-
extracted text
-
Environmental Education in Prison: A Comparison of Teaching Methods and
Their Influence on Inmate Attitudes and Knowledge of Environmental Topics
by
Sarah R. Weber
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2012
1
©2012 by Sarah R. Weber All rights reserved.
2
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Sarah R. Weber
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Carri J. LeRoy
Member of the Faculty
3
ABSTRACT
Environmental Education in Prison: A Comparison of Teaching Methods and
Their Influence on Inmate Attitudes and Knowledge of Environmental Topics
Sarah R. Weber
This study was designed to determine whether lecture-style or workshop-style
classes might prove more beneficial in effectively teaching environmental topics
to inmates. Lectures and workshops were presented to 53 male and female
inmates at two minimum-security prisons in Washington State. To measure the
knowledge base of participating inmates in the workshops and lectures, pre- and
post-engagement surveys were designed using a five-point Likert scale to produce
quantitative data, and open-ended questions were included to produce qualitative
data. The findings indicate that there was a significant improvement in inmate
attitudes regarding the presented environmental issues after receiving an
educational opportunity, and more specifically that lecture-style presentations
might be more effective in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes regarding
environmental topics than workshop-style presentations. We found no significant
differences in knowledge and attitudes between participants prior to the
educational opportunity or between participating male and female inmates which
provides evidence for environmental learning regardless of prior conditions or
gender. These findings provide important insights for the Sustainability in Prisons
Project (SPP) as they seek to hone their environmental education (EE)
opportunities within prisons. The SPP and proven public interest through media
attention, is providing evidence that a need exists for EE opportunities within
correctional facilities. The findings in this study offer a contribution to the
discussion surrounding EE in the prison education system, as well as whether
lecture teaching methods are more effective with inmate populations than
workshop methods.
4
Table of Contents
Overview
1
Chapter 1, Section 1
Introduction
2
The Sustainability in Prisons Project
2
Scope of Study
4
Methods
4
Research Questions
5
Research Project Goals
5
Chapter 1, Section 2
Literature Review
6
Prison Education
6
Environmental Education
15
Environmental Education in Prisons
23
Chapter 1, Section 3
Context and Significance
26
Chapter 2, Section 1
Embedded paper formatted for the Journal of Correctional Education
Introduction
28
Theoretical Framework
33
Methods
35
Results
38
Discussion
45
iv
Conclusion
50
Chapter 3, Section 1
Recommendations
52
Study Limitations
54
Interdisciplinary Nature of the Study
56
Broader Impacts
58
Conclusion
60
References
62
Appendices
Appendix A, Extended Methods
68
Appendix B, Surveys
72
v
List of Figures
Figure 1
Mean percent improvement of the scores of men and women
following both the lecture-style and workshop-style presentations.
Mean improvement scores were determined by comparing pre- to
post-engagement survey responses and did not differ between
males and females. Values represent means +/- 1 standard error of
the mean.
Figure 2
Ordination plot showing every participating inmate’s response
prior to (p) and after (p) receiving a lecture-style or workshopstyle presentation. Lines connect each inmate’s pre- to postengagement survey responses and show a convergence of attitudes
and knowledge following an educational opportunity regardless of
presentation style.
Figure 3
Left panel: Pre-survey results compared to post-survey results for
lecture-style presentations, Right panel: Pre-survey results
compared to post-survey results for workshop-style presentations.
Figure 4
Lecture-style vs. workshop-style presentations are compared using
mean improvement scores for incarcerated women and men
separately. Improvement scores compare pre- to post-engagement
survey responses. Values represent means +/- 1 standard error.
Figure 5
Pre-engagement survey responses show no significant difference in
overall environmental attitudes and content knowledge prior to
lectures (p) and workshops (p).
vi
Figure 6
Post-engagement survey responses show a significant difference in
overall environmental attitudes and content knowledge following
lectures (p) and workshops (p).
Figure 7
Mean percent improvement by question overall, for lecture
respondents and for workshop respondents. Values represent
means +/- 1 standard error. Questions 1-4 represent action items,
and questions 5-10 represent content questions.
vii
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 1. Number of times coded words appeared in open-ended
survey questions. Communication of content consistent between
lecture-style and workshop-style presentations.
viii
Acknowledgements
My gratitude goes to Carri LeRoy for her inspiration, guidance, patience, and
support throughout the research and writing process of my thesis. I am grateful to
Marc Hayes for donating his brilliance and energy to this project in order to create
and present educational opportunities to inmates. Many thanks to the dear folks at
The Sustainability in Prisons Project for on-going support and encouragement; I
am honored to have been a part of this fantastic organization. I thank the
Washington State Department of Corrections for allowing access to prison
facilities for my presentations and data collection, and for facilitating a rewarding
experience for inmates and presenters alike. And to my husband, Travis Walley,
goes all my love and gratitude for his endless kindness, generosity and support.
Thank you.
ix
Overview
I organized this thesis into three chapters. In the first section of Chapter 1, I
present an introduction to the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP), the scope of
the study, research questions and an overview of goals for the research project. In
Section 2, I present the findings of my literature review, exploring education in
the prison system and the political and philosophical framework of the current
system. I also explore adult environmental education and seek to find similarities
and differences between the two. I discuss the influence of education on
recidivism rates and potential stewardship responses as a result of environmental
education, and explore the strengths and weaknesses of both lecture- and
workshop-style presentations. In Section 3, I discuss the context and significance
of this research project. In Chapter 2, I present my study written to fit the
requirements of the Journal of Correctional Education. I present my hypotheses,
describe the methods used in the collection and analysis of data, and discuss my
study results. In Chapter 3, I discuss my results and recommendations to the SPP
in terms of methods for improving educational offerings. In addition, I discuss
the broader impacts and implications associated with this research. To conclude, I
discuss study limitations and suggest areas for further research and analysis.
1
Chapter I, Section I
Introduction
The Sustainability in Prisons Project
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) is a partnership between The
Evergreen State College (TESC) and The Washington State Department of
Corrections (WSDOC). The mission of the SPP is to bring science and nature into
prisons through scientific research and conservation, green-collar education and
training, lecture presentations and sustainable operations of prisons (Sustainable
Prisons Project About Us (2012). Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/about). Inmates involved with
conservation and sustainable operations projects (such as composting, recycling,
gardening and rearing endangered species) are engaged daily while green collar
education and science and sustainability lecture presentations are presented to
interested individuals monthly throughout the year. All of the projects and
educational opportunities involve inmates, college students, community partners
and scientific professionals.
Currently three research and conservation projects are being conducted in
prisons in Washington State: Propagation of native plants for prairie restoration,
captive breeding of endangered butterflies, and captive rearing of endangered
frogs. Learning skills in native plant ecology and large-scale seed production,
inmates working on the prairie restoration project propagate hundreds of
thousands of native plants each year. Those plants are transplanted to the largest
remaining patches of South Puget Lowland prairie ecosystems located on Joint
2
Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) and neighboring lands. Endangered Taylor’s
Checkerspot butterflies are dependent on these prairie ecosystems. Inmates learn
the delicate rearing and breeding techniques and specific genetic protocols
necessary for this endangered invertebrate species before their release on South
Puget Lowland prairie lands. Finally, in hopes of augmenting Oregon spotted frog
populations in the Puget Sound region, inmates rear these amphibians through
their various life stages: from egg masses to tadpoles to adult frogs. In addition to
learning protocols of frog rearing (and cricket rearing as a sustainable food
source), inmates keep extensive data and assist with ongoing scientific studies
(Sustainable Prisons Project What We Do (2012). Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/what-we-do/).
The SPP’s green-collar job training and science and sustainability lecture
series are designed to reach a larger number and broader spectrum of the inmate
population. Green-collar trainings have included presentations on arboriculture,
energy efficiency, urban horticulture and other areas in an effort to give inmates
skills they can use as contributing members of society. Lectures cover many
topics from climate change to habitat restoration to ecology in an effort to spark
an interest in participating inmates that may lead them to seek further science
education, become involved in an on-site conservation project, or join an
organization with common environmental values upon release. To assess the
effectiveness of these science and educational programs, knowledge, behavior and
attitudes of participating inmates are evaluated. The SPP hopes that information
gathered will direct their on-going effort to bring nature into prisons.
3
Scope of Study
The green collar trainings and lectures offered by the SPP are presented in two
styles: 1) hands-on workshops in which inmates move around, discuss presented
material with one another as well as the instructor(s) and sometimes engage in a
physical activity; and 2) traditional lecture format with a presenter, a PowerPoint
presentation, and an opportunity for questions and brief discussion at the end. In
this study I wished to determine whether the lecture- or workshop-style classes
would prove more beneficial in effectively teaching environmental topics to
inmates. To obtain data I co-presented lectures and workshops with Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Senior Research Scientist Marc Hayes
at two minimum-security prisons in Washington State. Presented material focused
on the endangered Oregon spotted frog (OSF), the multiple causes of its
population decline, the involved political processes and the steps being taken to
augment the OSF population in the Puget Sound region.
Methods
I utilized mixed methodologies to measure the knowledge base of participating
inmates in the workshops and lectures. Pre- and post-engagement surveys were
designed using a five-point Likert scale and given to attending inmates to generate
quantitative data. Surveys also contained open-ended questions that were
evaluated through coding of specific words found in the answers. Evaluation of
the surveys allowed me to analyze whether inmates gained improved knowledge
4
and attitudes towards the topic after receiving instruction via lecture presentation
or workshop presentation.
To establish the framework for my study I conducted a literature review
on both adult environmental education and prison education. Though ample
opportunities exist to receive education in prison, few opportunities in the prison
system address environmental education. I chose to focus on both prison
education and environmental education in an effort to realize the similarities and
differences present and explore the possible benefits of environmental education
opportunities for inmates.
