (Ben)

5.3.4 Regimented work ethic

Students perceive the regimented work ethic of a ‘working’ prison to be detrimental

to any form of learning. The induction process is considered to be a particularly

unhelpful process in which prisoners are provided with insufficient information to

make a choice about education or work. They are perceived to be pushed into doing

such activities as recycling.

“Do you want to do IT classes? They [prisoners] are going to

say – oh hell, I don’t know what that is, right next, recycling,

lvii

want to do that? Yes? Do you know what I mean? It’s a quick

interview - tick that box.” (Freddie)

There are several major perceived problems with this emphasis on work for the

student-inmates. Firstly, the financial aspect does not encourage the student-inmate.

As distance learning is not part of the OLASS curriculum so the student-inmates are

not paid. Therefore, unless a student is able to get onto a paid education course they

must do various other work activities. This leads to the second perceived problem,

that there is insufficient time to study as the students must spend at least half their

time working in the prison or doing community work. They must therefore complete

their distance learning by “stealing time here and there” (Ethan).

“The greatest drawback is time. There is never enough time.”

(Duncan)

Thirdly, the skills being developed in the working environment may be inappropriate

for higher level learners. Students perceive the CIAS provider’s role in induction as

less about providing sufficient information about what is available and more about

channeling prisoners into prison work vacancies, regardless of whether that is

appropriate training or not.

“I think because [the CIAS provider] didn’t have anybody to

do recycling I was pigeon holed into doing it.” (Charlie)

Most students perceive the skills being developed through their work as not helpful.

Charlie is hoping to get a job in retail when he is released and sees “Powerpoint

lviii

skills” or “something to extend my vocabulary” more useful than “sifting through

metal and plastic.” (Charlie)

But this is not the view of the Prison Service staff in the ‘working prison’ which sums

up the Prison Service vision for the higher level student-inmate,

“Even though they are very well educated we have to sort of

sit with them and look at a different career path, hard though

that is, and that might involve sort of retraining them … we

have got to be honest with people and there is no point in

somebody hoping to be able to practice as an Accountant or

as a Lawyer or a Solicitor if their offence is going to preclude

them from doing that…. it may be plastering or it may be

forklift truck or brick-laying, something like that, simply

because that’s probably where they are going to, I’m not

saying that’s where they will end up, but ultimately they can’t

practice and do what they were doing originally. (Peter,

Prison Service staff)

5.3.5 Deteriorating landscape

Many students consider that the technology landscape for distance learning is

deteriorating and that “the window is just closing all the time” (Ben)

Lack of internet access is perceived to be reducing access to courses since the

vision of the distance learning providers is fully online courses but there is general

lix

acceptance by the student-inmates that internet access in prison is not going to

happen any time soon.

“Prisons are terrified of technology. They haven’t realised

Queen Victoria’s dead yet.” (Ben)

Most student-inmates have not heard of the Virtual Campus, and the few student-

inmates who know of its existence, do not perceive it to be a means of accessing

the internet. The courses are pre-loaded onto the server and there is no apparent

interactive element to the learning or additional information on demand. It is

therefore not considered to be particularly useful for higher level distance learners at

the moment.

“it doesn’t really help me as a person that much … it’s limited.

At the end of the day the internet really means unlimited. …

This is the complete opposite.” 16

One student sees the information provided on the Virtual Campus as useful for

reading the course material but another student actually perceives it to be “quite

patronizing” and more likely to be of use to “someone who doesn’t know how to fill

out a CV or whatever and needs advice on interview techniques”17

Andrew thinks that internet access is not really the issue at present. He sees

access to a computer and a printer as the biggest problem at the moment.

16 The false identity of these Virtual Campus quotes have been removed to ensure anonymity17 See footnote 16

lx

“just give us a room, give us a corner…. even old computers

with a word-processor would be OK” (Andrew)

5.3.6 Potential for the future

There is hope that the Virtual Campus will become more useful in the future. The

secure messaging is thought to have the most potential,

“Yes, through emails it would be easier to speak to him [the

OU tutor], because obviously I can ask my questions and

hopefully if the email works get my answer back”18

The education staff could see its usefulness for resettlement but its potential for

distance learning is less clear,

"I think it [Virtual Campus] will go an awful long way. I think

the potential of it is massive. I just don’t know what a distance

learner is going to be able to do on there in a year’s time”

(Molly, Education staff)

Many of the CIAS staff are new in post but appear dedicated and keen to

learn. One staff member is considering doing distance learning,

“I think that that would probably be quite good and I think it

would expand my understanding of what people are doing”

(Mandy, CIAS staff)

18 See footnote 16

lxi

5.4 Student identity

5.4.1 Introduction

One of the key differences between the ‘progressive’ prison and the ‘working’ prison

is that in the former the student is provided with an open learning environment in

which they can assume the identity of a student and use technology to access the

information they require to learn. In the ‘working’ prison, however, the student-inmate

is isolated, often only finding other distance learners by accident and feeling

deprived of the time, space, technology and information to learn. Although their

student identity may be harder to find in this environment it does still appear to exist

and the student-inmates show remarkable determination in overcoming the barriers

in order to maintain that identity.

5.4.2 Isolated but special

Being one of only a very few higher level distance learners in a prison environment is

perceived to have its benefits and its drawbacks. The benefits are that the student-

inmates feel special and pride themselves on their achievements. They take work

where they can, which will allow them to access technology and study space but

they are also very keen to help others. Many teach ‘toe-by-toe19’ or work as mentors

or classroom assistants in the IT lessons. They seem to care greatly about their

fellow prisoners, knowing that education makes such a difference; they want them to

have the same. Freddie is saddened by the lack of students using the technology in

the education department in the ‘working’ prison.

19 A one-to-one literacy scheme run by the Shannon Trust in which prisoners teach other prisoners to read.

lxii

“It’s a complete drastic irony to me, it’s not in some way

incentive based or mandatory … Because they will just go

and work on the farm…. Why aren’t they in here? I don’t get

it, I just don’t get it. Everyone should leave prison with a level

of some sort (Freddie)

The drawback to distance learning in the ‘working’ prison is isolation. With no access

to online student forums or other students of a similar academic level they often feel

they are “the only one doing this thing” and desperately seek peer support from

wherever they can. Duncan explains how nice it is when his OU tutor visits “because

I can sit there and grill him … and grill him and take it to all different levels”. Andrew

explained that a Prison Governor went on to do the same course as him and he was

proud that the Governor asked his opinion. Charlie feels that he is “swimming

against the tide”, with most of the prison population “just getting through their time”.

He considers it very hard for some prisoners “to put their heads above the parapet

and say I want to better myself” as “it’s not perceived to be cool to be educated”.

5.4.3 Shaking the foundations

Student-inmates are very determined and seem to be able to overcome, at least in

part, many of the barriers placed in their path. Normally this requires help from

others, and they appear very grateful for whatever help they do receive, such as

receiving printed iCMAs from the OU so they do not lose 10 per cent of the marks for

their course, or downloaded internet search material from relatives or perhaps a

member of staff with a memory stick to transfer a TMA to a computer which will print.

lxiii

Sometimes the student-inmates feel they need to exert pressure to make their voice

heard. Duncan explains that sending a message to his tutor is not always easy and

only happens “after raising my voice, kind of shaking the foundations a bit, which you

have to do from time to time”. Similarly Ethan perceives that he “might rattle a few

bushes” in order to be allowed to travel to an official exam centre for his forthcoming

OU exam.

However, sometimes they just have to accept the situation and stay quiet. Ethan

explains that sometimes prison officers have “an air of resentment” and recalls a

recent comment about his new web design course,

“”Oh, how can you do web-design? What do you know about

computers?” And I’m thinking what kind of naive question is

that? … but I didn’t engage in the conversation I just took the

slur as that’s your ignorance that you choose to believe that

because I’m a prisoner, ‘you walk around with a swagger and

a bag of clothes’, you know” (Ethan)

5.4.4 Pandora’s box

The skills of the technology-supported distance learners are many. Most students

have completed all the CLAIT courses at least once and perceive them as easily

accessible and a good option for access to computers yet others suggest that their

IT skills are “self-taught” or “come from playing” (Andrew). Duncan, as the oldest

student, still puts his faith in books, hand-writes everything and admits that he does

not really use the internet on home leave as he is still trying to learn his way around

lxiv

it. But as there is very little technology in prison to challenge these learners, they do

not as yet see lack of internet skills as a big problem.

