The differences in face to face and online education in the prison system and how it might affect recidivism
Introduction
It is vital to note that the inmates who have enrolled in educational programs while in prison have experienced lower recidivism rates than those who did not enroll in such programs (Davis et al, 2013). The convicts require education systems that help them not only to read and write but also to develop skills that aid in promoting a positive changeover to the society especially after their release. Efforts to better this system would engage the inmates to participate more on the education programs and will go a long way in boosting the rehabilitation process of such individuals (Davis et al, 2013). Statistics show that the rate of recidivism in the United States is approximately 60%. The bureau of statistics has been able to conducts a study over a period of five years that revealed; among prisoners from thirty different states, who participated in prison education, 48% were rearrested for crime within three years, 22% were arrested after five years since release and 30% were never rearrested for any form of crime (Dickinson, 2003). This data clearly shows that inmates that have gone through educational and vocational training have a less possibility of being rearrested again. This paper will put much emphasis in determining the rate at which recidivism is reduced through prison education programs (Dickinson, 2003).
The main purpose for putting up prisons all over the world is to ensure that there are reintegration and correctional facilities for the offenders (Davis et al, 2013). This is attained by ensuring that the environment is effective in such a manner that the risk of committing the crime again is reduced. Most convicts in prisons are recorded to have a below average education and skills causing most of them to stay unemployed which has a direct effect on their behavior and character (Davis et al, 2013). Research states that offenders who have a set of skills that can allow them to get employed are less likely to be involved in crime as compared to those that are not employed due to lack of education and skills (Davis et al, 2013).
Findings from the investigation of correctional informative and scholastic systems suggests that the expenses incurred while establishing prison education are cost effective; approximately $1 dollar per investment helps to reduce the coat of crime by approximately $4 to $5 especially in the first three to five years after their release (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). This is to mean that the costs of providing educational facilities in prison are $1400 to $1700 per convict while the re imprisonment costs are $9700 for each convict. It is vital to note that the rate of employment after release was approximately 33% higher for the inmates who undertook the educational programs than those who did not (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014).
Despite the fact that extensive research on prison education is not present, it is clear that there is a relationship between recidivism and attainment of educational skills (Barak, 2007). This is to mean that education reduces recidivism and also improves the inmates for the transition back to the communities after their release. This also increases the work force in any given country (Barak, 2007). This is because approximately 700,000 people walk out of prison each year and if such people are employed there will be an increase in productivity thus affecting the economic status of a country. It is also vital to note that such education molds the character of the individuals involved in such a way that the released convicts are able to start up families and also increase the responsibility levels (Barak, 2007).
Research Methodology
This study was conducted to access the aspect of vocational and educational programs in prison institutions and how they reduce recidivism. In order to be able to gather the necessary data, the quantitative approach was used. These approached were used to reach the instruments for data gathering. It is also important to note that most of the data and information collected was through previous researches conducted by different bodies concerned with inmate rehabilitation programs. The method of observation was very instrumental as it offered direct information that would help to assess the rate of recidivism after educational and vocational programs in prisons.
The credibility of the findings and analysis of the information provided relied extensively on the quality of the research design, the data collection, and management of the data and the evaluation of the same (Pathak, 2005). This chapter will be able to describe the methods and procedures taken in obtaining the data used for this research. It will also show how the information was analyzed, interpreted and how the conclusion will be met.
This research can be termed as a descriptive research. This is because it includes surveys and fact finding enquiries on the topic of study. In this kind of research, there is no control of the variables as the analysis is given based on the exact information that is received from the surveys (Pathak, 2005). This data collected in this type of research can change after a certain period of time as the environment changes. The main reason as to why this method of research applicable is the aspect of accuracy and it demonstrates facts as they are in the present condition (Pathak, 2005). This method is very appropriate for this study as it is aimed to find out how education in prison can help to reduce recidivism.
The main purpose of using the descriptive method is to describe the nature of the condition as it occurs during the time for the study and explore the impacts of the variable which is education is prison institutions (Kothari, 2008). The main content of this research was acquired using secondary data through findings stated in published documents and literature related to the research. These published documents were based on recent information for several years as they helped to identify the trend in the rate of recidivism as a result of educational and vocational training programs (Eby & Yuzer, 2013).
