Posted on behalf of Nick Jeans, Senior Consultant (Learning Technology) at Sero.
Our learner focus groups have concluded with a couple of visits to prisons, which have been particularly interesting. Shotts prison near Glasgow is a Category A, high security establishment, while Channings Wood in Devon is a Category C: not remotely open but perhaps a bit more relaxed in terms of security. We were struck by the inconsistencies in prisoner learning, varying by category, by governor and by the organisations that run them – HM Prisons, Serco and Sodexo.
The prisoners at Shotts impressed on us that they do not like the term ‘offender learning’ or being called ‘offenders’. They explained that they had indeed been offenders when they had committed a crime, but that they are no longer offending. They therefore prefer the term ‘prisoner learning’ and were very keen that our research should make this point. Shotts makes no use of Virtual Campus, a VLE available in many prisons, yet prisoners seemed to have plenty of access to IT, using it to produce 2 magazines: Snapshotts (relating to Shotts alone) and Stir (http://stirmagazine.org/), a really impressive creative arts magazine with features contributed from 7 different Scottish prisons.
Before we met the learner group, we spoke to the teachers in the staff room, where morale seemed high. They were, however, concerned that too many of the cards in our card sort exercise had no relevance for the internet-deprived prison environment. While there was some truth in this, the prisoners took it in their stride and did not let it inhibit our discussions at all. It was clear, however, that self-directed learning is difficult without access to the internet, so teachers are thrown into a more traditional style as the sole source or conduit of information. One teacher felt staff themselves were less comfortable with mobile phone use because they rarely carry them round, for fear of accidentally bringing one into prison (a criminal offence leading to instant dismissal). The one area where students felt able to use their own initiative in learning was ICT and magazine design.
In contrast to Shotts, Channings Wood uses Virtual Campus (http://testvc2.meganexus.com/portal/index/) although there was frustration that it’s only available when prisoners are working on specific courses. Informal learning did not seem to be an option. Filling out the learner profile prior to the card sort exercise started discussion early, since the short term inmates wanted to document that they used technology widely outside of prison. The issue of being prepared for employment after their sentence came up frequently and this was linked to the lack of appropriate technology in the prison, “because if you’ve been in 10 or 15 years, you’re not going to know what technology is out there.” This prompted the retort: “After 2 years, 3 years, 4 years you’re definitely out of touch” while another commented: “You get out of touch with new apps even more.” The feelings were summed up by another comment: “I do think we’re being deskilled in prison” with a further comment: “It’s done purposely, you know.”
There was a strong sense that their entire lives were on hold while in prison, deskilling them and making reoffending more likely because when released they will lack the skills needed to thrive or be useful members of the community. Two comments were particularly striking: “The government can’t agree what prison is for: are we punishing these people or are we helping them not to come back to prison?” It seems clear that there is huge potential for technology to improve the situation but this will only be implemented when the focus is on preventing reoffending. There is no lack of motivation among the inmates we spoke to: “I would rather go and work on a chain gang, do something useful, than sit in my cell watching TV all day. I want to do something useful to build infrastructure, not just sit behind a door.”