Research Questions
This study was approached using the following research questions: 1) are lectures
or workshops more effective in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes
regarding environmental topics? and 2) is there a difference in teaching and
learning needs between male and female inmates?
Research project Goals
Currently, science and sustainability educational opportunities are offered in two
prisons in Washington State once a month and they are taught by a different
presenter each time. The lectures are generally not organized around a theme and
each presentation stands on its own. Determination of whether lecture-style or
workshop-style classes are more productive for the inmates could enhance how
5
the SPP conducts the educational aspects of their programming in the prison
system.
Chapter 1, Section 2
Literature Review
Prison Education
Education in prison systems is often determined a success or a failure based upon
current recidivism rates. Webster’s Dictionary (2010) defines recidivism as: “a
tendency to slip back into a previous criminal behavior pattern;” and the
Washington State Department of Corrections (WSDOC) defines the term as: “a
return to a DOC facility within five years as a result of a new conviction or parole
violation by an offender, who either had been paroled or been discharged from
such a facility” (Evans, 2010, p. 3). Without a commonly used definition,
comparison of recidivism rates among different organizations and states has
proven difficult (Evans, 2010, p. 6). To address this concern, WSDOC has
recently adopted the Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s (WSIPP)
definition of recidivism: “…any felony offense committed by an offender within
36-months of being at-risk in the community that results in a Washington State
conviction” (Evans, 2010, p. 4). Using the WSIPP definition will allow WSDOC
the opportunity to compare recidivism data with other organizations and states,
and will also allow the WSDOC to improve its evaluation of programs for
offenders (Evans, 2010, p. 8).
6
Correctional institutions at both state and federal levels would seemingly
benefit from a common definition of recidivism as this could influence decisions
regarding the effectiveness of educational programs. Recidivism rates are closely
tracked and seem to correspond directly with educational opportunities offered in
prisons and received by incarcerated individuals. In 2003, recidivism rates for
Washington offenders peaked at 34.8 percent, and by 2006 declined to 31.1
percent for released offenders. Re-offense behavior, risk level, law changes and
the measure of recidivism selected (i.e., programs, sentencing, amount of
supervision after release, etc.) all impact recidivism rates (Evans, 2010).
The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world
and also in its history, with a 350 percent increase in incarcerated people since
1980 (Schmitt, Warner & Gupta, 2010, p. 3). According to the U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, in 2010, 2,266,832 individuals were held in the various stages of
the correctional system (2012; International Centre for Prison Studies Retrieved
May 28, 2012, from
www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190). In
addition, the dollar investment in prisons has increased dramatically in the past
twenty years. In 2008, federal, state, and local governments spent $75 billion on
corrections, with most of that amount going towards incarceration (Schmitt et al.
2010, p. 10). In contrast, seven years earlier in 2001 the annual amount of public
money spent on corrections was only $35 billion dollars, almost 50% less (Cnaan
et al. 2008, p. 180). Throughout this time period, relatively little of that total
amount, roughly 6 percent, was used on programs such as vocational training,
7
life-skills training, educational programs, social activities, psychological
treatments, and recreation (Cnaan et al. 2008). These are programs designed to
prepare inmates for life outside of prison and research shows that society benefits
from preparing inmates for reintroduction to society.
Recent studies have consistently shown a link between education and
lowered rates of recidivism (Criminal Justice Center, 1994; Gerber et al. 1995;
Nuttall et al. 2003; Steurer et al. 2001, as cited in Cnaan et al. 2008). Conclusions
in a study based upon the impact of correctional education on inmates' post
release behavior in three states (Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio), determined that
inmates who participated in correctional education while incarcerated showed
lower levels of recidivism after three years. Based on these results the authors
concluded that education provides a real payoff to the public in terms of crime
reduction and improved employment for ex-offenders (Steurer & Smith, 2001).
Effective education programs assist prisoners with their social skills and
artistic development; offer techniques and strategies to help offenders deal with
their emotions; and emphasize academic, vocational and social education (Vacca
2004). In his study Vacca (2004) cites Newman, Lewis and Beaverstock (1993)
who believe the 'right kind’ of education works to both lower recidivism and
reduce levels of violence amongst offenders (p. 298). “Moreover, appropriate
education leads to a more humane and more tolerable prison environment in
which to live and work, not only for the inmates but also for the officers, staff and
everyone else” (Newman et al. 1993, p. 298). Educational opportunities can give
inmates a focus and a purpose outside of simply serving their time.
8
Education in prison is important, both in preparing inmates for life after
release and in providing a meaningful activity and focus during incarceration. In
addition, prison education may change the inmates’ general attitudes towards life
and lead to improved self-esteem, confidence and self-awareness (Diseth,
Eikeland, Mager & Hetland, 2008). Education may also assist in obtaining gainful
employment upon release and in resisting the urge to commit further offences
(Tootoonchi, 1993, as cited in Duguid et al. 2000). Duguid, Hawkey and Pawson
(2000) suggest that a prisoner assumes the mantle of their particular offense and
identifies with their individual label such as “thief” or “addict” or “sexual
offender.” The automatic placement of offenders into specific courses that cater to
their particular offense further pushes that identity upon them. The identity of
“student,” however, avoids placing a negative identity upon incarcerated
individuals (Duguid et al. 2000, p. 61). Prison education, in parallel with the
values of adult education, encourages negotiation and choice, and he states that
prison education also tries to build self-confidence, self-worth and develop critical
thinking (Duguid et al. 2000, p. 61). These multiple benefits may coalesce to
“liberate” incarcerated individuals (Bayliss, 2003, p. 161).
What characteristics of education make correctional education successful?
Education in prisons is primarily focused on programs teaching literacy, adult
basic education, GED (General Education Development) courses, vocational
training, and post-secondary education. The vast majority of inmates enter prison
without basic literary skills or job training (Hall & Kilacky, 2008, p. 301). Hall
and Kilacky (2008) define success from an incarcerated students’ perspective as a
9
concept that has meaning and achievement, and goes beyond the acquisition of a
job that pays the bills (p. 305). He goes on to say that the perception of success
influences student study habits, motivation to attend and persist in the classroom,
as well as future educational and employment plans. These findings vary from
previous literature defining success for inmates as gaining employment and
remaining out of the prison system upon release (Hall & Kilacky, 2008). The
participants in the Hall and Kilacky (2008) study indicated that success was more
intrinsic than simply being able to locate employment (p. 307). To these
incarcerated students, success meant “making it” and doing something they enjoy
rather than simply paying the bills (p. 308). The inmates in the Hall and Kilacky
(2008) study were motivated by their definition of success to seek out and
complete educational and vocational training opportunities that may lead to
success in society, regardless of employment.
Another theme explored by Hall and Kilacky (2008) is regret. Many
participants in his study expressed regret for not succeeding in school and for not
staying in school. They also expressed regret in not taking advantage of various
opportunities presented throughout their education as well as those teachers who
sought to positively influence them or make a difference in their lives. Hall and
Kilacky (2008) cite the finding of Parkinson and Steurer (2004) that most
prisoners have encountered some sort of academic difficulty in the past (p. 311).
Negative educational experiences can influence an individual’s choice in seeking
educational opportunities in the future, with many avoiding such opportunities.
10
A study by Mageehon (2006) on incarcerated women showed that the
prior educational experiences of the prisoners influenced the type of learner
(engaged, quiet, one-on-one, group work, etc.) they became in the correctional
education classroom (Hall & Kilacky, 2008). Mageehon (2006) interviewed nine
women, completing detention sentences in a halfway house, to gain insight into
their perceptions of education. A recurring theme with the women was the
discussion of characteristics that make a good teacher someone they enjoy
working with and learning from. Specific traits the women identified that made an
educator effective included: taking time to explain concepts rather than just
assigning work, showing compassion and care, and refraining from using labels
that were assigned to the students in the past such as “illiterate” or “slow learner”
(Mageehon, 2006, p. 148, 149). General agreement existed regarding the longterm effects of a bad teacher, one who chastised or embarrassed the students on a
personal level or in a group with their classmates. Overall, such instances created
disengagement from the class and even a trepidation or lack of enthusiasm to
pursue the associated subject matter further (Mageehon, 2006, p. 150).
Incarcerated students appreciated teachers who explained concepts rather
than assigned work and several found value in hands-on experimentation
(Mageehon, 2006). They also stated that a teacher needs compassion and
understanding and should not simply teach to a pre-determined academic standard
of achievement (ibid.). A “good teacher,” according to incarcerated students, is
able to anticipate student need and minimize discomfort and embarrassment
experienced because of labels previously placed upon them and their learning
11
abilities. The long-term effects of a “bad teacher” resonated with the women and
overall experience with adult educators within the correctional system was mixed
but most students appreciated working with teachers individually. Overall
characteristics of a “good teacher” are those of a nurturer, mentor, friend, and
tough-love provider (Mageehon, 2006, p. 153).
Mageehon’s (2006) study has implications for teachers at the K-12 level
outside of prison as well as adult educators behind prison walls. The women’s
descriptions of what makes a good and effective teacher along with what makes
one ineffective, combined with their positive and negative educational
experiences as children and adolescents, define education as a whole for them. In
prison education, the teacher must carry much of the burden to educate
effectively, but the teacher cannot do it alone, and the students must be actively
engaged and committed to the program or educational opportunity (Mageehon,
2006). Receiving the desired level of commitment from incarcerated students
hinges upon the teachers’ ability to communicate and engage the students in an
active environment. It is also important that the incarcerated students perceive the
aforementioned necessary characteristics that make a teacher “good’ and that
allow the student to feel comfortable with them in a learning environment (ibid.).