Research from findings published in documents and other forms of literature is much cheaper as compared to field research and also saves on time (Kothari, 2008). It also allows the researcher to recruit contributors from a wide geographical scope and thus making the research process easier. Some of the published documents provided information that was gathered through research and through interviews with the prison managers and this gave accurate data on recidivism of the inmates. Most of the research provided information in a period of three to five years. Precisely, this research has retracted its findings after 5 years of the release of inmates. The data also covered the behavior of ex convicts from different areas of the world but the major focus is on the United States (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
The numerical comparison and the statistical references that were derived from the quantitative data are very important to show significance of the educational and vocational training programs. This is because some of the data derived from the published documents showed the rate of recidivism to the inmates who did not undergo the educational and training programs; while others showed the rate of recidivism to inmates who have undergone the training programs (Thomas & Thomas, 2008). This would help to evaluate the significance of the programs and the impact on recidivism. The information also showed the different methods used in the training programs and the impact of the inmates (Thomas & Thomas, 2008). It also provided a comparison of the online education programs and the face to face programs and how they affect recidivism. This data gave accurate information of the best method of education and training and its importance.
There are various methods used to measure the data provided. The basic information was analyzed through the nominal data measurement while the ratio data technique was used to analyze the data that was derived from the publication documents and other forms of literature from the internet (Pathak, 2005). The measurement techniques used will help to critically analyze and evaluate the information provided in order to present accurate results.
Differences between online and face to face education in prisons
Throughout history the face to face learning method has been very common in both class rooms and in seminars or conferences (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). However, the face to face learning has is more often complex a, irregular and impulsive. We need to understand that the skills, strategies, tactics and techniques that are used in face to face education is very different from the online education (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). The face to face learning method is whereby the instructor or teacher meets physically with the students who in this case are the inmates. In this method of teaching there is a set place for the learning process where all displays and performances of work are allowed (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). This is to mean practical learning with physical examples is allowed. The online method of learning is whereby the students who are inmates are able to learn through electronic machines through computers with the physical presence of the instructors (Dickinson, 2003).
It is vital to note that at times the aspect of online prison education is brought about as a result of the lack of resources that are able to provided face to face education to all the inmates around the world. This then allows the use of didactic media without the necessity of participating in the face to face interaction where each inmate is responsible for their own learning. Nevertheless, educating inmates enables them to learn and to be taught. This is to mean that the education rests on an academic and scholarly level and formative education conforms into a development of personality and allows the manifestation of the behavior of the learner. As a result of this it is evident that online education educates at a distance as compared to face to face education.
It is vital to note that online education has gone through a series of evolution in terms of its definition, the methods and the tools of delivery. This is as a result of the ever growing technology that allows the invention of new machinery and the upgrading of software (Dickinson, 2003). It is vital to note that the penetrability of the internet around the globe has allowed for the educators and instructors to modify the conventional means of learning especially for the inmates and also reconstruct different methods in order to provide greater access to information on the internet (Dickinson, 2003). This is because most inmates lack the basic skills on how to operate a computer. This therefore means that for them to acquire online education, they must first be taught on how to operate the machinery involved thus lengthening the learning process (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
As discussed above, online education requires the inmates to be self-disciplined and responsible (Thomas & Thomas, 2008). This is to mean that the inmates are expected to take the greater initiative to learn, access and understand the material that has been delivered by the online instructor. It is important to note that the inmates are people who are being rehabilitated in order to develop character and therefore the aspect of personal initiative to learn may be lacking (Thomas & Thomas, 2008). This is to mean that despite the fact that online education is good and saves time, it may not be the best method of educating inmates especially in prison. It is vital for the instructors to use the face to face method learning and if necessary introduce the online learning at a later stage.
Face to face education method in prison systems
It is vital to note that face to face method of learning allows the inmates to interact and research states that human beings tend to learn better in person environments (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). In the conventional world, precisely everything is being run through digital media. For instance; communication is achieved through the internet through phone calls and email messages and as at now most people are working from a place of their convenience (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). Although the benefits of the advancement of technology cannot be denied, we need to note that before this invention interaction was more than today (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). However, we need to understand that human beings are not able to use this media unless they are conversant with the modalities of operation (Zoukis, 2014).
The inmates are human beings thus to mean that they are social beings. Human beings at all times crave for interaction and physical connection (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). This helps to define character and behavior. Research states that physical interaction is one of the best ways to learn, communicate and also to attain and keep memories. It is true to say that most relationships are developed as a result of physical interaction with bonds and connections being made easily (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). This is to mean when inmates undergo through a face to face education system; they are able to learn from one another. This is very critical in character development and also helps them to remember what they do practically (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). For instance inmates who undertake a carpentry class are able to remember the practical aspect of joining things physically than using digital media.