However, the perceived benefits of technology-supported distance learning extend

far beyond IT skills or even the subject-specific knowledge which they gain from their

courses, as the following quotes highlight.

Duncan feels liberated by his knowledge.

“Well, it’s like Pandora’s Box isn’t it? Well I see almost

everything now, but before I see very little” (Duncan)

The next two quotes highlight how their perceived student identity provides hope.

Distance learning enables them to see beyond the confines of their criminal past and

potentially providing a route out.

“It makes me feel a lot more like a human being. I’m not a

number in a box, I’m an individual. I’m allowed to share and

expand my mind. It opens my horizons up. If you have

greater horizons there’s less chance of coming back to jail

and I’ll have an actual future instead of more of the same.

(Andrew)

“I just can’t wait to get out and use the skills that I’ve learnt

and try and put this behind me and I shouldn’t say this about

lxv

jail and it sounds a cliché but jail is where I’ve found myself

and I’ve realised what I can and can’t do - my limits. (Ethan)

However, this last quote highlights that distance learning may provide a life-line to

those attempting to preserve their identity within this constrained world.

“If it hadn’t been for the OU I’d have folded in on myself years

ago.” (Andrew)

lxvi

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the findings in Chapter 5, relating them back to the

literature review and research questions, discussing how the ‘digital divide’ in the

prison context differs from that in the non-prison context. It concludes that despite

slight improvements in the technology for learning and the student-inmate’s

extraordinary determination to maintain a student identity, the controlling elements of

this closed social world are such that the ‘digital divide’ for distance learners appears

wider than ever. A reflection on this research project is then provided and future

research is discussed.

6.2 ‘Digital divide’ or discontinuity?

6.2.1 What technology is available to the student-inmate?

Prisons are perceived to have recently improved networked computers in the

education departments but mostly only available to student-inmates doing OLASS

accredited courses. However, unlike Pike (2010)’s findings, student-inmates in this

research perceived no laptops or in-cell technology available. A few ‘progressive’

prisons are perceived to provide very good resources for distance learning, including

independent learning sessions with good intranet facilities or supervised internet

access to distance learning course materials. Library facilities vary, agreeing with

Hughes (2007); most being ‘old and outdated’ as described by Braggins and Talbot

(2003), with a few stand-alone computers and separate printers, although some new

lxvii

networked computers with interactive software are available during limited

supervision sessions times. Although the Virtual Campus is potentially available to

student-inmates, it is not widely advertised and is not perceived to be sufficiently

interactive or ‘open’ to be useful for higher level learning. However, it’s potential for

emailing tutors and accessing courses in the future was acknowledged by student-

inmates and education staff.

6.2.2 How does the student-inmate access and use technologies for

learning in prison?

Confirming previous literature (Hughes 2007; Pike 2010), there is wide variation in

the access and use of technology for distance learning across prisons. Surprisingly,

however, the pattern of access and use is contra-intuitive; appearing to be, at least

partially, inversely related to the physical security restrictions. The ‘progressive’

prisons, with a learning culture, include high security prisons for longer term

prisoners or private Cat B prisons. The student-inmates perceive their access to

technology more restricted as they move to lower security category ‘working’ prisons

with regimented work culture, where they are forced to take menial work and in their

limited time left, share the variable quality technology in busy areas with other

prisoners. Unlike the shared areas for non-prison learners Kirkwood and Price

(2005), printing facilities are rarely available and the noisy ‘home’ of cell or dormitory

of the student-inmate lacks any technology. Many student-inmates seek work in the

library or OLASS-accredited IT classes to improve their access to computers and

printers, though many others have no access to technology and must complete their

learning using only the course handbooks and complete assignments by hand.

Access to internet is perceived a rarity and those few student-inmates who know

about the Virtual Campus do not perceive it as internet access.

lxviii

6.2.3 How does the student-inmate develop the skills required to use

technologies for learning in prison?

The student-inmates are mostly IT literate; many having completed the CLAIT or

ECDL courses in prison at least once though some also suggested that they were

self-taught. Many student-inmates came from socio-economically deprived

backgrounds however, these findings do not substantiate Allen (2009)’s claim that

such students lack confidence in the use of ICTs or that they undervalue their skills

developed informally. The student-inmate’s skills do not always extend to internet

experience but only one student admitted to being unable to use the internet for

learning at home. This student was in the oldest age which supports claims that IT

skills are inversely related to age (Eynon, 2009 Kirkwood and Price, 2005) but one

student is not statistically significant.

Agreeing with literature (Adams and Pike, 2008a,b; Hughes, 2007), the student-

inmates appear isolated. They perceive a lack of academic communication with

either peers or tutors so the choice of whether they prefer face-to-face or email is not

comparable with non-prison distance learners (Peasgood, 2007). Student-inmates

appear thirsty for knowledge and any form of support is welcome. They value face-

to-face contact because it enables them to have two-way communication with

someone else at their academic level. Telephone calls or electronic communication,

if available however, are perceived to be valuable for speedy response to queries on

a more regular basis.

lxix

6.2.4. What are the distance learners’ perceptions of technology-

supported distance learning in prison?

Agreeing with the literature (Prisoner’s Education Trust 2009; Wilson, 2000) student-

inmates have a mostly positive perception of distance learning which provides

essential use of time and mind. They demonstrate strong determination to overcome

the barriers in order to maintain their perceived student identity and find it necessary

to fight for their rights. However, they have negative perceptions of the technology

which supports the learning. Despite the many initiatives to improve technology

(Englebright and Petit, 2009; Learning and Skills Council, 2008) the student-inmate

feels unwanted in the education department and lacks the space or time to access

technology-supported learning elsewhere. For them, the ‘digital divide’ appears to be

widening, agreeing with Morris (2009), and the dual processing of the digital native

(Helsper and Eynon, 2009) appears a long way off.

6.2.5. What are the attitudes of others towards technology-supported

distance learning in prison?

The Prison Service is perceived to class distance learning as a recreational activity.

It is seen as a privilege which keeps the student-inmate occupied but does not fit

well within the prison’s perceived rehabilitation route. Agreeing with Braggins and

Talbot (2003), individual prison officers are perceived to have an air of resentment

occasionally though they are perceived to have very little to do with the learning

process.

lxx

Distance learning is perceived to be outside the remit of OLASS, whose staff

acknowledge the student-inmate’s lack of access to technology but are ordered not

to support them. This partly agrees with the findings of Hughes (2007) and Pike

(2010), but the situation is perceived to have deteriorated over recent years.

The CIAS staff undertake an administrative role, though helpful and friendly, they are

perceived to lack the knowledge or the influence to be able to provide student-

inmates with the required technology to support learning.

Distance learning providers are increasingly linking interactive and collaborative

learning within assessment, as distance learners require encouragement to use

technology (Kirkwood, 2006b). However, this action is perceived to be reducing the

number of courses available to student-inmates and here too the situation is

perceived to be deteriorating.

6.2.6 Conclusions

This research finds a closed social world where identity-forming, higher level

independent learning appears to be controlled by the physical environment and the

conflicting institutional visions of the education stakeholders. Although there may be

some overlap between the ‘digital divide’ for student-inmates and that for the non-

prison distance learner, there are also some substantial differences. Disagreeing

with Clark (2008), technology does not appear to widen participation in prison as the

culture and politics of this closed institution appear to have more influence on a

student’s chances for independent learning than their socio-economic background.

As in the non-prison environment, the ‘digital divide’ is complex and is not simply

related to access, skills and a desire to use the technologies (Eynon, 2009).

lxxi

However, except in the most ‘progressive’ prison, the student-inmates perceive very

little choice in what technology they use for learning. In the ‘working’ prison, their

time and space are perceived to be heavily controlled. Just finding a place to study is

perceived as a huge task. Having access to a computer and a printer which are

attached to each other is a bonus and the idea of internet access appears

inconceivable to some. In this environment the ‘digital divide’ appears more like a

total ‘discontinuity’.