In correctional education the environment created in the classroom can
have a direct effect on the success of the class. Incarcerated students highly value
a classroom where they can both voice and debate their opinions (Rose & Voss,
2003). In their classrooms at correctional facilities, Rose and Voss (2003) sought
to create a respectful environment between teachers and students as well as
12
among the students, encouraging them to push aside socio-economic and racial
barriers while in the classroom. They cite Richard Arbenz (1994), a former
student of the Soledad Prison College Program in California who states, “the
coercive and authoritative milieu of the prison emphasizes submissiveness over
thinking, and creates an environment antithetical to learning” (p. 30). Arbenz
(1994) would like to see a reformation take place in prisons to recognize the
human dignity and self worth of individuals and to encourage the full
development of human personality (p. 31). In their classes, Rose and Voss (2003)
also began addressing students by their last name as she expected them to address
her. As a result, her students began calling one another by Mr. So and So rather
than by prison nicknames further creating a sort of utopia in the classroom,
intentionally rising above the subversive environment found in the rest of the
prison (p. 144). Rose and Voss (2003) believe that an educator in the correctional
system must be demanding yet caring, motivational, and empowering, and an
expert in their field who truly enjoys teaching and working with incarcerated
students. The teacher must also be able to recognize and nurture potential talent in
the students, and must never give up on the students (Rose & Voss, 2003, p. 147).
This belief in nurture, empowerment and tough love closely mirrors the results
found in Mageehon’s (2006) study.
Educators in correctional facilities must recognize the barriers they are
against and find innovative ways to move past them for the sake of the students’
personal and educational experience. Many challenges present themselves to
students, educators and facilities as they seek to give and receive educational
13
opportunities. Many problems interfere with the incarcerated students education
while in prison, such as inadequate access to computer equipment, complicated
security routines, repeated transfers between prisons, disturbances in prison and
lack of access to literature (Vacca, 2004, p. 300). Diseth et al. (2008) suggest that
overcrowded prison populations, ineffective prison conditions, and inadequate
funding for teaching personnel, supplies, and materials may hamper education in
prison (p. 209). The improvement of such problems may be an important
contribution to increasing educational quality (Diseth et al. 2008).
A concern presented by Bayliss (2003) is that the particular purpose
ascribed to prison education is to diminish recidivism (p. 168). Not only are there
too many social and economic influences associated with re-offending to isolate
one factor but placing this burden on prison education may instigate its
withdrawal if recidivism is not reduced (Bayliss, 2003, p. 168). Education in
prisons, while difficult on many levels, is key not only to recidivism but also to
individual self-esteem, another key component of success in society.
Environmental Education
Defining environmental education (EE) is an ongoing discussion resulting in a
number of definitions that are relatively similar. In the article “The Concept of
Environmental Education,” Stapp et al. (1969) established a base definition:
“environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable
concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of
how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work towards their solution”
14
(Stapp et al.1969, p. 34). A more modern but equally effective definition of EE is
“the study of nature, earth systems, sustainability, and individual roles in making
decisions and critical thinking related to environmental literacy and actions”
(Heimlich & Horr, 2010, p. 58).
The Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education in
1977 established these objectives for EE: 1) awareness: acquire awareness and
sensitivity to the environment and its problems; 2) sensitivity: encourage
experiences in, and an understanding of, the environment and its associated
problems; 3) attitudes: encourage values and concerns for the environment and
motivation for participating in environmental protection; 4) skills: help acquire
skills for identifying and solving environmental problems; and 5) participation:
provide opportunities for active involvement in working towards resolution of
environmental problems (Hungerford & Volk, 1990, p. 258).
These objectives go beyond learning, and into changes in attitude and
necessary action steps, which are often challenges for educators. Hungerford and
Volk (1990) observed that the challenge for educators is to translate the Tbilisi
objectives into instructional reality (p. 258). Many educators believe that
behavior can be modified through learning. To that end, Hungerford and Volk
(1990) argue that in educating for responsible environmental behavior, instruction
must go beyond “awareness” and “knowledge” of issues, and into “ownership”
and “empowerment” prompting individuals to become responsible, active citizens
(p. 267). Education is always valuable for teaching knowledge and awareness, but
in the case of EE, educators need to learn to teach in a manner that is different
15
from the “norm” (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). More of a need exists to connect
with individuals so they feel the issues resonate within them and not only outside
of their selves or their circumstances.
In “Philosophies of Adult Education,” Walter (2009) points out that most
EE opportunities take place either with children in the K-12 schooling system or
with university students in environmental studies programs in higher education (p.
4). A wealth of research exists regarding EE for children and adolescents. It has
long been the understanding that EE is of utmost importance for the younger
generation, to teach them values, skills, and an ongoing interest in environmental
issues. Though great value exists in targeting the younger audience, adult learners
should not be ignored. For this literature review, the focus will be on EE for
adults.
Clover (2003) explores the basis of Environmental Adult Education
(EAE), through awareness-raising and individual behavior change. She concludes
that in order to effectively progress in EAE people must imagine and develop
alternatives through consciousness-raising and collective political work rather
than through awareness-raising and behavior change (Clover, 2003, p. 5). In this
respect, Clover (2003) agrees with Hungerford and Volk’s (1990) conclusion that
adults need ownership and empowerment as drivers for environmental action.
Along those same lines of thought, Heimlich and Horr (2010) believe that if we
are to enhance adult learning opportunities in environmental settings,
understanding the contextual differences of learning throughout our lifespans and
within different settings is important (p. 58). Adult learning opportunities vary
16
greatly from museum and arboretum-type environments to more hands-on
opportunities such as shoreline clean-ups and restoration projects. Many
researchers are interested in what drives the adult to seek these learning
opportunities.
It is generally thought in education that the teacher and teaching
opportunities drive the learning; however, Heimlich and Horr (2010) argue that in
EE, the need of the individual drives what information is taken in, filtered, framed
and applied as meaningful (p. 58). Acknowledging student backgrounds and prior
knowledge in a subject is important because many times people are driven to a
location or a learning opportunity due to personal interest or because of
knowledge previously attained. Often adult learners attend learning opportunities
for others, such as children, rather than for their own edification. Also, the social
role with which one enters an environmental learning setting should be
considered. In these instances, the authors propose that adult learners previously
attained ideas and knowledge on the subject matter will frame any new
knowledge taken in (Heimlich and Horr, 2010).
Heimlich and Horr (2010) believe that learners have their own motivations
and that those goals are rarely the same as the goals of the institution (p. 59). To
address this issue, instructors should be aware of the diversity within a group of
adult learners and recognize that each comes with their own history and level of
interest (p. 59). Walter (2009) stresses the need for adult educators to critically
question their own philosophies of education, to try on new roles as instructors, to
test assumptions about adult learners and to experiment with new educational
17
practices (p. 22). These steps should be taken in an effort to better reach the
learning audience who come to the experience with varying objectives.
Haugen (2006), in her article “Environmental Adult Educator Training:
Suggestions for Effective Practice”, also stresses a focus on the need to train EAE
teachers and different techniques to do so. She believes that EAE is a viable
solution to the world's mounting environmental problems. In a time when
globalization threatens sustainable development worldwide, it is crucial to
communicate clear ideas about EAE and how it contributes to fighting
environmental degradation (Haugen, 2006, p. 91). It is important to bring EAE
research into the practical realm, and Haugen (2006) recommends the “Seven
Steps of Training Design” created by Vella (2001, 2002) (p. 95).
The “Seven Steps of Training Design” are: who, why, when, where, what,
what for and how.
“The who refers to the participants, facilitators and other
stakeholders; the why is the situation that calls for training; the
when is the time frame; where refers to the site of the training; the
what is the content or the knowledge, skills and attitudes
facilitators want learners to come away with; the what for is the
achievement-based objectives; and the how is the actual materials
and learning tasks facilitators plan to use” (Vella, 2001 as cited in
Haugen 2006, p. 96).
Haugen (2006) sees this method as a valid benchmark to guide trainers of
environmental adult educators, and appropriate in its incorporation of adult
18
learning principles and dialogical education (p. 97). Many techniques are used in
teaching EAE; however, Haugen (2006) has identified a need for more research
into EAE training of EAE instructors.
What are effective teaching methods in EAE? In a study conducted by
Lord (1999), traditional and constructivist teaching methods in environmental
science were compared. The control group was a traditional lecture-style
classroom and the experiment group was taught utilizing a constructivist method
in which the students were very involved with each other and the teacher. Lord
(1999) selected a constructivist model based on the Science Curriculum
Improvement Study (SCIS) mainly because it encourages peer interaction in
resolving instructor-generated problems as students develop their understanding
of science (Lord, 1999). The model’s constructivist design is centered on five
instructional phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate.
According to the chief architect of the plan, Rodger Bybee (1993), the Engage
phase is used to motivate, the Explore phase encourages small group discussion,
the Explain phase allows description amongst students of discoveries made, the
Elaborate phase permits the expansion on the topic and the Evaluate phase
provides the students a means of assessing what they have learned (Lord, 1999).
The results of Lord’s (1999) study showed that students in the control
group often missed questions based on interpretation, analyzing, and critical
thinking that the constructivist-taught students did not miss. From this the author
surmises that students taught with the constructivism method understood the
course material in a much deeper and more comprehensive way (Lord, 1999).
19
Further evaluations showed that the students who received the constructivist
method class found it more enjoyable and informative than the control group
(Lord, 1999). This result is important for educators in non-major college courses
or in informal EAE settings where the adult learner receives education that is not
their specialty. It is imperative in such situations that the educator provides an
enriching, stimulating and worthwhile learning experience for the student (Lord,
1999).