It is through face to face model of learning where the inmates are able to interact with the instructor and ask questions (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). This model provides a plat from where the inmates are able to ask questions thus increasing clarity and understanding. The quality of education is also increased using the face to face learning as compared to online education (Zoukis, 2014). This is because the instructor or the educator is not limited to a particular book or a rigid work plan. They are able to disintegrate information therefore being able to touch on different areas on the same topic (Zoukis, 2014). This increases understanding and the technical know-how for the inmates. Some of the benefits of face to face learning in prison are discussed below;
- Focus
Research states that when the inmates are led in education and training sessions by the instructors they are able to focus more on the subject being taught. This is because such people have minimized distractions as compared to online learning (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). It is also evident that the inmates go through a lot of emotional distress and therefore the possibility of lack of concentration is high. However, the face to face education helps to increase concentration (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014).
The use of computers for online education allows the inmates to have access to other sites and therefore tend to incline more on the things that are exciting such as games or social media than the education. In such a case the significance for the education is lost (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). Using the face to face learning method, the instructor is able to monitor the behavior of the students and find activities that will engage them and thus ensuring that they capture that which is taught to them (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014).
- Confidentiality
The aspect of confidentiality is well achieved using the instructor and trainee model of learning. This is because everything that is said in a classroom is said to be confidential (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). For instance; in a character and behavior development class, the different inmates discuss their problems and character traits which they may want to remain confidential to the class only. Online education does not provide for that because information is provided wholesomely to all people thus privacy is not attained (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013).
It is also vital to note that a face to face setup allows the instructor to handle each inmate individually. This is because the convicts may be having different needs and therefore despite the corporate teaching; the instructor is able to handle issues at an individual level (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013).
- Practice
Online education allow the participants to exercise the new skills through simulation exercises which are good but cannot be compared to the practicability of exercising the skills acquired in a class room with the instructor (Davis et al, 2013). This is because the instructor is able to guide the convicts using a step by step model thus increasing understanding and minimizing errors (Davis et al, 2013). For example, in a carpentry class, the practical classes cannot be undertaken using the online mode of learning. The practical exercise helps to increase efficiency and the inmates can try it as many times as possible until they are able to do the work effectively without supervision (Davis et al, 2013). It is also vital to note that most of the convicts undertake the technical classes alongside the soft skills classes (Davis et al, 2013). This is to mean they are able to physically exercise communication skills to one another thus allowing growth. The aspect of practical exercise of the skills also increases competition among the inmates (Davis et al, 2013). This enables them to strive to be better among competitors a skill that is needed in the society.
- Adaptability
An instructor in a face to face learning process is able to adapt to the specific needs of the participants (Leung et al, 2008). This can be explained by the fact that the learning process is easily flexible to the specific needs that the participants may be facing on a particular subject (Leung et al, 2008). This is of more benefit than online education because adaptability of limited. The aspect of adaptability increases the capacity to understand for the inmates and also puts them at a better position to practice after they are released from prison (Leung et al, 2008).
- Establish a dialogue
As discussed above, online education is carried out using computers and therefore initiating conversations is very difficult. However, face to face learning models allows the inmates to have an opportunity to ask questions from the instructor (Delaere et al, 2013). In this case the instructor is also able to conduct follow up especially on assignments. It is also evident that the dialogues play a major role in increasing understandability and also increase knowledge on diverse aspects of life (Delaere et al, 2013). People are also able to speak their hearts out and also encourage one another. These conversations allow people to heal especially from hurts and traumas thus encouraging them to move on with life positively (Delaere et al, 2013).
- Informal learning
Using the face to face communication, the inmates are able to learn from one another. Research states that a higher percentage of what people learn does not come from the content of training but on the informal discussions that the participants hold (Gordon & Weldon, 2003). Despite the fact that all the people in the prison are convicts, they may have a special skill or knowledge that when passed to the rest can be of great benefit. It is also important to note that through these informal activities that talent is discovered (Gordon & Weldon, 2003). For instance a group of inmates may come together to talk about sports and also engage in such activities. This can help to identify talent and therefore aid them in using it positively.
It is also through the informal discussions where personal relationships are developed (Gordon & Weldon, 2003). This can help in the creation of networks even in business; and that can be used even after their release. For instance two inmates taking different training courses can partner in business and become successful.