6.3 Reflections

6.3.1 Literature Review Reflections

The literature review was particularly difficult as the research was across several

disciplines – education, educational technology and criminology (at least). Despite

having read widely prior to completing this project, the researcher felt completely

overwhelmed by the volume of literature, especially related to educational

technology, and the review does not justify it adequately. The focus on technology

for distance education in prison was double-edged. Although it helped to focus the

review and pose the research questions, it was also very limiting and led to some

more interesting literature being omitted. Also, the literature was re-reviewed in the

final stages of the dissertation and several issues were discovered which should

have been included in the research questions.

There is a significant debate about the role of prison for rehabilitation or punishment

which was not included as words were tight, it was not immediately related to

lxxii

technology and could not be summarized easily but should be included in any future

research.

6.3.2 Data Collection Reflections

The data generated from the group interview was not very reliable for several

reasons. The researcher perceived a sense of unease, particularly among the

younger students who tended to repeat the ideas of the older students, hence not

providing many original thoughts. Also it was not possible to decipher some of the

notes or work out who said what.

The interviews all took place in the prison education departments. This enabled the

researcher to move about with ease and her presence was not strange so did not

appear to affect the interviewees significantly. However, the education setting may

have inhibited the student-inmate’s ability to express their feelings towards the

education process. Also some issues related to the student-inmate’s accommodation

or work-placements may not have been discussed and would not have been

observed.

The researcher learnt a lot from audio recording the interviews (her first experience

of this method of recording). Her comments and agreements during the interviews

may have put the interviewees at ease, as intended, and it was noticed that they

tended to ‘open up’ as the interview went along. However, there was a tendency to

prompt rather than probe on occasions, which may have led the conversation and

she definitely said too much on occasions. This needs to be guarded against in

future research.

lxxiii

The document analysis did not produce any quantitative results. There were several

reasons for this. Firstly, quantitative information on distance learners was difficult to

find. Although this was essentially a finding, it made selection of the research sites

and of the participants within the sites, difficult. The prison cluster was eventually

chosen for ease of access so the examination of PET records and Ofsted reports

was not written up. This does not necessarily mean that the selection for the

research was invalid, merely that the researcher was unable to justify the choice

quantitatively. Secondly, access to information on the Virtual Campus was not

forthcoming. ‘Internet’ in prison is a sensitive issue and fear of media sensationalism

leads to very little publicized documentation. Additionally, some information from the

OU which could have been useful was not received. Thirdly, due mostly to time

constraints, there was insufficient opportunity to investigate documentation in the

field which may have produced some statistical information.

As a reflexive account, the researcher is passionate about prisoner education, has

worked as a prison teacher, an OU tutor and has recently been involved in policy

development for distance learning in prison. Thus there was the potential for bias

and the temptation to become emotionally involved when participants narrated

specific problems or were unaware of certain possibilities, although Liebling argues

that in order to fully understand the situated meanings the researcher should be

“affectively as well as physically present”, (Liebling, 2001, p474).

6.3.2 Analysis reflections

Two visits to the prison site were not enough. Staff interviews and observations were

used to corroborate perceptions wherever possible and some verification on the

lxxiv

second visit but more visits would have improved understanding. This presumably is

the problem with using an ethnographic style of data collection but without immersion

in the field.

The findings are based on the analysis of all collected data but were obviously

selective and hence biased. Time constraints meant that the grounded theorising

was complemented with a more systematic content analysis type approach, which

involved putting the concepts into the pre-conceived pots of ‘access’, ‘attitude’ and

‘skills’. Although this made it easier to focus on the research questions and pull out

relevant themes, the researcher was aware of the danger of losing sight of more

fundamental, higher level issues and tried to look for these. Some concepts were

directly related to the initial focus, though others appeared to relate to a prior concept

in an unanticipated way (Emerson et al., 1995) such as the ‘determination’ with

which many students narrated and eventually the new themes emerged quite

naturally. Though once again, this was subjectively selected by the researcher and

subsequent tying up the emerging themes to the research question was then more

difficult.

On the write-up, punctuation and other textual conventions were added in an attempt

to produce “written discourse” (Atkinson, 1992, p26) and the researcher

acknowledges some construction was used, such as removing some of the “stumble

and falter” (Atkinson, 1992, p25), was used to make the quotes more readable so in

that respect they are only researcher representations. However, some of the

student-inmate participant utterances were remarkably fluent and knowledgeable,

such that the researcher required a dictionary on several occasions. Also on write-

up, in order to maintain anonymity, it was necessary to remove some of the

lxxv

interesting physical description of the prison which may have rendered it

recognizable. Similarly, description of the one prison staff interview was also

removed. The interviewees’ perceptions of different prisons were very carefully

written-up to ensure that their current or past prison could not be identified.

6.4 Future research

There were several issues in the findings which required further investigation. A key

difference between the access of the student-inmate to technology and the non-

prison distance learner is the matter of choice. To exercise choice a learner must

know about the choices available and in the case of the student-inmate this was

often not apparent. Though this finding is only tentative it justifies further

investigation in future research.

The concept of the ‘progressive’ prison is particularly interesting and raises a number

of new issues. Firstly what is it about a ‘progressive’ prison which makes it

progressive? Secondly, as several of the perceived progressive prisons were private

prisons, what are the key differences between the private and the state prison? One

of the differences is that education is not controlled by OLASS but is run by either

the prison management or a contractor directly responsible to the prison. Is this

relevant?

Most of the student-inmates were very positive about the benefits of distance

learning for their future employment and life chances. Future research could follow

student-inmates as they move through the prison system and gradually make their

way out into the community in order to investigate the impact of their distance

learning experiences on their lives during and after prison. In anticipation of future

lxxvi

research, student participants from this research project signed consent forms

agreeing to further contact and provided additional information such as estimated

release date.

lxxvii

lxxviii

REFERENCES

Adams, A. and A. Pike (2008a) Evaluating empowerment and control of HE e-

learning in a secure environment. Paper presented to British Educational Research

Association (BERA) conference, Edinburgh.

Adams, A. and A. Pike (2008b) Security issues within prison and health ODL

programmes, paper presented to 5th Pan Commonwealth Forum, London 13-17 July

2008, [online] http://wikieducator.org/images/a/ab/PID_461.pdf (accessed 6-9-10)

Adams, Anne; Lunt, Peter and Cairns, Paul (2008) A qualititative approach

to HCI research. In: Cairns, Paul and Cox, Anna (eds) Research Methods

for Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 138–157.

Allen, M (2009) Overcoming the skill gap: the IT access, skills and confidence of

‘non-traditional’ distance learners in higher education, Paper presented to

International Conference on Distance Learning (ICDE), Netherlands [Online]

www.ou.nl/docs/campagnes/ICDE2009/Papers/Final_paper_244Allen.pdf

(accessed 13-8-10)

Atkinson, P (1992) Understanding Ethnographic Texts, Newbury Parks, CA: Sage.

Atkinson, P and Coffey, A. (2002) ‘Revisiting the relationship between participant

observation and interviewing’, in J.F. Gubrium, and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of

Interview Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bates, A. W. (2005) Technology, E-learning and Distance Education, Oxon,

Routledge.

Becta (2008) Harnessing Technology: Next Generation Learning 2008-2014,

Coventry, Becta.

lxxix

BIS (Department fo Business, Innovation & Skills) (2006) Reducing Re-offending

through Skills and Employment Next Steps, Nottingham, DfES Publications [Online],

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/r/reducing_re-

offending_through_skills_and_employment_next_steps.pdf (accessed 18-5-10).

BIS (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills) (2009) Strategy Document: Skills

Investment Strategy 2010-2011 [Online],

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/S/Skills-

Investment-Strategy (accessed 15-5-10).

BIS and DCMS (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and Department for

Culture, Media and Sport) (2009) The Digital Britain Final Report, London, HMSO.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2006), How to research, Berkshire, Open University Press.

Braggins, J. and J. Talbot (2003) Time to Learn: Prisoners’ Views on Prison

Education, London, Prison Reform Trust.

Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Clark, P.M. (2008) Technological Change and Life-long Learning: Perfect Storm or

Tornado? Presentation to NIACE Expert Seminar on Life-long Learning and

Technical Change, 7 April 2008. Milton Keynes, Open University.

Cooney, F. and Braggins, J. (2010) Doing Time: Good practice with older people in

prison - the views of prison staff, London, Prison Reform Trust.