The type of learning where the student has chosen an area of interest or a
location in which to experience new EAE opportunities is called free-choice
learning. Free-choice learning is the learning people do when they get to control
what to learn, when to learn, where to learn and with whom they learn (Taylor &
Neil, 2008, p. 28). Various settings for free-choice learning exist including
museums, aquariums, zoos, botanic gardens, science and visitor centers, and
nature tours (Zeppel, 2008, p. 5). Three learning outcomes from free-choice EAE
have been identified: incidental outcomes (newfound appreciation skills, and selfconfidence), broader outcomes (adoption of environmental values), and
affirmative outcomes (identity building; Storksdieck, Ellenbogen & Heimlich,
2005 as cited in Zeppel 2008, p. 28).
Zeppel (2008) analyzed whether free-choice visitor learning during
mediated wild marine animal encounters contributed to changed attitude and
behavior and whether visitors had long-term intentions to engage in conservation
actions. She found that interpretive programs highlighting species biology and
human impacts influenced visitors’ attitudes, beliefs and conservation outcomes;
20
whereas guided interactions on tours motivated respect for wildlife and fostered
environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviors, and also benefited marine
conservation (Zeppel, 2008, p. 11). A challenge such programs face is delivering
effective conservation messages while responsibly managing the desire of visitors
for close, physical interactions with marine wildlife (Zeppel, 2008, p. 13).
Environmental Education in free-choice, non-formal settings provides
unique challenges for educators: visitors can come and go as they please, a high
degree of heterogeneity generally exists amongst participants, there is constant
potential for distractions, and educational personnel may have little systematic
teacher educational training (Taylor & Neil, 2008, p. 25). Though a challenge for
educators, a non-formal environment can feel free and relaxing for visitors. The
learning experience is in the visitors’ control, allowing them freedom of
movement and potentially increasing satisfaction with the experience (Taylor &
Neil, 2008, p. 28).
In most cases, educators have only one opportunity to provide a basic
understanding of environmental problems and to attempt to positively change
attitudes and possibly behaviors (Bush-Gibson & Rinfret, 2010, p. 81). In this
single opportunity they must also provide evidence of how behavior changes are
beneficial and provide lists of opportunities available for the learner to participate
in going forward (Bush-Gibson & Rinfret, 2010, p. 82). Cognitive psychologists
point out that lasting knowledge occurs when a learner attempts to make sense of
new information by applying it to their already perceived notions about the topic
(a Constructivist approach to learning). True understanding takes place once the
21
new information is properly assimilated in the learner’s established knowledge
(Lord, 1999). Educators must influence change in the everyday lives of learners,
thus enabling new information to take root and grow towards long-term attitude
and behavior change (ibid.).
Education is the key to our ability to reach environmental sustainability as
a society (Haugen, 2006, p. 93). Environmental Adult Education has strong roots
in community development, popular education, and social justice and has the
potential to foster environmental awareness and action among adults, social
institutions, and social movements (Walter, 2009, p. 21). Though environmental
transformations are not always clear-cut or achievable, educators on both the
formal and non-formal level are engaged in environmental opportunities that are
both beneficial to environmental education as a whole and EAE specifically
(Bush-Gibson & Rinfret, 2010, p. 85). Though obtaining the TICEE objectives to
go beyond learning, and into changes in attitude and necessary action steps is an
ongoing challenge in EE, it is being met by educators and interested citizens alike.
Meeting these objectives and continuing to reach many audiences with effective
EE is a key component to environmental global sustainability.
Environmental Education in Prisons
Educational opportunities in prisons cover a broad spectrum of learning, training
and rehabilitation. Environmental education (EE) opportunities in prisons are
growing in popularity but are not yet as prevalent as other educational focuses.
Currently, EE is being introduced into prisons in the form of animal training and
22
rehabilitation, organic gardening, science lectures, sustainable operations such as
composting and recycling, green job training and conservation programs. Prisons
house individuals who may not have training in animal rehabilitation, gardening
or science but who do have time and a need for intellectual stimulation that can be
filled by supervised research (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008, p. 816). If the goal of
correctional institutions is to transform individuals, then the whole person along
with needs, emotions and attitudes must be considered (Deaton, 2005, p. 47). One
way to do this is through the use of animals in correctional facilities.
Currently a number of different animal programs exist in prisons. Inmates
train service dogs for the disabled, train dogs and cats for adoption by the public,
rehabilitate retired racehorses and tame wild mustangs (programs are currently
underway in AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, NC, NM, NY, OK, OR,
VA, WA, WI, and WY). These programs provide vocational skills for the inmates
and a valuable service to the community. On another level, they are also highly
therapeutic programs as they offer meaningful experiences for the inmate through
which many life lessons are learned (Deaton, 2005, p. 47). Deaton (2005) cites a
study conducted in Lima, Ohio in 1981 that compared patients on a ward with
pets, and patients on a ward without pets. On the ward with pets, patients needed
less medication, had drastically reduced violent incidents and no suicide attempts;
in contrast, the ward without pets had eight suicide attempts (Deaton, 2005, p.
50).
With the introduction of wild mustangs to a correctional facility in New
Mexico in 1995, the state saw a reduced recidivism rate amongst those individuals
23
who worked with the horses prior to their release (Deaton, 2005, p. 52). Animals
in prisons can facilitate transformative changes within the individuals that work
with them which cannot easily be matched using other methods. Inmates not only
learn new skills but are engaged physically, mentally, and most of all emotionally
with the animals (Deaton, 2005, p. 59).
Ulrich and Nadkarni (2008) report on a three-part study of environmental
programs that took place at Cedar Creek Correctional Center (CCCC) for men in
Washington State under the direction of the SPP. The three projects, growing
moss in prisons, implementing and maintaining a composting and vermiculture
system and a monthly science lecture series resulted from a partnership among
ecologists, sustainability practitioners, correction administrators and inmates
(Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008, p. 816). All three projects received positive responses
from inmates and prison staff. Inmates were engaged and patient in the tedious
and repetitive task of watering and growing various mosses, which was attributed
to their being active and valued participants in solving an environmental issue
(Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008, p. 830). Upon learning composting and gardening
techniques, many inmates expressed the desire to continue the practice outside of
prison, and one participant went on to enroll in a horticulture program upon
release (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008). In the science lectures, inmates and WSDOC
staff actively participated as learners together and were treated as equally
interested and engaged students by the presenters (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008, p.
827).
Early research on SPP programming showed reductions in waste and cost
24
savings, while teaching new skills to inmates were not only possible but were
very successful in correctional facilities (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008). Currently,
every prison in Washington State participates to some degree in SPP
programming, which brings maintenance costs down while benefitting the
environment and individual inmates involved with the sustainability projects. In
this way, “state institutions can be role models for how to enact a sustainable
lifestyle that will limit their impact on the environment” (Ulrich & Nadkarni,
2008, p. 831), and the results of this research can be implemented in various
enforced residential programs.
Though few research papers exist on EAE in prison systems, there are
many news reports and editorials featuring such projects, which express an
interest on behalf of the public. Dr. Nadkarni’s introductory project at CCCC was
integral in starting the SPP that is leading the field of sustainability, conservation
and science education programming within prisons in Washington State. The SPP
was recently awarded a National Science Foundation grant funding their proposal
to host a conference focused upon creating a national SPP network. This will
allow for collaboration, sharing of ideas and further evaluation of the impacts
EAE and science projects within prisons and their influence on incarcerated
individuals and their communities.
Chapter 1, Section 3
Context and Significance
Because of a deficit in research on EAE in prisons, this project is especially
25
significant as it will contribute to our understanding of this topic. It could also
influence how the SPP presents educational opportunities in prisons for
incarcerated men and women in Washington State. Refined teaching methods
may help the SPP reduce recidivism rates through informing inmates of various
environmental, educational and green collar job opportunities. The inmates in the
selected minimum-security prisons will be released within five years, making
them an important audience to reach for possible career opportunities. The lecture
and workshop series will also contribute to a connection between the scientific
community, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, students at The
Evergreen State College, and Washington State Department of Corrections. This
thesis project will contribute to the literature regarding EAE in the prison
education system. It will also contribute to the discussion of whether workshopor lecture-style teaching methods are more effective with the inmate population
than another.
In Chapter 2, I will discuss my research and results supporting whether
lecture-style or workshop-style presentations are more effective when teaching an
inmate population. This chapter is written to fit the requirements of the Journal of
Correctional Education, a publication that serves as a resource for: 1) academic
research in correctional institutions; 2) current issues and legislative updates in
correctional education; and 3) best practices for correctional educators (Ashland
University Journal of Correctional Education (2012). Retrieved June 25, 2012
from www.ashland.edu/professionals/locations/gill-center-business-economiceducation/journal-correctional-education). When working in a correctional
26
facility, a significant amount of preparation and coordination takes place between
presenters and WSDOC staff. The methods section in Chapter 2 outlines many of
the necessary steps taken to conduct this study, however, an extended methods
description can be found in Appendix A.
Chapter 2
A manuscript formatted for the Journal of Correctional Education
Abstract
This study was designed to determine whether lecture-style or workshop-style
classes might prove more beneficial in effectively teaching environmental topics
to inmates. Lectures and workshops were presented to 53 male and female
inmates at two minimum-security prisons in Washington State. To measure the
knowledge base of participating inmates in the workshops and lectures, pre- and
post-engagement surveys were designed using a five-point Likert scale to produce
quantitative data, and open-ended questions were included to produce qualitative
data. The findings indicate that there was a significant improvement in inmate
attitudes regarding the presented environmental issues after receiving an
educational opportunity, and more specifically that lecture-style presentations
might be more effective in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes regarding
environmental topics than workshop-style presentations. We found no significant
differences in knowledge and attitudes between participants prior to the
educational opportunity or between participating male and female inmates which
provides evidence for environmental learning regardless of prior conditions or
gender. These findings provide important insights for the Sustainability in Prisons
Project (SPP) as they seek to hone their environmental education (EE)
opportunities within prisons. The SPP and proven public interest through media
attention, is providing evidence that a need exists for EE opportunities within
correctional facilities. The findings in this study offer a contribution to the
discussion surrounding EE in the prison education system, as well as whether
lecture-style teaching methods are more effective with inmate populations than
workshop-style methods.