As discussed above, face to face learning offers a dynamic environment and also fosters relationship between the instructor and the participants. Such connection is in most cases lost through online communication (Sedgley et al, 2010). It is also important to note that that the information provided using this model of education often has content that is rich in information thus allowing the inmates to be have more clearer understanding on the training given. It also allows for the memorable experiences that normally take place in a class room setup which can be deduced through body language and behavior. This also includes mannerisms, gestures, facial expressions and tone variation. Face to face learning not only allows for the information to be heard but also to be felt (Sedgley et al, 2010). Research states that human beings are able to easily information that was accompanied by gestures or behavior rather than theoretical learning like that provided through online education. It is also vital to note that face to face learning provides a personal element as compared to online learning (Sedgley et al, 2010). This is to mean that responses, connections and reactions can be experienced and therefore responded to effectively. Feedback is also received instantly and therefore the instructor is able to know which areas to spend more time in learning than others (Sedgley et al, 2010).
It is vital to note that through the face to face education character is monitored and therefore the educators are able to correspond appropriately in rehabilitating the inmates (Delaere et al, 2013). It is also vital to note that online education offers a blanket of anonymity and therefore the inmates are able to participate insincerely by giving false answers. Since there is no physical stimulation to the learning, the inmates are involved in either reading a book and therefore there is no added value (Delaere et al, 2013). The risk of misinterpretation of information is also very high in online education as compared to face to face learning. Face to face education also increases the participation of the inmates and therefore increase attention and reduces boredom (Delaere et al, 2013).
From the information provided, it is evident that face to face education in prison is the best way to attain the skills and proficiencies required for the inmates. It is also clear that they are able to retain the information acquired in order to become reliable citizens in the future and to the society as well (Khatibi & Grande, 1993). This is therefore means that face to face education is one of the best ways to reduce recidivism. It is also evident that formation of character is well attained through face to face learning.
Online education in prison systems
The American prisons are currently flooded with inmates; the approximate number is 2.4 million people. The huge number has caused the management of such prisons to be difficult especially through the vocational and educational programs (Leung et al, 2008). However, the country is till aimed at ensuring that the inmates are rehabilitated and trained to become responsible citizens in the future. Therefore, this has caused many inmates to receive such education through online media (Leung et al, 2008). As discussed above it involves the use of computers and digital media. This trend has been effective especially with the advancement of technology.
It is vital to note that online education is very beneficial in that it is convenient. This is to mean that individuals are not pushed into going to a class room but learn at their own convenience (Willems, 2013). It allows flexibility among the inmates in terms of time and location. It is also vital to note that the inmates are required to have a self-drive and responsibility of governing their own learning times (Willems, 2013). This has posed a great challenge because most inmates require to be guided in order for them to engage in learning activities. In this case, the educator delivers the content and it is the responsibility of the inmates to learn and practice what they have learnt (Richmond, 2014). Statistics state that this type of individual and independent learning can pose a great challenge especially to those participants who not effective learners. Other inmates may lack the motivation to learn on their own especially when faced with an issue that they cannot understand and may be forced to discontinue the learning process (Richmond, 2014).
It is also clear that online education does not provide adequate student support like in the face to face education. This is because aspects such as understability are limited as one is forced to get only that which is provided in the digital media (Richmond, 2014). It is also clear that assistance is not provided and this is one of the major reasons for participants in online education to drop out. It is also important to note that there is no presence of the relationship between the instructor and the participants thus creating boredom and monotony of having to listen to an instructor online without the practicability of the study (Richmond, 2014).
The learning objective for the inmates is to ensure that character is molded and behavior is rehabilitated. It is not possible to get accurate evaluations using online assessments because the inmates can give responses that are not accurate and therefore the objective is not attained (Richmond, 2014). This therefore means that in order to note character change physical monitoring is necessary. Nevertheless, online education helps to reduce the costs related to classroom as learning is easily accessible and convenient (Willems, 2013).