De Viggiani (2007) Unhealthy prisons: exploring structural determinants of prison

health, Sociology of Health & Illness Vol.29, No.1, pp.115–135.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. and Shaw, L. L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,

London, University of Chicago Press.

lxxx

Englebright, L. and Essom, J (2009) E-enabling Offender Learning and Skills: What

a difference e makes case studies. Leicester, NIACE.

Englebright, L. and Pettit, I (2009) E-enabling Offender-Learning and Skills: E-

learning in the secure estate. Leicester, NIACE.

Eynon, R. (2009) Mapping the ‘digital divide’ in Britain: implications for learning and

education, Learning Media and Technology, Vol.34, No.4, pp277-290.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and

Other Inmates, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.

Hammersley, M (1992) What’s wrong with Ethnograpy? London, Routledge

Hammersley, M (2002) Discourse Analysis: A bibliographic guide, Milton Keynes,

Open University

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in practice, 3rd ed,

Milton Keynes, Open University.

Hammersley, M and Gomm, R (2006) Recent radical criticism of the interview in

qualitative inquiry in Module B2 Study Guide Appendix 1, Milton Keynes, Open

University

Hammersley, M. and Traianou, A. (2007) Ethics and Educational Research, London:

TLRP. [Online] http://www.tlrp.org/capacity//rm/wt/traianou (accessed 7-4-10).

Hancock, V. (2009) Essential, desirable or optional? Making distance e-learning

courses available to those without internet access, European Journal of Open,

Distance and E-Learning [online] http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?

p=current&sp=full&article=410 (accessed 7-9-10)

Helsper, E. and Eynon, R. (2009) Digital natives: where is the evidence?

British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36, No.3, 503-520

lxxxi

Hughes, E. (2004) Free to Learn? Prisoner-students’ views on Distance Learning;

Mitcham: Prisoners Education Trust

Hughes, E. (2007) Thinking inside the box: British prisoner-students’ experiences of

distance learning, PhD Thesis, Birmingham, University of Central England

Irwin, T. (2008) The Inside Story, Practitioner Perspectives on Teaching in Prison,

The Howard Journal, Vol.47 No.5, pp512-528.

Jewkes, Y. (2002) The use of media in constructing identities in the masculine

environment of men’s prisons. European Journal of Communication, Vol.17, No.2,

pp205–225.

Jewkes, Y (2007) Prisons and the media: the shaping of public opinion and penal

policy in a mediated society Chapter 19, in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) (2007) Handbook on

Prisons, Cullompton, Willan Publishing.

Jewkes Y. and Johnston, H. (2009) ‘Cavemen in an era of speed-of-light technology’:

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Communication within Prisons,

Howard Journal, Vol.48, No.2, pp132-143.

Jones, P and Pike, A. (2010) ‘Prisoners’ education – are we doing enough’, in 19

May 2009: Too Many Prisoners: The All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group,

January 2008 – March 2010, pp53-57, London, Prison Reform Trust.

King (2007) Security control and the problems of containment, Chapter 14 in

Jewkes, Y. (ed.) (2007) Handbook on Prisons, Cullompton, Willan Publishing.

Kirkwood, A. (2006a) Getting networked learning in context: are on-line students'

technical and information literacy skills adequate and appropriate? Learning, Media

and Technology Vol.31, No.2, pp117-131.

lxxxii

Kirkwood, A. (2006b) Going outside the box: skills development, cultural change and

the use of on-line resources. Computers & Education Vol.47, No.3, pp316 - 331.

Kirkwood and Price (2005) Learners and learning in the twenty first century, Studies

in Higher Education Vol.30, No3, pp257-274.

Lane, A. (2009) The Impact of Openness on Bridging Educational Digital Divides,

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol10, No.5

[online] http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/637 (accessed 6-9-10).

Learning and Skills Council (LSC) (2008) The Offenders’ Learning Journey (adults),

[online] http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/nat-OLJ-final-jan-09.doc

(accessed 7-9-10).

Liebling, A. (2001) Whose side are we on? Theory, Practice and Allegiances in

Prison Research, British Journal of Criminology, Vol.41, No3, pp482-484.

Liebling, A. (2007) ‘Prison Suicide and its prevention’, Chapter 1, Handbook on

Prisons. Cullompton, Willan Publishing.

Liebling, A. and Price, D. (2001) The Prison Officer, Leyhill, Prison Service Journal.

Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, London, Sage.

Morris, Baroness Estelle (2009) Independent Review of ICT User Skills, London,

HMSO.

National Audit Office (NAO) (2008) Meeting needs? The Offenders Learning and

Skills Service, Norwich, TSO (Stationary Office).

National Learning Network (NLN) (10 May 2010) NLN Helpline email to A. E. Pike.

lxxxiii

NOMS (National Offender Management Service) (2007) Penal Policy: A background

paper, Ministry of Justice 2/2007 [online]

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/Penal-Policy-Final.pdf

(accessed 7-6-10).

NOMS (National Offender Management Service) (2010) Prison Service Instruction

33 – Open University [online]

http://psi.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/psi_2010_33_open_university.doc

(accessed 6-9-10).

Open University (2008) Offender Learning Steering Group: Final Report, OU Internal

report, presented to the LTSSC in May 2008 [online]

http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/48737f509091b.pdf

(Accessed 16-4-10).

Owers, A. (2007) ‘Imprisonment in the twenty-first century: a view from the

inspectorate’ in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) Handbook on Prisons, Cullompton, Willan

Publishing.

Peasgood, A. (2007) Exploring adult student experiences of new technologies in

widening participation, Paper submitted to BERA Annual Conference, Institute of

Education, London, 5-8 September.

Piacentini, L. (2007) Researching Russian prisons: a consideration of new and

established methodologies in prison research, Chapter 7, in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) (2007)

Handbook on Prisons, Cullompton, Willan Publishing.

Pike, A (2009) Developing Online Communities to Support Distance Learning in

Secure Environments, Proceedings from the 2nd International Multi-conference

Society, Cybernetics and Informatics, Vol.1 pp13-16; Orlando, USA.

Pike, A. (2010) COLMSCT CETL Final Report: Building bridges across the digital

divide for HE students in prison, [online]

lxxxiv

http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/4bd99e868e43a.pdf

(accessed 6-9-10).

Potter, J. and Wetherell M. (2001) ‘Unfolding Discourse Analysis’ in Taylor, S. and

Yates S. J. (eds), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader; London, Sage in

association with The Open University.

Prisoners Education Trust (PET) (2009a) Brain Cells: Listening to prisoner learners

Mitcham, PET.

Prisoners Education Trust (2009b) Virtual Campus: An introduction to safe web

learning? [Online] http://www.prisonerseducation.org.uk/index.php?id=190

(accessed 17-8-10).

Prison Reform Trust (2008) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile, London, Prison

Reform Trust.

Reuss, A. (2000). ‘The researcher’s tale’, Ch2 in Wilson and Reuss (eds) Prison(er)

Education: Stories of Change and Transformation, Winchester, Waterside Press

Roberts, L. and Indermaur, D. (2008) The Ethics of Research with Prisoners, Current

Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol.19 No.3, 309-326.

Schuller, T. (2009) Crime and Lifelong Learning, IFLL Thematic paper 5, NIACE

http://shop.niace.org.uk/media/catalog/product/f/i/file_2_2.pdf (accessed 5-9-10).

Selwyn, N. and K. Facer (2007) ‘Beyond the Digital Divide - Rethinking digital

inclusion for the 21st century’, in Opening Education. Bristol, Futurelab.

Selwyn, N., Gorard S. and Furlong, J. (2004), Adults' use of ICTs for learning:

reducing or increasing educational inequalities? Journal of Vocational Education and

Training 56(2): 269-289.

lxxxv

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2002) Reducing Reoffending by ex-prisoners, London,

SEU.

Strauss and Corbin (1998) Basics of Qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA, SAGE.

Taylor, Stephanie (2001) ‘Locating and conducting discourse analytic research’ in

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. (2001) Discourse as Data: A guide for analysis,

London, Sage Publications.

Taylor, Steve (2005) Internet inside, London, Forum on Prisoner Education.

Waldram, J.B. 1998 Anthrapology in prison: negotiating consent and accountability

with a ‘captured’ population, Human Organization, Vol.57, No.2, pp238-244.