Introduction
Education in prisons is primarily focused on programs teaching literacy, adult
basic education, GED courses, vocational training, and post-secondary education
27
(Cnaan et al. 2008). Many inmates enter prison without basic literary skills or job
training, so there is certainly a need for education to focus in those areas;
however, there is also a need for Environmental Education (EE) in prisons. Work
with nature and living organisms in EE programs may create a therapeutic
environment and can engage inmates on a physical, mental, and emotional level
that is often lacking in correctional facilities. In addition, EE programs may
directly benefit sustainable practices within correctional facilities by reducing
costs through composting, recycling, and gardening programs (Julie Vanneste,
Washington State Department of Corrections, personal communication) while
engaging inmates in jobs and skills that will benefit them post-release. In this
way, there is great potential for EE programs to benefit inmates and broader
society alike.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and also
in its history, with a 350 percent increase in incarcerated people since 1980
(Schmitt, Warner & Gupta, 2010). According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice in
2010, 2,266,832 individuals were held in various stages of the correctional system
(International Centre for Prison Studies World Prisons Brief, 2012). In addition,
the dollar investment in prisons has increased dramatically in the past twenty
years. In 1996, $22 billion dollars were spent on state and federal corrections
(Cnaan et al., 2008) compared to 2008 when $75 billion were spent on state and
federal corrections (Schmitt et al. 2010). Throughout this time period, relatively
little of that total amount, roughly 6%, was used on programs such as vocational
training, life-skills training, educational programs, social activities, psychological
28
treatments, and recreation (Cnaan et al. 2008). These are programs designed to
prepare inmates for life outside of prison and research shows that society benefits
from preparing inmates for reintroduction to society.
Recidivism rates are closely tracked and often seem to correspond directly
with educational opportunities offered in prisons and received by incarcerated
individuals (Evans, 2010). Approximately 1,600 inmates are released from prison
daily and recidivism rates suggest that successful re-entry into society is difficult
at best (Cnaan et al. 2008). Effective education programs help offenders with their
social skills and artistic development, offer techniques and strategies to help
inmates deal with their emotions, and emphasize academic, vocational and social
education (Vacca, 2004). This 'right kind’ of education both lowers recidivism
and reduces the level of violence in prison (Newman, Lewis and Beaverstock
1993). Moreover, appropriate education can lead to a more humane and tolerable
prison environment in which to live and work, not only for the inmates but also
for the officers, staff and visitors (Newman et al. 1993).
Education in prison is important both in preparing inmates for life after
release and in providing a meaningful activity and focus during incarceration. In
addition, prison education may change the attitudes of inmates towards life and
lead to improved self-esteem, confidence, and self-awareness. Prison education,
in parallel with the values of adult education, encourages negotiation and choice
and tries to build self-confidence, self-worth, and develop critical thinking
(Duguid, Hawkey and Pawson, 2000). Many challenges present themselves to
students, educators, and facilities as they seek to give and receive educational
29
opportunities in prison. Educators in correctional facilities must recognize
potential barriers and find innovative ways to move past them for the sake of the
students’ personal and educational experience. Overcrowded prison populations,
conditions, and inadequate funding for teaching personnel, supplies, and materials
may hamper education in prison and the improvement of such problems may be
an important contribution to increasing education quality (Diseth. Eikeland,
Mager, and Hetland, 2008, p. 209; Diseth et al. 2008). Currently many faith-based
programs, art programs and vocational training programs are provided by nonprofit groups, however one area of education and training that has received little
attention is environmental education.
Environmental education (EE) is defined as “the study of nature, earth
systems, sustainability, and individual roles in making decisions and critical
thinking related to environmental literacy and actions” (Heimlich & Horr, 2010).
The objectives of EE go beyond learning content, and into changes in attitude,
life-style and behavior. Though EE opportunities in prisons are growing in
popularity they are not yet as prevalent as other educational foci. Some common
types of EE in prisons are in the form of animal training and rehabilitation,
organic gardening, science lectures, sustainable operations such as composting
and recycling, green job training, and conservation programs. Prisons house
individuals who may not have training in animal rehabilitation, gardening, or
science but who do have time and a need for intellectual stimulation that can be
filled by supervised research (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008).
30
Ulrich and Nadkarni (2008) report on a three-part study of environmental
programs that took place at Cedar Creek Correctional Center (CCCC) for men in
Washington State. The three projects, growing moss in prisons, implementing and
maintaining a composting and vermiculture system, and a monthly science lecture
series resulted from partnerships among ecologists, sustainability practitioners,
correctional administrators, and inmates (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008). All three
projects received positive responses from inmates, prison staff, and the media.
Inmates were engaged and patient in the tedious and repetitive task of watering
and growing various mosses, which was attributed to their being active and
valued participants in solving an environmental problem (Ulrich & Nadkarni,
2008). Upon learning composting and gardening techniques, many inmates
expressed the desire to continue the practice outside of prison, one participant
went on to enroll in a horticulture program upon release (Ulrich & Nadkarni,
2008), and the lead author of the paper who was incarcerated at the time is now
pursuing a doctoral degree in the sciences.
Though few research papers exist on EE in prison systems, there are many
news reports and editorials featuring recent projects, which highlights public
interest in this work. The Sustainability in Prisons Project is leading a national
movement of sustainability and science in prisons in Washington State. The SPP
was recently awarded a National Science Foundation grant funding their proposal
to host a conference focused upon creating a national SPP network. This will
allow for collaboration, sharing of ideas, and further evaluation of the impacts EE
31
and science projects within the prisons are having upon incarcerated individuals
and communities.
As communities continue to tax natural resources, the need for
environmental sustainability increases at a time when resources are stretched and
limited. The controlled environment of a prison creates an opportune setting for
the study of sustainability as well as science programs with EE connections.
Considering the majority of inmates will be released, it is a benefit to them and to
society to give them the skills that can help procure green jobs, create
environmental awareness, and gain the knowledge to seek out and participate in
environmental activities. While inside prison walls, EE learning opportunities and
programs can give inmates the opportunity to feel connected to the outside world,
both intellectually and physically.
The general belief in EE is that a hands-on workshop-style experience is a
more effective mode of teaching and learning about various environmental topics.
Enabling an EE student with the opportunity to engage their senses and to take an
active role in their learning is rewarding to both teacher and student, and often
results in a formative experience for the learner. Hands-on and in the field
experiences may give the learner confidence to act on the knowledge gained in
the learning environment in a way that learning inside of a classroom cannot.
Based upon the idea that such experiential learning environments are more
productive in teaching EE, our hypothesis is that workshop-style presentations
will be more effective in conveying content and improving knowledge and
attitudes of participating incarcerated students regarding environmental topics.
32
Theoretical framework
The Sustainability in Prisons Project
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) is a partnership between The
Evergreen State College (TESC) and The Washington State Department of
Corrections (WSDOC). The mission of SPP is to bring science and nature into
prisons through scientific research and conservation, green-collar education and
training, lecture presentations, and sustainable operations of prisons
(www.sustainableprisons.org 2012). Inmates involved with sustainable operations
and conservation projects (such as composting, recycling, gardening, and the
rearing of endangered species) are engaged daily while green collar training and
science and sustainability lecture presentations are presented to interested
incarcerated individuals monthly throughout the year. All of the SPP programs
and educational opportunities involve inmates, college students, community
partners, and scientific professionals.
The SPP’s green-collar job training and science and sustainability lecture
series are designed to reach a larger number and broader spectrum of the inmate
population. Green-collar trainings have included presentations in arboriculture,
energy efficiency, urban horticulture, and other areas in an effort to give inmates
skills they can use as contributing members of society. Lectures cover many
topics from climate change to habitat restoration to ecology in an effort to spark
an interest in participating inmates that may lead them to seek further education,
become involved in an on-site conservation project, or join an organization with
33
common environmental values upon release. To assess the effectiveness of these
science and educational programs, knowledge, behavior, and attitudes of
participating inmates are evaluated. The SPP hopes that the information gathered
will direct their on-going effort to bring nature into prisons.
Scope of study
The green collar trainings and lectures offered by the SPP are presented in two
styles: Hands-on workshops in which inmates move around, discuss presented
material with one another as well as the instructor(s), and sometimes engage in a
physical activity; and in traditional lecture format with a presenter, a PowerPoint
presentation, and an opportunity for questions and brief discussion at the end. In
this study we wished to determine whether the lecture- style or workshop-style
classes would prove more beneficial in effectively teaching environmental topics
to inmates. To obtain data, lectures and workshops were co-presented with
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Senior Research Scientist
Marc Hayes at two minimum-security prisons in Washington State. Presented
material focused on the endangered Oregon spotted frog (OSF), the multiple
causes of its population decline, the involved political processes, and the steps
being taken to augment the OSF population in the Puget Sound region. The
research questions with which we approached this study were: 1) Is content
knowledge and attitudes of participating incarcerated students regarding
environmental topics improved via a lecture-style or workshop-style educational
opportunity, and 2) is there a difference in content knowledge and attitudes
34
between participating male and female incarcerated students that receive the
educational opportunity?