The practice for online education has greatly increased because it is an easy way of acquiring knowledge (Willems, 2013). Through online education, participants are able to learn a lot of things in a short time thus shortening the learning process. The participants are also able to access the various resources such as books, journals and other information easily form the internet too (Willems, 2013). Despite the benefits of online education in many prisons worldwide, educators and instructors tend to incline on the traditional based face to face communication. This is because there are several draw backs associated with online education as discussed below;
- Quality
The information that is mostly produced through online education is often of low quality (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). This is because the context cannot be explained further as in the case of face to face learning. The lack of communication with the instructors may tend to frustrate the participants especially in cases where they are struggling with the course materials (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). Inmates who may have questions in regard to the course content are not able to ask and therefore understability is difficult. It is also evident that there are some courses that are in the process of development and therefore proper and rich content may be missing on the internet. It is also clear that there are some employers that do not accredit online certifications (Eby & Yuzer, 2013). This is because they are considered to be invaluable. This is to mean that the certifications that are given to the inmates may tend to be of no use to them if they are not considered by employers. As a result of this, most inmates value the face to face education rather than the online education (Leung et al, 2008).
It is also vital to nota that the course work is associated with excessive reading and writing due to the lack of an instructor. This may pose as a great challenge especially to the inmates who do not have proper reading and writing skills (Eby & Yuzer, 2013).
- Practicability
It is evident that most of the learning carried out by the inmates is mostly practical (Dickinson, 2003). This therefore means that practicing through online education is difficult. This is because the responses given through simulation exercises may not be accurate like the face to face learning method (Dickinson, 2003).
Comparisons for online and face to face education in prison systems
- The sense of control to the instructor
Online – the control of the instructor is very minimal and it is very easy for the participants to ignore the instructor (Barak, 2007).
Face to face – there is increased leadership from the instructor and it is not easy to ignore them (Barak, 2007).
- Meeting conditions
Online – the participants can access information anytime (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
Face to face – the participants have to wait for one another before the lesson begins (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
- Mode of learning
Online – the main form of communication is through text; it can be structured and limited (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
Face to face – the main form of communication is verbal. There is free exchange of ideas and opinions (Thomas & Thomas, 2008).
- Physical context
Online – there is no physical context other than use of text (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011).
Face to face – there is a very strong physical context as all participants need to meet together in a room (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011).
- Time
Online – there is no scheduled time to meet as those participating in the online education meet at their own convenience. In this case deadlines are not adhered to as it is difficult to locate all the participants in a given time (Barak, 2007).
Face to face – the participants have specified times for meeting as the participants are required to meet all together at a specific location and time. Deadlines are kept as they expectations to meet are quite high (Barak, 2007).
- Content of work
Online – the course work may touch on multiple issues at the same time and the work may be interweaved with other activities. There may be cases of information overload especially after long periods of being away (Zoukis, 2014).
Face to face- the course work is detailed, focused and dwells on one agenda at a time. The discussions are often completed before the meeting is over. There is critical analysis and evaluation of the topics of discussion thus increasing understanding (Zoukis, 2014).
- The dynamics of the group
Online – there is less anxiety as there is no supervision. Participants are not required to actively engage in discussions thus understanding is limited. The channel of communication has an impact on the group (Zoukis, 2014).
Face to face – there is a lot of anxiety especially in the beginnings on what to expect. All participants are required to take part in the discussions (Zoukis, 2014).
Technical skills are very critical in the training of the inmates. This is because they offer the practical knowledge that increases the chances of employment for the inmates (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). These courses help the inmates to find employment and reintegrate with the society after their release. However, we need to note for the effective education of these skills; face to face communication is necessary (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). Statistics show that approximately 75% of the inmates acquire employment as a result of the technical skills acquired. The soft skills are also very vital in the character development but these can be achieved through online education (Zoukis, 2014). However as discussed earlier, the online method of learning needs to be practiced at the later stages of learning because some of the inmates even lack the basics of learning.
It is evident that face to face education is better placed than the online education for the inmates because it allows for easy, integrated and practical learning (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). The in mates are also able to retain a lot of information from the face to face model of learning than the online (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). Nevertheless, both models are very important in ensuring that the inmates are educated and thus reducing the recidivism rate.
Findings
Annually thousand of ex convicts leave the prisons and jails and return to their families and the society (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). However, a huge percentage of them productively reintegrate with the society and secure employment opportunities thus becoming productive citizens while others commit crimes and are re arrested and taken back into prison. However, there are several factors that account as to why some of the ex -convicts succeed in life after prison while others do not (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). The main reason is lack of education and technical skills that can enable them to get employment. Correctional educational and training programs are very important to a nation to ensure the future of the inmates is secure (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014).