Wilson, D. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Wilson, D. and Reuss, A. (eds) Prison(er)

Education: Stories of Change and Transformation, Winchester, Waterside Press.

lxxxvi

(Word-length 16989)

Appendix A: Justification of Data Collection Methods

(Adapted from Mason 2002)

Research questions Data sources and methods Justification1a. What technology is available to the student-inmate?

Prison Service, Government, LSC, Ofsted documentation, reports: Document analysis

Students: interviews

Staff (Prison, education and CIAS): interviews

Technology: observation

Information about what technology is available to prisons generally and to sample prisons in particular.

Perceptions of available technology, where, what etc. Including other prisons and other contexts

Another perspective – all staff will have a perspective of what technology is available and relevant

Another perspective - Researcher observation of technology type and availability and social interaction

1b. How do student-inmate access and use technologies for learning in prison?

Students: interviews

Staff (education and CIAS): interviews

Access to technology/ student using technology: observation

Perceptions of how they complete their studies with or without the use of the technology? In current and previous prisons

Perceptions of how students are selected and supported for/during access and how they tackle their studies with or without technology

Researcher observation of access and use of facilities by students and support offered

2. How do student-inmates develop the skills required to use technologies for learning in prison?

Students: interviews

Students using technology: observation

Staff (Education and CIAS): interviews

Previous knowledge and skills and perception of how they have developed (or not) + how supported (sensitive - see ethics)

Providing evidence of skills attainment

Staff perceptions of how students are intended to develop skills for learning and what skills students are expected to have/ able to get

3a. What are student-inmates’ perceptions of technology-supported distance learning in prison?

Students: interviews Perception of their distance learning experiences which may include more than one prison or other contexts for comparison.

3b. What are the attitudes of others towards technology- supported distance learning in prison?

Students: interviews

Staff: interviews, opportunistic conversation /observation

Other Prisoners: opportunistic conversation /observation

Student perception of other people’s attitude towards their studies – family, friends, other prisoners, staff

Staff perceptions of prisoner studies + technology-supported distance learning generally

Non-distance learner perspective.

Appendix B: Extract from email confirmation from SRPP

Dear Anne

….  SRPP are quite happy for you to proceed without coming to us provided you keep in contact with the

other researchers in this area.  As you know Prisons are a very specific cohort and given you are not

targeting OU students and the numbers will be very low anyway it was felt that would be the most

appropriate decision.

Thank you again for checking – that is always worthwhile and hopefully this clarifies that no further work is

required with respect to SRPP.  Of course if anything changes then please come back to me but I’m sure

you would do that anyway.  To help I’ve copied the email I received from Hilary below.

…

With best regards

Jane

Jane BainesStudent Research Project Panel CoordinatorStudent Statistics and Survey TeamJennie Lee Building, Level 1 NorthExt: 53631Hours: Mon, Tue, Thur, Fri am only

 http://iet-intranet.open.ac.uk/research/index.cfm?id=7082

Appendix C: HPMEC Request Form

HUMAN PARTICIPANTS AND MATERIALSETHICS COMMITTEE (HPMEC) PROFORMA

Please complete and send to:John Oates (j.m.oates@open.ac.uk), Chair, Human Participants and Materials Ethics Committee (HPMEC) Centre for Childhood Development and Learning (CHDL), Briggs, Walton Hall, Milton KeynesAlso send a copy to Research-ethics@open.ac.ukIf you have any queries before you fill in this form please look at the Research Ethics (intranet) web site: http://intranet.open.ac.uk/research/ethics/

Title of projectA short, descriptive title.

Investigating technology supported learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

Schedule

Time frame for the research and its data collection phase(s).Phase 1 by 14th May: Organise access to a prison, complete ethics form Phase 2 by 31st May: Complete preparation, security clearance and consent forms Phase 3 by 11th June: Complete fieldworkPhase 4 by 7th September: Transcribe, analyse & complete dissertationPhase 5: Feedback general findings to participants

AbstractA summary of the main points of the research, written in terms easily understandable by a non-specialist and containing no technical terms.

The main aim of this research is to investigate access to, skills for and attitudes towards technology (both on and off line) supported learning for HE and Distance Learners in this prison. Prisoners who wish to study above GCSE level usually do so by distance learning (DL). Although such study is facilitated and supported by staff from the prison and the distance learning provider, prisoners mostly organise their own learning. Digital technologies may have the potential to enhance distance learning but access restrictions due to security issues may be a be a barrier to study. However, technology in prison is developing and safe web access is now being trialled by the Prison Service with plans to roll-out across all prisons. This research will investigate the views of prisoners and staff in one prison which is trialling some of these new technologies, though most participants will also have experience of technology in other prisons. Specific research questions as follows:-

What technologies are available to the prison-based HE and distance learner? How do HE and distance learners access these technologies for learning? What skills are required to use these technologies for learning? How well are the prisoners’ access and skills needs supported? Learner perceptions of how technology enhances or inhibits learning in prison? Prison and education staff attitudes towards technology supported learning in prison?

Source(s) of fundingDetails of the external or internal funding body (e.g. ESRC, MRC).

50% CREET funding, 50% self-funded

Justification for researchWhat contribution to knowledge, policy, practice, and people's lives the research will make?This research will contribute to existing knowledge about the potential for technology to support HE and distance learning in restricted environments. Information from this research will be of interest to prison staff, prison authorities and other stakeholder organisations in devising better prison technology policies and procedures. It will also be of interest to the OU and other distance learning providers in improving delivery and support for those students who have limited access to new technologies. It will also act as a pilot study for an ESRC funded PhD studentship into the impact of prison-based HE and distance learning on the lives of prisoners before and after release and its subsequent value for society.

InvestigatorsGive names and units of all persons involved in the collection and handling of individual data. Please name one person as Principal Investigator (PI).

Anne Pike to collect data. Supervisors Dr. Anne Adams and Dr. Lesley Anderson to support

Published ethical guidelines to be followedFor example: BERA, BPS, BSA (see Research Ethics web site for more information).

BERA and the Open University

Location(s) of data collectionGive details of where and when data will be collected. If on private, corporate or institutional premises, indicate what approvals are gained/required.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, is a cluster prison (3 prisons in one), made up of 8 residential units holding adult (aged 21+) male prisoners:-XXXXX holds 1074 category B (medium to high security) remand, sentenced and vulnerable prisoners.XXXXX holds 170 category C prisoners and focuses on training.XXXXX holds 187 category D (low security) prisoners on an open site and 25% go outside the prison to work or study. This block has the IT suite with new technologies. The Head of Learning and Skills was approached through the Learning and Skills Council’s IT manager, and has approved the research which will involve the researcher making, at most, 2 separate whole-day visits to interview prisoners and staff and observe use of the IT suites.

ParticipantsGive details of the population from which you will be sampling and how this sampling will be done.

There are currently 13 prisoners who are studying HE or Distance Learning (DL) (which may include some prisoners who are studying full or part-time in College or University outside the prison). All these prisoners will receive an information sheet and a consent form. Purposive sampling from the volunteers should provide participants across all 3 sites and multiple distance learning providers. Key staff, such as the Head of Learning and Skills, the DL coordinator and a wing officer (or personal officer) at each site will also receive an information sheet and consent form before interview. Although there may be some OU students in the sample, the study is aimed at distance learners not OU students so SRPP agreed (by email 9-2-10) that approval was not required.

Recruitment proceduresHow will you identify and approach potential participants?

Information and consent forms (attached) to be sent to the prison for distribution to all HE and distance learners and appropriate staff. The first visit will be to look through the consent forms and establish if and how sampling is required. If at this point it is thought that some areas are not represented, it may be possible to follow-up the request in case there was any misunderstandings or problems with delivery of the information sheet (ethical issues will be considered). This would also be an opportunity for prisoners to ask me additional questions before agreeing to participate. A suitably quiet and confidential room for the semi-structured interviews will be identified (though regime restrictions may affect interview space) and it may be possible to complete some interviews on the first visit. The second visit will be devoted to interviewing and to ensuring that all interviewees are adequately debriefed (see Debriefing section below).

ConsentGive details of how informed consent will be gained and attach copies of information sheet(s) and consent form(s). Give details of how participants can withdraw consent and what will happen to their data in such a case (see the Research Ethics web site for an advisory document).