Methods
Study design
In April 2012, lectures and workshops were presented at two minimum-security
prisons in Washington State. Because of the interest created by SPP, we knew that
at each prison we would have some attendees who were involved with or exposed
to the conservation projects within those facilities, and some that were not. We
also felt that due to their imminent release, we may have inmates seeking
educational opportunities that could influence their direction and choices once
outside of the prison system.
Both prisons are work camp-style prisons and inmates have jobs they
perform either on or off grounds. If they are not working, then they are in
educational, social, or rehabilitative classes. Informative flyers were posted
throughout each prison inviting inmates to attend and to sign up for one of the
presentation times. Inmates were not aware that there would be different
presentation styles; they chose simply based upon what time slot they preferred.
Given that the presentations were in conflict with rest time, recreation time, and in
the case of MCCCW, with other classes, our attendance was relatively low, but
equally so at both prisons. At MCCCW, we had 10 attendees at the workshop
presentation and 13 at the lecture, and at CCCC, we had 16 attendees at the
workshop presentation and 14 at the lecture, for a total of 53 participants.
35
Each session lasted for 2 hours and included time to complete pre- and
post-engagement surveys. The lecture-style presentation was 90 minutes and we
utilized PowerPoint, with 15 minutes for questions at the end. The workshop-style
presentation was also 90 minutes and utilized PowerPoint to present some of the
same slides as the lecture; however, throughout the workshop, handouts were
used for groups of 4 or 5 inmates to discuss the material. Leading questions were
asked about the content of each handout to facilitate conversation among the
inmates and between inmates and presenters. During the lecture, inmates sat
together, but faced the presenter whereas during the workshop, inmates faced the
presenter at times, and at other times faced each other. In both presentation types
there was quite a bit of interaction amongst the inmates, though it felt more
focused and purposeful during the workshops.
Operating under the SPP’s Human Subjects Review with the Washington
Department of Health and Social Services, pre- and post-engagement surveys
were designed using a five-point Likert scale. Evaluation of the surveys allowed
for the analysis of whether inmates gained improved knowledge and attitudes
toward environmental topics after receiving instruction via lecture-style or
workshop-style presentations. The surveys consisted of both quantitative and
qualitative questions, some of which were repetitive from pre- to postengagement survey to determine if answers changed after receiving the
presentation. The surveys were developed utilizing a template provided by the
SPP, and tailored to suit this topic and area of interest. The surveys were
36
submitted to both MCCCW and CCCC for their approval prior to providing them
to inmates at the presentations.
Statistical Analysis
Mixed methodologies were utilized to measure the knowledge base of
participating inmates in the workshops and lectures. Quantitative data were
generated from comparison of the five-point Likert scale questions on the pre- and
post-surveys, and qualitative data were generated from open-ended questions
included on the post-survey.
In order to determine if knowledge and attitudes differed between groups,
Chi-squared tests were performed on pre- and post-engagement survey data,
followed by adjusted G-statistic tests to correct for the small sample size. Next,
percent improvement values was calculated for each question to compare the two
different presentation types and male to female inmates, followed by t-tests on the
percentage improvement results.
To assess differences in attitudes and knowledge across all questions
simultaneously pre- and post-survey, multivariate analyses were used. A BrayCurtis Distance measure was used to determine similarity among knowledge base
and attitudes for inmates receiving different educational opportunities, and at
male and female institutions. Multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP)
were used to determine if significant differences in knowledge base or attitudes
were apparent between pre- compared to post-engagement surveys, lectures
compared to workshops, and males compared to females. These statistical
37
analyses were paired with non-metric multidimensional scaling ordinations to
visualize differences between groups.
Open-ended questions were evaluated qualitatively through coding of
specific words found in answers to those questions. Coded words were chosen
based upon the content of the presentations and what we hoped participating
inmates received from the presentations. The coded words were tallied by
inmate’s attendance at either the lecture-style or workshop-style presentation, and
were compared to identify similarities between learned content according to the
style of presentation attended. Using this method we were able to see whether
communication and presentation of content remained consistent between the
lecture-style and workshop-style presentations.
Results
The most striking finding from this study is that there was a significant
improvement in inmate attitudes about the environment and knowledge of
endangered species issues after receiving an educational opportunity. Be it lecture
or workshop format, male or female students, the participants learned from and
enjoyed the educational experience they were offered. Mean improvement scores
did not differ between male and female students (t(37) = 0.200, p = 0.4213), but
showed an overall increase in content knowledge by 12% following both
presentation types on average (Figure 1).
38
Mean Improvement (%)
0.2
Figure 1: Mean percent improvement
of the scores of men and women
following both the lecture-style and
workshop-style presentations. Mean
improvement scores were determined
by comparing pre- to postengagement survey responses and
did not differ between males and
females. Values represent means +/1 standard error of the mean.
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Men
Women
Interestingly, when you examine all survey responses as an assemblage of
knowledge and attitudes using multivariate statistics, we see a significant shift in
overall responses following both presentation types (Figure 2). Using ordination
methods to create a visualization of the entire assemblage of inmate attitudes and
knowledge at an individual level, each gray triangle represents an individual’s
pre-presentation attitude and knowledge; and each black triangle represents an
individual’s post-presentation attitude and knowledge (Figure 2). The graph
shows that inmates came in with highly variable degrees of attitude and
knowledge as illustrated by the widely scattered gray triangles. After the
educational opportunity, their attitudes and knowledge converge in one area,
representing a new assemblage of attitudes regardless of presentation style.
Analyzing all data together in this way shows that pre- and post-test results are
significantly different (A =0.050, p < 0.0001), so overall, the presentations were
successful in communicating about an important environmental issue.
39
B/A
Axis 3
1
2
Figure 2: Ordination plot
showing every participating
inmate’s response prior to (p)
and after (p) receiving a lecturestyle or workshop-style
presentation. Lines connect each
inmate’s pre- to post-engagement
survey responses and show a
convergence of attitudes and
knowledge following an
educational opportunity
regardless of presentation style.
Time
Axis 1
Similarly, when examined separately, pre- and post-engagement survey responses
for lecture-type presentations (Figure 3-left panel) and workshop-type
presentations (Figure 3-right panel) show a convergence of attitudes and
knowledge following the educational experience. The assemblage of survey
responses is significantly different prior to the educational experience than
following it, for both lectures (A = 0.054, p < 0.001) and workshops (A = 0.035, p
= 0.001), but the difference is larger for lectures than workshops (when
comparing A values).
40
B/A
1
2
Axis 3
Axis 3
B/A
1
2
Axis 1
Axis 1
Figure 3. Left panel: Pre-survey results compared to post-survey results for
lecture-style presentations, Right panel: Pre-survey results compared to postsurvey results for workshop-style presentations.
Mean improvement scores were compared for male and female incarcerated
students separately. A t-test was run on the percentage improvement results and
although results show there are no significant differences between mean
improvement scores following lectures compared to workshops, there is a strong
trend that shows survey responses may improve more dramatically following a
lecture than a workshop (Figure 4).
!"#$%&&'()"$%*&
Mean Improvement (%)
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
Lecture
Workshop
Women
!"#$%&'()*"+%$+
0.2
0
Lecture
Workshop
Men
Figure 4. Lecture-style vs. workshop-style presentations are compared
using mean improvement scores for incarcerated women and men
separately. Improvement scores compare pre- to post-engagement
survey responses. Values represent means +/- 1 standard error.
41
It is also possible to compare the assemblage of survey responses prior to
engagement between lecture-style and workshop-style presentations. Importantly,
the assemblages of attitudes and knowledge do not differ between lecture and
workshop participants for pre-engagement surveys (A = -0.002, p = 0.558; Figure
5). This means that there was no bias in our random selection of participants for
each engagement type. In addition, participating inmates came into their
presentation with varying types of environmental attitudes and content
knowledge. In contrast, post-engagement survey responses did differ by
presentation type, showing that lectures and workshops might influence attitudes
and content knowledge differently overall (A = 0.027, p = 0.012; Figure 6).
Figure 5. Pre-engagement survey responses show no significant difference in
overall environmental attitudes and content knowledge prior to lectures (p)
and workshops (p).
42
Figure 6. Post-engagement survey responses show a significant difference
in overall environmental attitudes and content knowledge following
lectures (p) and workshops (p).
Another important aspect of this study was the variation in mean
improvement scores among specific questions. Mean improvement scores for
personal action type questions (1-4) such as: “How likely are you to seek
information on the environment?” showed overall lower improvement than
questions that were more focused on knowledge gained in the presentation (5-10)
such as: “How important is education in terms of conservation efforts?” The
lower improvement scores on the personal action questions may be because
inmates that choose to come to a science-based lecture already have an interest in
nature and environmental practices. There are several interesting differences in
43
mean improvement in knowledge-based questions, and some differences in
improvement when comparing lecture to workshop presentations (Figure 7; a
complete list of questions 1-10 can be found in Appendix B). In particular,
Question 9 shows a noticeable increase in improvement for lecture respondents
compared to workshop respondents. This was a question discussing climate
change, and we hypothesize that perhaps a topic such as climate change is more
effectively communicated and understood in a more formal setting such as a
lecture.
Overall
Content ?’s
Lecture
Content ?’s
Workshop
Content ?’s
Figure 7. Mean percent improvement by question overall, for lecture respondents and
for workshop respondents. Values represent means +/- 1 standard error. Questions 1-4
represent action items, and questions 5-10 represent content questions.