However, the main question that is asked is, do the educational and vocational training programs work for the inmates? According to the information in this research the accurate answer is that the programs are successful in rehabilitating the convicts. Statistics show that a large percent of inmates that have undergone these education programs have a low recidivism rate as compared to those that have not gone through the programs (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). These results also show that the cost of re incarcerating inmates is greatly reduced as well. Statistics show that that 45% of inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 70% lower risk of engaging in criminal activities again. This is to show that the educational programs play a major role in ensuring that the rate of recidivism is minimized (Davis et al, 2013).
However, the method used to provide the education and training is of great importance. As discussed the face to face method of learning is the best to ensure that the inmates have a profound knowledge on the skills required to carry out different tasks. Unfortunately, the huge numbers of inmates especially in the United States pose a challenge to this model of teaching (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). Organizations that are involved with the rehabilitation of the inmates have provided educators and instructors who will help to ensure the success of these programs in prison institutions. Research also shows that there are other benefits associated with the education and training programs that enable the ex convicts to be very successful people in the society (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013).
It is also evident that the education and training programs have a positive effect on the economy of the nation. This is because maintaining the inmates in prison is associated with increased costs and especially those that are rearrested (Taxman, & Pattavina, 2013). Those that are employed actively participate in the gross domestic product and the gross national product of the country thus improving the economy of a nation especially through taxes (Davis et al, 2013).
Recommendations and conclusion
It is vital for all prison institutions to be provided with all the facilities that are needed for the vocational education and training. This can be achieved through workshops, seminars, conferences, modern facilities and also the improvement in the remuneration for the stake holders. Performance evaluations should be carried out regularly in order to identify the weaknesses that need to be improved. It is critical for non-governmental organizations to fund the institutions and also ensure their maintenance. The inmates that have gone through the vocation educational and training programs should be automatically employed after their release in both the public and private sector. Stigmatization should not be allowed especially for the reformed ex-convicts but instead should be appreciated and encouraged to live positively.
These education programs are very important in the rehabilitation process for inmates in prison institutions as they enable them to have an increased probability of successful recuperation and restoration in the society as they will be able to acquire employment and improve their standards of living. This therefore means that training and education programs help to reduce recidivism rate amongst inmates.
References
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J. M., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults.
Taxman, F. S., & Pattavina, A. (2013). Simulation strategies to reduce recidivism: Risk need responsivity (RNR) modeling for the criminal justice system. New York, NY: Springer.
Siegel, L. J., & Bartollas, C. (2014). Corrections today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Wilson, J. Q., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Crime and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zoukis, C. (2014). College for convicts: The case for higher education in American prisons.
Barak, G. (2007). Battleground: Criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Thomas, R. G., & Thomas, M. (2008). Effective Teaching in Correctional Settings: Prisons, Jails, Juvenile Centers, and Alternative Schools. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Dickinson, T. D. (2003). Community and the world: Participating in social change. New York: Nova Science.
Eby, G., & Yuzer, T. V. (2013). Project management approaches for online learning design. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference.
Leung, E. W. C., & Workshop on Blended Learning, WBL. (2008). Advances in blended learning: Second Workshop on Blended Learning, WBL 2008, Jinhua, China, August 20- 22, 2008 : revised selected papers. Berlin [etc.: SpringerLink [host.
Willems, B. (2013). Outlooks and opportunities in blended and distance learning.
In Scott, R. (2015). Bringing college education into prisons.
Richmond, K. M. (2014). Why Work While Incarcerated? Inmate Perceptions on Prison Industries Employment. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(4), 231-252.
Khatibi, M. "., & Grande, C. G. (1993). Correctional Education Planning: A Systematic Approach to Vocational Training. Journal Of Correctional Education, 44(3), 152-155.
Delaere, G., De Caluwé, S., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Prison Education and Breaking Through the Walls in Flanders: The Motivational Orientations of Long-Term Prisoners. Journal Of Correctional Education, 64(3), 2-21.
SEDGLEY, N. H., SCOTT, C. E., WILLIAMS, N. A., & DERRICK, F. W. (2010). Prison's Dilemma: Do Education and Jobs Programmes Affect Recidivism?. Economica, 77(307), 497-517.
Gordon, H. D., & Weldon, B. (2003). The Impact of Career and Technical Education Programs on Adult Offenders: Learning Behind Bars. Journal Of Correctional Education, 54(4), 200-208.
Pathak, R. P. (2008). Methodology of educational research. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.
Kothari, C. R. (2005). Research methodology: Methods & techniques. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd.