All potential participants will be fully informed about anonymity, confidentiality and research plans via the information sheet (attached) and additional discussions if necessary. If they are willing to participate they will sign the consent form (attached) and return it to the education department in the envelope provided. They will be advised that they are free to withdraw at any time and could then request the destruction of any data relating to them up to the start of the data analysis.

MethodologyOutline the method(s) that will be employed to collect and analyse data.

In-depth semi-structured interviews of students and staff will be recorded (with consent from participant) using an audio recorder (with consent for use by the prison). Recordings will be transcribed and the data coded and analysed using a Grounded Theory style method, in line with the main research questions and emerging themes. It will be necessary to ensure flexibility of the data generating methods in order to allow for prison security and regime.

Data ProtectionGive details of registration of the project under the DP Act and the procedures to be followed re: storage and disposal of data to comply with the Act. Please note OU guidance on the Research Ethics FAQ page - http://intranet.open.ac.uk/strategy-unit/offices/ethics/faqs.shtml#p6.

All data will be anonymised and subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The required OU Data Protection form has been completed. All necessary measures to ensure the security of the data will be taken. Audio files and/or transcripts and other electronic data will be stored in password-protected files on an OU laptop. Printed material will be kept in locked cupboards at the Open University. Personal data will be kept separately from the interview schedules to protect confidentiality and preserve anonymity. All material will be stored until submission of PhD (for which this MRes is a pilot)

Recompense to participantsNormally, recompense is only given for expenses and inconvenience, otherwise it might be seen as coercion/inducement to participate. Give details of any recompense to participants.

If the prison agrees I will provide chocolate biscuits at the interviews. Participants will be informed that, in the event of withdrawal they will be allowed to keep them!

DeceptionGive details of the withholding of any information from participants, or misrepresentation or other deception that is an integral part of the research. Any such deception should be fully justified.

Participants will be fully informed of the reason for the research and nothing withheld. No misrepresentations or any form of deception is planned in this research

RisksDetail any foreseen risks to participants or researchers and, based on a risk assessment, the steps that will be taken to minimise/counter these. If the proposed study involves contact with children or other vulnerable groups, please confirm that an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure has been obtained for each person involved in these contacts.

Enhanced CRB disclosure has been obtained.Psychological/distress – interviewees will be fully informed and sign easily readable consent forms. Any queries will be answered before the interview starts, I will stress the option for them to withdraw at any stage and also give them the opportunity of not being recorded if they prefer. Time will be given for reflection before we finish. Every attempt will be made to avoid sensitive or distressing subjects Coercion – I am aware prisoners may want favours and I will inform them of my role as a researcher, working within the BERA ethics code, that I have no influence in elation to their studies nor can I provide other privileges. Breach of confidence – I will stress anonymity and confidentiality (especially related to staff/ student relationships) Inconvenience – I will fit in with the prison regime and will be guided to the spaces available.

DebriefingGive details of how information will be given to participants after data collection to inform them of the purpose of their participation and the research more broadly.

Talk through after interview, remind them of the purpose of the research and how this will be used over the next year, how it will be filed and disseminated. I will provide OU contact details if they want to write to me and withdraw or discuss any issues at a later date. Inform that they will receive the general findings of the research when they are available.

DeclarationDeclare here that the research will conform to the above protocol and that any significant changes or new issues will be raised with the HPMEC before they are implemented.

A Final Report form will need to be filled in once the research has ended (you will be contacted by HPMEC on the date for final report below).

Contact details

Name Anne Pike

Unit IET/CREET

Address 1st floor Jennie Lee, OU

Telephone x54629 or 07711 398545

E-mail a.e.pike@open.ac.uk

Signature(s) Anne Pike(this can be the typed name(s) of investigator(s) if electronic copy is submitted (which is preferred))

Date 11th May 2010

Proposed date for Final Report 7th September 2010

Appendix D: Consent Forms & Information sheets

D1: Student Consent Form

Title of Project: Investigating technology enhanced learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

This is a request for your consent to participate in the above project, which is explained in the attached information sheet.

Please indicate your willingness (or otherwise) to take part in this research project by ticking the appropriate box and completing the details below. At any time during the research you will be free to withdraw and your participation or non participation will not affect your education in any way.

Any Open University research project involving personal data is required to comply with the Data Protection Act. Such data will be kept secure and not released to any third party. All raw data (that is personally identifiable) will be destroyed after the project is complete.

I am willing to take part in this research, and I give my permission for the data collected to be used in an anonymous format in any written reports, presentations and inclusion in published papers relating to this study. My written consent will be sought separately if I am to be identified in any of the above.

Or

I am not willing to take part in this research.

Name:........................................................................................................................(please print)

Course: .....................................................................................................................

Houseblock:..............................................................................................................

Signed: ................................................................................

Date:.....................................................................................

D2: Information Sheet: Student

Research Title: Investigating technology supported learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

I am a researcher at the Open University, conducting research into access and use of technology for HE and Distance Learners in prison. I am looking at what technology is available, how and when you use it, what skills are required to use it and what support is provided for you to use it. I hope to find ways of improving the impact and effectiveness of the technology for learning.

To do this, I will be conducting some interviews and observing some use of the computers on ……………….. The interviews will be informal and last around 45 minutes. They will be audio-recorded to save me trying to scribble down everything that is said (but I will take notes if you prefer not to be recorded). Recordings will then be converted into type.

This research has been approved by the Open University Ethics Committee and draws on the British Education Research Association’s 2004 Guidelines. It is also registered under the Data Protection Act within the University. Everything you say will be completely confidential so I will not discuss it with anyone else at the prison. The data will be used for education and research purposes only and carefully stored at the University so no-one else will see it. It will be made anonymous so no real names will be used in any written reports, presentations or published papers.

Participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the research at any time. If, after I have left you feel unhappy about anything you said and would like me to remove it from the records, you can contact me either through the Head of Learning and Skills (or at the address below), and until the analysis is under way (date to be provided), I will remove all or part of your words.

Please let me know if you would like to participate in this research (or not) by signing the attached consent form and passing it back to …………… in the envelope provided.

I will visit soon and answer any queries you may have. Please be assured that your education will not be affected whether you participate or not.

Thank-you for your time and your help and I hope you find this research interesting.

Anne Pike, Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology (CREET), Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

D3: Staff Consent Form

Title of Project: Investigating technology enhanced learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

This is a request for your consent to participate in the above project, which is explained in the attached information sheet.

Please indicate your willingness (or otherwise) to take part in this research project by ticking the appropriate box and completing the details below. At any time during the research you will be free to withdraw and your participation or non participation will not affect your work at the prison in any way.

Any Open University research project involving personal data is required to comply with the Data Protection Act. Such data will be kept secure and not released to any third party. All raw data (that is personally identifiable) will be destroyed after the project is complete.

I am willing to take part in this research, and I give my permission for the data collected to be used in an anonymous format in any written reports, presentations and inclusion in published papers relating to this study. My written consent will be sought separately if I am to be identified in any of the above.

Or

I am not willing to take part in this research.

Name:........................................................................................................................(please print)

Job Title: ..................................................................................................................

Houseblock:..............................................................................................................

Signed: ................................................................................

Date:.....................................................................................

D4: Information Sheet: Staff

Research Title: Investigating technology supported learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

I am a researcher at the Open University, conducting research into access and use of technology for HE and Distance Learners in prison. I am looking at what technology is available, how and when it is used, what skills are required to use it and what support is provided for its use. I am interested in your view of the way the technology is accessed and used for HE and Distance Learning. I hope that the findings will help to

To do this, I will be conducting some interviews and observing some use of the computers. The interviews will be informal and last around 30 minutes. They will be audio-recorded to save me trying to scribble down everything that is said (but I will take notes if you prefer not to be recorded). Recordings will then be converted into type.

This research has been approved by the Open University Ethics Committee and draws on the British Education Research Association’s 2004 Guidelines. It is also registered under the Data Protection Act within the University. Everything you say will be completely confidential so I will not discuss it with anyone else at the prison. The data will be used for education and research purposes only and carefully stored at the University so no-one else will see it. It will be made anonymous so no real names will be used in any written reports, presentations or published papers.

Participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the research at any time. If, after I have left you feel unhappy about anything you said and would like me to remove it from the records, you can contact me either through the Head of Learning and Skills (or at the address below), and until the analysis is under way (date to be provided), I will remove all or part of your words.