To verify whether content was presented equally throughout the lecturestyle and workshop-style presentations, we chose words that we hoped to see in
response to the open-ended questions included on the post-surveys. Chosen words
were: learn, environment, interest, and conservation. We tallied the number of
times we saw these words from participants in the lecture-style and workshopstyle presentations, and found the final numbers were very similar. From this we
44
deduced the communication of content remained consistent throughout the
presentations.
Workshop
Lecture
Total
Learn(ing)
14
14
28
Environment
14
12
26
Interest(ed)
7
5
12
Conservation
2
3
5
Table 1. Number of times coded words appeared in open-ended survey questions.
Communication of content remained consistent between lecture-style and workshopstyle presentations.
Discussion
Initially, we expected that the workshop-style presentations would be more
effective than lecture-style; however, results of the data analysis indicated that the
lecture-style presentations might be more effective in improving inmate
knowledge and attitudes regarding environmental topics than workshop-style
presentations. Also contrary to the initial hypothesis, no significant differences in
knowledge and attitudes between participating male and female inmates were
found. We suspect that participating inmates appreciated the structure of the
lecture over the relatively relaxed and engaging environment established in the
workshops. In the lecture-style presentation inmates received knowledge from an
expert on the topic, rather than engaging in discussion with their peers, as they
were encouraged to do in the workshop-style presentation. This is an interesting
contrast to science education with high school and college students where
engagement is typically better and learning is enhanced in hands-on environments
(Duerden & Witt, 2010). It is possible that incarcerated students respond
45
positively to authoritative figures in the sciences and are less willing to judge
fellow inmates as knowledgeable in science and sustainability fields.
Duerden and Witt (2010) studied the impact of direct (experiential
learning) and indirect (lecture-based learning) experiences on the development of
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. They point out a problem
within EE that practitioners disagree on the most effective methods to promote
pro-environmental behavior; a major part of the issue is whether to promote
affective (i.e., attitudes and values) or cognitive (i.e., knowledge) learning
(Duerden & Witt, 2010, p. 378).
In their study, Duerden and Witt (2010) examined a program offering
three stages: a preparatory program, an international field workshop, and a posttrip service project (p. 382). The preparatory program was classroom-based, the
field workshop experiential, and the post-service project designed and
implemented by the students upon their return from the field workshop. They
found that though the direct and indirect learning experiences were different,
individuals experienced similar levels of growth on both environmental
knowledge and environmental attitude, and both of these variables had
comparable connections to environmental behavior (Duerden & Witt, 2010, p.
389).
These results conflict with findings from experiments conducted by Fazio
and Zanna (1978, 1981) on the impact of direct and indirect experiences on
attitude-behavior consistency. They found that direct experiences produce
attitudes more likely to lead to behavior change, while indirect experiences are
46
not as likely to produce attitudes leading to behavior change (as cited in Duerden
& Witt, 2010, p. 381). A study conducted by Dettman-Easler and Pease (1999)
also found that students involved in a direct EE program developed significantly
more positive attitudes and retained those attitudes up to three months after the
program (p. 1). Conversely, a meta-analysis conducted by Zelezny (1999)
suggests that classroom-based (indirect) programs more effectively influenced
environmental behavior (as cited in Duerden & Witt, 2010, p. 380-381).
Clearly there are conflicting ideas amongst EE professionals as to what
makes an environmental learning opportunity or program successful. If attitude is
a direct influence upon behavior, then changing and creating positive attitudes
towards the environment and environmental activities is of utmost importance, as
those attitudes will eventually change behavior. Programs that touch on both
direct and indirect learning might offer a more robust, meaningful experience to
learners allowing them to ascertain knowledge, experience positive attitudes
towards the environment and hopefully change behaviors to the benefit of the
environment.
Because the inmates that participated in the learning opportunities
presented in this study seemed to appreciate the indirect, classroom-based
environmental lecture over the direct workshop-style presentation, one could
argue that their attitudes were positively influenced by the indirect experience
more than their potential environmental behaviors were changed. However, if
attitude directly influences behavior, then the participating inmates may
eventually alter their behavior to the benefit of the environment. Depending upon
47
the goal of each EE program (positive attitude or behavior change), the learning
opportunity might be structured to focus on the end goal, and the indirect or direct
classroom style chosen to promote those interests.
A question posed on the post-engagement survey of this study asked
participating inmates, “Does the content presented inspire interest and/or action
towards environmental stewardship?” Of 53 total responses, 45 said that yes, they
were inspired towards environmental stewardship. Eighty-five percent is a
significant percentage of individuals that received the educational opportunity and
felt moved to action afterwards. This is encouraging from many viewpoints: 1)
the SPP is clearly reaching people and peaking their interests; 2) the DOC
benefits from positive behavior when inmates are focused on an outside interest;
and, 3) society may receive the double benefit of keeping an inmate out of prison
upon release, as well as benefit from another individual interested in and
dedicated to caring for our natural environment in whatever capacity they are
able.
Variation between the presentations was controlled to the best of the
instructors’ ability; however, different environments within the prisons create
different dynamics amongst the inmates, staff, and presenters that could not be
controlled for. The instructors also controlled both lecture and workshop-style
presentations for time in an effort to present content as equally as possible. This
may have caused more convergence between the presentations than anticipated
possibly taking away from the workshop-style experience for participating
48
inmates. Future studies should explore the possibility of not controlling for time
to allow for more in-depth discussion during a workshop-style presentation.
Another important limitation to note is the inherent biases of the study.
We recognize that in participating as presenter and in conducting the data
analysis, the authors could have an unintentional bias to the analysis and therefore
the conclusions in this study. Also, though we intentionally chose CCCC and
MCCCW as the facilities in which to present and gather data, their exposure to
SPP programs might bias the study, though in which direction we are not sure.
The presentations conducted in this study focused solely on issues
surrounding the endangered Oregon spotted frog. CCCC has had lectures on OSF
in the past, which could have kept inmates from attending the presentation, or
brought in inmates who already had a wealth of knowledge on the subject. If the
SPP is able to repeat this study, it would be interesting to see results after the
presentation of different topics; particularly ones the inmates have not been
exposed to. However, finding presenters willing and able to commit their time to
presentations in prisons is always difficult. This reality poses a challenge to
conducting studies such as this one in the future.
The Sustainability in Prisons Project currently focuses primarily on
lecture-style presentations with an occasional opportunity for hands-on or outdoor
workshops. Based on the results of this research project, we recommend that the
SPP continue their educational offerings in prisons, with a focus on lecture-style
presentations. We would also encourage the SPP to conduct a similar study to this
one with a larger sample size and a greater number of participating prison
49
facilities. This study was relatively weak statistically and future studies would
benefit from a more robust sample size. For example, in Figure 4 we see a trend
that shows survey responses may improve more dramatically following a lecture
than a workshop, and with a larger sample size it is possible that we would see
statistical significance to support this trend. It would also be interesting to
examine the demographics, age, and education level of participating inmates
alongside their survey results to obtain a more specific analysis of the individual
as well as the group as a whole.
This research project could influence how the SPP presents educational
opportunities in prisons for incarcerated men and women in Washington State.
Refined teaching methods may help the SPP reduce recidivism rates through
informing inmates of various environmental, educational and green collar job
opportunities. This lecture and workshop series contributes to a connection
between incarcerated individuals, the scientific community, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, students at The Evergreen State College, and
Washington State Department of Corrections. This research might also contribute
to the literature regarding environmental education in the prison education
system, as well as to the discussion of which teaching methods work best with a
variety of adult learners.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Though few EE opportunities exist in prisons to-date, the SPP and proven public
interest through media attention, is providing evidence that a desire and a need
50
exist for such opportunities for inmates and for correctional facilities as a whole.
The SPP is able to reach demographics that are often underrepresented in the
scientific community. They are able to introduce those who have limited
educational backgrounds to scientific ideas and in some cases engage them in onsite conservation projects (raising plants, frogs, and butterflies). Ulrich and
Nadkarni (2008) comment on the astonishment of corrections center staff at the
energy, interest, and patience incarcerated participants exhibited in caring for
moss. Caring for a non-showy, slow-growing organism such as moss can prove
challenging and tedious particularly to individuals lacking formal education and
coming from diverse backgrounds that do not include nature study (Ulrich &
Nadkarni, 2008). Teaching participants, empowering them to explore ways to
solve a critical environmental problem, and enabling them with a real sense of
ownership allowed participating individuals to feel dedicated to the task, and
successful in their achievements (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008). Another important
consideration is that the cost of higher education in many states competes with
funds that must be allocated to manage inmates, and prisons house an increasing
population of stable and “teachable” men and women (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008).
This creates a valuable opportunity for outreach to prison communities that do not
receive much in the way of science and nature exposure. Most of the inmates
incarcerated in America today will have an opportunity to create a life outside of
prison. With the influence of EE opportunities, they could have increased
knowledge and experience enabling them to be environmental stewards, a benefit
for both society and the environment.
51
Chapter 3
Research Recommendations
This study was designed with two research questions in mind: 1) are lectures or
workshops more effective in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes regarding
environmental topics?, and 2) does a difference exist in teaching and learning
needs between male and female inmates? I expected that the workshop-style
presentations would be more effective than lecture-style; however, results of the
data analysis indicated that the lecture-style presentations might be more effective
in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes regarding environmental topics than
workshop-style presentations. I also found no significant difference in the
learning needs between participating male and female inmates. I suspect that
participating inmates appreciated the structure of the lecture over the relatively
relaxed and engaging environment established in the workshops. In the lecturestyle presentation they were receiving knowledge from an expert on the topic,
rather than engaging in discussion with their peers as they are encouraged to do in
a workshop-style presentation. This is an interesting contrast to science education
with high school and college students where engagement is typically better and
learning is enhanced in hands-on environments (Duerden & Witt, 2010). It is
possible that incarcerated students respond better to authoritative figures in the
sciences and are less willing to judge fellow inmates as knowledgeable in science
and sustainability fields.