Please let me know if you would like to participate in this research (or not) by signing the attached consent form and passing it back to …………… in the envelope provided.

Thank-you for your time and your help and I hope you find this research interesting.

Anne Pike, Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology (CREET), Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

Appendix E: Interview Guides

Prison Learner semi-structured interview guide (open focus, but aim for these 5 stages)1. Background to study - See information sheet Define technology - computers, email, internet, computer games, google, e-communication. Remind withdrawal until merged, total confidentiality, anonymity. Recorder – stop wheneverComplete initial sheet with additional information – use for future research

2. Icebreaker: See consent form – is this the course you’re on? What is it like?/How’s it going?

3. Education, IT exposure & Prison experience Tell me about your education up to now - When? What? Where? How?

How much computing technology used? When? What? Where? How? In study: Search, e-assessment, communicate tutor, interactive tasks, collaborative

learning? At home: Pay bills, Book holidays/tickets, communicate friends/family, download

music/videos? And what about distance learning here – benefits, issues

4. The main points How do you study in prison?

- How does it work? Where study? - How supported? - How is computing technology used for learning? - What facilities available? (where, with who)- What times are computing sessions – for who?- Who organises sessions? - Any online access? How supervised? What continuity for study? Printers?- Any open learning?- Distance tutor? How communicate? secure messaging, telephone, face-to-face?- Laptops (in cell or elsewhere?) or other special equipment?- Assignments, exams, revise, how, where, support, supervision, success, problems?- Any alternatives? What, how, who?- Library facilities –computers, books, - Advice and guidance

How do you develop your skills for learning in prison? Planning studies, portfolio building? Word, excel, ppt, databases, web design, search engines, programming, doing tasks interactively/offline,

- What help is/has been provided, by who, how? – in-situ, courses, online tuition, face-to-face, useful, supportive?

- What else would you want/need? Quals? Skills? How?

What do other people think about you using computing technology for learning in prison? (eg. staff (prison and education), other prisoners, family)

What difference has it made/ will it make to you? Now or on release (if relevant)What are the best and the worst about distance learning in prison, and the technology to support it?

5. Debrief: Clarify issues raised, next steps, reaffirm confidentiality and anonymity, withdrawal up to about end of June when info is embedded. Pilot for future study.

Staff semi-structured interview guide (open focus, but aim for these 5 stages)

1. Background to study - See information sheet Define technology - computers, email, internet, computer games, google, e-communication. Remind withdrawal until merged, total confidentiality, anonymity. Recorder – stop wheneverComplete initial sheet with additional information – use for future research

2. Icebreaker: See consent form – Your role?

3. Education, IT exposure What is your educational background? - When? What? Where? How?

How much computing technology used? When? What? Where? How? In study: Search, e-assessment, communicate tutor, interactive tasks, collaborative

learning? At home: Pay bills, Book holidays/tickets, communicate friends/family, download

music/videos? In your job? And what about distance learning here – benefits, issues

4. The main points How do prisoners study at a distance in prison?

- How does it work? Where study? - How supported? - How is computing technology used for learning? - What facilities available? (where, with who)- What times are computing sessions – for who?- Who organises sessions? - Any online access? How supervised? What continuity for study? Printers? - Which students get access?- Any open learning?- Distance tutor? How communicate? secure messaging, telephone, face-to-face?- Laptops (in cell or elsewhere?) or other special equipment?- Assignments, exams, revise, how, where, support, supervision, success, problems?- Any alternatives? What, how, who?- Library facilities –computers, books, - Advice and guidance

How do prisoners develop skills for studies and using computers in prison? Planning studies, portfolio building? Word, excel, ppt, databases, web design, search engines, programming, doing tasks interactively/offline,

- What help is/has been provided, by who, how? – in-situ, courses, online tuition, face-to-face?

- What else might be needed? Quals? Skills? How?

What do you think about computing technology for learning in prison?

What difference does it make? Now or on release (if relevant)

What are the best and the worst about distance learning in prison, and the technology to support it?

5. Debrief: Clarify issues raised, next steps, reaffirm confidentiality and anonymity, withdrawal up to about end of June when info is embedded. Pilot for future study.

Appendix F: Additional Information request form

Research Title: Investigating technology supported learning for Higher Education (HE) and Distance Learners in an adult male prison

Interview Reference _______

1. Age range

Age range Tick one18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+

2. Length of sentence OR expected date of release (if known)

3. Would you be willing to be contacted again for further research?

Appendix G: Student Participant Characteristics

Int Code

False Name

Cat

EdProv

Age Sent(yrs)

Tag/EDD* Ed history Educ IT skills/experience

1A Andrew B OU 25-34 Life ? Left school with nothing, almost illiterate

No quals

Done to CLAIT Plus in prison but claims self-taught

8A Ben D OU 35-44 4 11/03/2011 Doing Maths, Physics and Chemistry A level and got kicked out after 5 months

Level-2

First computer was ZX81 that was mainly games. But became good about 10 years ago, ICQ

8B Charles D OU 25-34 3.5 Jan to May 2011

GCSEs, A levels A-level

GCSE IT + some training 15 years ago, then learnt on the job. Good presentation skills

8C Duncan D OU 45-54 12 17/09/2010 Left school at 14 with no education at all and went to prison. Did CSE’s in prison – grades B to D.

No quals

Started 8 years ago (in prison). But only tried it at home about a year ago. Still learning. Fear of IT – puts faith in books. Handwrites all assignments

8D Ethan D OU 25-34 - 25/01/2012 Took GCSE’s in secondary school but quite bad results - went to College for a year or two, started a course in Leisure and Tourism, but again sort of fizzled out.

Level-2

IT literate with computers at school and home

8E Freddie D St 35-44 12 01/09/2011 5 GCSEs + 2 A levels + Degree (2.2) + PGCE + OU

Deg Basic – Microsoft. Handwrites assignments sometimes

7-1 Guhan C MC 25-34 7.5 2012 No GCSE’s but has done a National Diploma

Level-2

IT literate

'7-2 Harry C MC 35-44 4.5 ? Ex-accountant with a Degree

Deg Skills and learning mentor Spreadsheet skills – uses lawyer’s laptop

'7-3 Imran C St 25-34 18 ? GCSE Eng B, GCSE Maths C, Started an electricians course

Level-2

CLAIT Adv

'7-4 Jason C St 18-24 7.5 01/01/2011 GCSE’s (in YOI?) Level-2

IT literate

*Tag/EDD = Expected date for release, if known

Appendix H: Conceptual Labels

(This provides an example of the process but is not complete as additional labels and interview numbers were added manually before moving on to other formats)

Access Attitude SkillsSelf Others Acquired Needed

computer 1 2 3 5 boredom1, 2 threat1 school-nothing 1

nothing 2

alternatives 1 3 5 officers-illiterate1 5

jealousy1 teach toe by toe 1, 2 3

IT topup 3

open learning 1 5 identity1 4 5 6 education dangerous1

reflection 1 extend vocabulary 3

exams1 5 expand mind1 4 5

pride1,2 interest1 3 CLAIT 3

own space 1 open horizons1, 2

silly-rules1 self-taught 1 3 youth mentoring 5

online1 6 human being1 keep prisoners dumb 2

CLAIT 1, 2 5  

library1 3 5 6 horizons-stop-reoffending1

classroom supervision 1, 2 3

kicked-out A-levels 2

 

searches1 staying sane1 6 helpful 2 3 electrician 2  research1 encourage

peers1, 2 5indifferent 2 3 5 facebook 2  

education1 3 acceptance1, 2 4 home-leave regimented 2

ICQ 2  

dvds1 3 not into school 1, 2 4

work ethic 3 6 global telecoms 2

 

peers1, 2 5 6 pride 2 5 regimented 2 3 4 6

wrong skills 2  

  untrained(staff) 1 2 3 5

read-and-write-educated 3

chemistry 2  

time-to-study1, 2 3 5 6

 

destroyed work 3

mentoring 2 3  

intranetted-prison1 advanced 2 different cat D 3

how to apply 2  

Even old computers1 good people 2 5 supportive 3 study-from-peers 2 3

 

sesame1 unsupported 2 5 education not cool 3 5

interesting-so-easy 3

 

peace-and-quiet1 3 6 don’t need VC 2 orders from above 5

work-experience 3

 

courses 2 home-leave 2 4 security 5 business 3  funding 2 3 penalised 2 not my thing 5 IT 3  internet 1, 2 5 unfair 2 3 resentment 5 manual 3  pay 2 5 know rights 2 5 libertarian

management 6vocational 3  

information 2 3 5 6 need to ask 2 5   work under pressure 3

 

prison work 2 3 5 comfort from peers 2 3

  presentations 3  

community work 2 CLAIT boring 2   IT lit 5  

job 2 5 want a degree 2 3

  web design 5  

transfer-storage-print 2 3

interesting 2 3   basic IT 5  

Printer 2 3 enjoying 2 3   confidence 5 6  chance to study 2 3 5 unbelievable 2   determination 5

6 

Virtual Campus 2 3 5 isolation 3   magazine 6  

place to do assignments 2 5

insiders 2 3   sewing 6  

tutor 2 5 trivial use of printers 3

  recycling 4 5 6  

i-CMAs 2 keep brain active 3

  FE 6  

self-study 2 5 occupy time 3      classes 2 respect 3      traffic lights 2 hopeful 3      the dark 2 study too hard 3

5     

forum 3 5 love books-fear IT 4

     

support 3 5 save-the-world 4      FE 3 get a job 4      computer error 3 achieve

something 4 5 6     

home-leave 2 3 4 5 free-to-learn 5      

OU website 5 patronising 5      

stealing time 5 restricted access      

5external college 5 security 5      conversation 6 shake

foundations 4     

phones 6OU not supported 5      

full-time ed 6unlimited resource 5      

hanbdwritten assignments 6 VC potential 5      

 supportive ed staff 5      

  two ways to go 5        perseverence 5        private prison 5 6      

 pyjama humiliation 6      

  depression 6      

Appendix I: Some additional/ more complete quotes for Chapter 5

The Physical Environment

TrustStudy alone: “In Z [progressive] you would get a course…. they did it full-time, they left you alone for a week”. In Y [working] “you had to be supervised in the library” but…. the whole point about distance learning is that you learn by yourself.. But in Y they just said well you have to have someone there… If they [the CIAS staff] weren’t in you couldn’t go to the library, which meant that’s a day you couldn’t study” (Ethan)

Because I worked in the Library at F (Cat C) there was a tele with a DVD in there, but as far as here (Cat D) no. (Charlie)

“From working in the library at F (Cat C) you could look at a bibliography and then say right this book is in this library and I could order it. It might take two or three weeks, but then it might come back completely useless.” (Charlie)

Personal spaceSingle cell: “Once that door was closed I could really focus” (Charlie)

Dormitory: “when I’m sharing … then there is someone who wants to watch tele, someone who wants to chat, someone who wants to do different things….so to focus on it [study] is quite hard” (Charlie)

Dormitory: “I have to switch off. I totally have to say right this bed space is mine and what takes place in here is me and anything else is outside of that…. I study at 4 in the morning. I will get up really early and I’ll sit there for an hour or two hours” (Duncan)

Rehabilitation route: “you have to get your Cat C - you have to be seen to be progressing” (Freddie).

The Institutional Visions

Can you read?“Very much a case of D,E or F for GCSE level. If you can achieve that then you are educated. It is a case of can you read and write? Yes you can? In that case you are educated. As far as anything further there is not a lot of support.” (Charlie)

“It [Cat D] is a two to three people per room department … it has got a lot of resources and life and a lot of good stuff, but it hasn’t got any people.” (Freddie) “We may be able to provide some access to computers, but increasingly there is less opportunity for students to access resources where there isn’t necessarily accredited learning” (Milly, [education staff])

“What I have to do is try and avoid stepping on somebody’s toes and it’s never very clear in here who’s responsible for what. My concern is the learner, when the learner

asks for something…they are falling completely through the cracks” (Molly, [education staff])

Tagged on“I have access all day every day in the computer class. Officially I’m doing CLAIT but I haven’t finished it on purpose because if I do finish I can’t get access to the computers and I may have to do other work. (Andrew)

“In X [Progressive] there was an OU person paid to organise the distance learning, you weren’t just tagged onto someone else’s class….. she was constantly speaking to you, you could go and see her. It was great, you know, that was her job. Ever since then you’ve just been tagged on. Even here, they are friendly and sociable … but you are just tagged on.” (Freddie)

Regimented work ethicFunding: “I had to write a load of letters and then some people said well we will give you a bit of funding and all of that took absolutely ages” (Ben)

Skills: “I think it was more important for them to get people into work. So at the time it was more (um) well you can do this, you can do that and even then, don’t get me wrong, recycling is a good laugh and you work with some good people but it wasn’t really what I wanted to do, but I think because XX [the CIAS provider] didn’t have anybody to do recycling I was pigeon holed into doing it.” (Charlie)

“What would you like to do?” (Interviewer)

“Something to help me brush up on PowerPoint skills, something to help with the educational aspect of it and my vocabulary, not really literacy, because I’m reasonably good at it, something to extend my vocabulary rather than sifting through metal and plastic.” (Charlie)

Deteriorating landscape

“I can’t check anything. I’ve only got what this book tells me. I don’t have access to any other information” (Ben)

”I mean ideally you would like to go on the internet, but obviously because of security reasons etc. etc. etc. and most of the time there is downloaded stuff and all that.” ….. “everybody has been vetted before they get here [open prison], but then at the same time I understand how it works so you know you have to have a blanket ban on the whole system” (Duncan)

“Basically it [the Virtual Campus] is sort of like an enclosed website. There is some information, but it has already been pre-loaded and vetted by the home office and security checked and to be fair, but this is only my point of view, some of the information on there is quite patronising. It doesn’t really help me as a person that much … it’s limited. At the end of the day the internet really means unlimited. I mean it’s unlimited resources. This is the complete opposite.”

“it’s probably of some use to someone who doesn’t know how to fill out a CV or whatever and needs advice on interview techniques”

“There’s a place for those learning to read and there’s a place for those in the middle who are developing but there’s also a place for those who are doing Masters. Just give us a room, give us a corner. A stand-alone laptop would be great, but a room is perfectly fine, at least … even old computers with a word-processor would be OK (Andrew)

Student Identity

Peers-progressive: “you talked about other people’s life styles, not just about other people’s crimes” (Freddie)

Tutor support:“because I have no interaction with other students on that level doing that course, it’s nice when my tutor does come, because I can sit there and grill him (Yes) grill him and grill him and take it to all different levels and try and gain a better understanding” (Duncan)

Alternative: “They did a big seminar last week or the weekend before - XXXX came to see me the week after and we went over a few things that were discussed in the seminar, so that was nice of him” (Charlie)

“They have been quite nice at the Open University, because they do send me some information that is online via paper. (oh right) But that’s not really helped me a great deal because receiving fifty pages in one go where some of it is relevant, some of it isn’t, is a bit hard. But just accessing information on the course as in something that would help me is extremely difficult even then. From working in the library at F [Cat C] you could look at a bibliography and then say right this book is in this library and I could order it. It might take two or three weeks, but then it might come back completely useless.” (Charlie)

“A couple of guys at F [Cat C] who lost all of their work” (Charlie)

“At W [Cat B-C local] and F (Cat C training) especially it’s a one way tide. So .. you will try to swim against it along with perhaps 3 or 4% of the prison population, but the other 96% are just getting through their time not wanting to achieve anything. So it’s very hard for the Prison service themselves to pick out the individuals that want to further themselves especially when some other prisoners perceive it as being, I wouldn’t say stupid, but you know what I mean. ‘You are getting educated oh more fool you’. It is not cool, it’s not perceived to be cool to be educated. So it’s very hard for some prisoners to put their heads above the parapet and say I want to better myself.”(Charlie)

“Some Governors have gone on to do a course that I’ve done. They ask my opinion. It’s a new experience having someone doing a course at the same time. I’ve never done a course at the same time as another prisoner, only staff.” (Andrew).

Open Learning: “I’ve been in places where there was an elearning environment. L (Cat C) – there were 8 of us and 4 computers. One was doing a PhD and needed one of the machines. We shared and used the word-processor only. It was an air-conditioned room. ‘Our own University here’ they used to show us off.” (Andrew)

“distance learning was just one part of a really interesting timetable” (Freddie)