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) currently uses primarily
lecture-style presentations with an occasional opportunity for hands-on or outdoor
52
workshops. Given the results of my preliminary study, I would recommend that
the SPP continue their educational offerings in prisons, with a focus on the
lecture-style presentations. Nevertheless I recognize that the limited number of
presentations, EE topics and incarcerated participants in my study would suggest
that further research needs to be undertaken. To that end, I would encourage the
SPP to conduct a similar study to this one with a larger sample size and a greater
number of participating prison facilities. It would also be interesting to examine
the demographics, age, and education level of participating inmates alongside
their survey results to obtain a more specific analysis of the individuals as well as
the group as a whole.
Another interesting approach would be to delve deeper into the qualitative
research and analysis of an EE program in prisons. Though inmates are protected
under HSR guidelines, there is qualitative data that can be gathered from
participating inmates. Conducting interviews before and after EE presentations
might reveal opportunities for improvement of EE in prisons as well as individual
desires for future EE programs. Conducting ethnographic research might allow
for a deeper understanding of the role of education and EE in particular within
prison populations. There are a number of qualitative methods that would make
an interesting and robust study of prison populations, unfortunately they were
outside the scope of my research project, but I would recommend further research
in this area to the SPP.
53
Study Limitations
A number of limitations on research exist when working within prison systems
and in conducting this study I confronted many of them. For a variety of reasons,
inmates may miss notification of opportunities presented for them or they may be
engaged in rehabilitation, classes, or jobs, depleting the number of potential
attendees at presentations. Human Subjects Review guidelines protect the
personal information of inmates therefore limiting the scope of questions a
researcher is allowed to ask. Surveys presented to the inmates in this project
focused only on knowledge gained during the offered educational opportunity.
Knowing the educational background, level of interest in the topic, as well as
demographic information of participating inmates would have been an interesting
component of the research, but was beyond the scope of this thesis project.
Variation between the presentations was controlled to the best of the
instructors’ ability; however, different environments within the prisons create
different dynamics amongst the inmates, staff, and presenters that could not be
controlled for. The instructors also controlled both lecture and workshop-style
presentations for time in an effort to present content as equally as possible. This
may have caused more convergence between the presentations than anticipated
possibly taking away from the workshop-style experience for participating
inmates. Future studies should explore the possibility of not controlling for time
to allow for more in-depth discussion during a workshop-style presentation.
Another important limitation to note is the inherent biases of the study.
First, as one of the presenters as well as the one who conducted the data analysis,
54
there could be an unintentional bias to the analysis and therefore my conclusions
in this study. Also, though we intentionally chose CCCC and MCCCW as the
facilities in which to present and gather data, their exposure to SPP programs
might bias the study, though in which direction I am not sure. Would interest be
greater because there are endangered Oregon spotted frogs being raised at CCCC
and endangered Taylor’s Checkerspot butterflies at MCCCW? Or would inmates
feel that they have been exposed to these topics and know all they care to know,
thus keeping them from the presentations?
As Mageehon, 2006 pointed out in her study, a student’s previous
academic experience can determine their willingness or trepidation in pursuing
academic opportunities. The SPP works within a very academic model that could
be welcoming to some and alienating to others. If an inmate is unsure of their
capacity to understand scientific concepts or feels that the presentation will be too
academic, they may choose not to attend lectures and not to engage with the SPP
in the future. How to reach these individuals and encourage their participation is
an interesting question.
The presentations conducted in this study focused solely on issues
surrounding the endangered Oregon spotted frog. CCCC has had lectures on OSF
in the past, which could have kept inmates from attending the presentation, or
brought in inmates who already had a wealth of knowledge on the subject. If the
SPP is able to repeat this study, it would be interesting to see results after the
presentation of different topics; particularly ones the inmates have not been
exposed to. However, finding presenters willing and able to commit their time to
55
presentations in prisons is difficult. This reality poses a challenge to conducting
studies such as this one in the future.
Interdisciplinary Nature of the Study
This thesis project reflects the interdisciplinary nature of The Evergreen State
College Masters of Environmental Studies Program in that it crossed boundaries
between academic disciplines and engaged students, professors, and professional
researchers in pursuit of a common goal. In order to complete this thesis project I
received education across the disciplines of Ecology, Conservation Biology,
Herpetology, Environmental Justice, Social Justice, Environmental Policy,
Environmental Education, Multivariate Statistics, and qualitative and quantitative
research methods.
Creating the Environmental Education presentations offered at CCCC and
MCCCW involved collaboration between Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife Senior Research Scientist Marc Hayes, Sustainability in Prisons
Project Co-Director and Member of the Faculty at The Evergreen State College
Carri LeRoy, and Graduate Student at The Evergreen State College Sarah Weber.
The chosen topic focused on the endangered Oregon spotted frog (OSF), its
biology, the multitude and magnitude of policies surrounding its survival, and the
ecological and biological steps being taken to augment populations in the Puget
Sound region. We combined the academic disciplines Ecology, Biology,
Conservation Biology, Policy, and Education to create a thorough perspective of
the chosen topic.
56
In order to execute the presentations in the chosen prison facilities we
worked closely with the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) and the
Washington State Department of Corrections (WSDOC). Surveys were created
with the authorization and approval of both the SPP and WSDOC and under the
SPP’s Human Subjects Review with the Washington Department of Health and
Social Services. This collaboration between the sciences, a community
organization, and state departments led to the educational engagement of
incarcerated men and women in two prisons in Washington State. With the
administered surveys we know the educational impacts of these presentations on
the inmates, but we do not know the longer-term impacts of the experience.
Hopefully the inmates that chose to participate in the presentations will have the
interest to pursue future Environmental Education opportunities within the prisons
as well as outside of the prisons upon their release.
The interdisciplinary research, planning and collaboration involved with
this thesis project was intensive and rewarding, resulting in the synthesis of
several academic disciplines and individual perspectives and knowledge. When it
comes to education in prison systems, interdisciplinary methods may be exactly
what is needed. Inmates come from a plethora of diverse backgrounds, some with
extensive education and some with very little. The combination of disciplines and
the subsequent conversations involved amongst professionals may help in
disseminating information and education to prison populations.
57
Broader Impacts
In conducting my literature review, I found very little in the way of EE activities
taking place within the prison system. Environmental adult education in prisons
may help inmates make the connection to educational and employment
opportunities upon release. The SPP is one organization working to bring science
into prisons and educate inmates about ongoing conservation and sustainability
projects both within and outside prisons. This research project could influence
how the SPP presents educational opportunities in prisons for incarcerated men
and women in Washington State. Refined teaching methods may help the SPP
reduce recidivism rates through informing inmates of various environmental,
educational and green collar job opportunities.
Inmates in the selected minimum-security prisons used in this research
project will be released within five years, making them an important audience to
reach for possible career opportunities. Instruction offered to the inmates
combined policy and science through discussion of the endangered Oregon
spotted frog (OSF), the multiple causes of its population decline, the involved
political processes, and the steps being taken to augment the OSF population in
the Puget Sound region. This lecture and workshop series contributes to
connections among incarcerated individuals, the scientific community,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, students at The Evergreen State
College and Washington State Department of Corrections. This thesis project will
contribute to the literature regarding environmental education in the prison
58
education system and the discussion of whether one teaching method is more
effective than others for inmate populations.
Conducting EAE in correctional facilities is a unique opportunity to
connect minorities to science education. Many minorities in correctional facilities
come from low-income backgrounds where neighborhood schools do not have the
resources for extra-curricular classes such as EE. Students in these situations often
have limited exposure to nature, and scientific pursuits such as ecology for
example, are often reduced to textbook definitions rather than explanations and
demonstrations communicating their vast meanings and limitless possibilities.
Such great concepts need in-depth discussion and illustration and the SPP is able
to offer such knowledge and opportunity to underserved populations.
Though ironic to imagine an individual receiving exposure to nature once
they are inside prison walls, the SPP makes that possible. Inmates receive
transformative educational opportunities and exposure to science that they may
not have received outside of prison. The SPP is a young organization so few
incarcerated individuals engaged with SPP programs have been released;
however, of the individuals that have, some are pursuing scientific and EE
interests in an attempt to stay out of prison. Mr. Ulrich worked on raising moss in
prison with Dr. Nadkarni, was first author on a peer-reviewed paper, and is
currently pursuing a PhD in biochemistry at the University of Nevada, Reno. Mr.
Travatte was introduced to beekeeping at CCCC and started raising his own bees
after his release. He credits the bees and the money he can make from beeswax
balms and creams for keeping him from returning to prison. Most recently, Ms.
59
Landa, is working as a technician raising Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies at
MCCCW. After her experience with SPP she is committed to going back to
school. Not every story will be a successful one, but exposure and awareness of
EE opportunities inside and outside of prisons may offer hope and purpose to
incarcerated individuals upon release.
A question posed on the post-engagement survey of this study asked
participating inmates, “Does the content presented inspire interest and/or action
towards environmental stewardship?” Of 53 total responses, 45 said that yes, they
were inspired towards environmental stewardship. Eighty-five percent is a
significant percentage of individuals that received the educational opportunity and
felt moved to action afterwards. This is encouraging from many viewpoints: 1)
the SPP is clearly reaching people and peaking their interests. 2) the DOC benefits
from positive behavior when inmates are focused on an outside interest and 3)
society may receive the double benefit of keeping an inmate out of prison upon
release, as well as benefit from another individual interested in and dedicated to
caring for our natural environment in whatever capacity they are able.
Conclusion
Though few EAE opportunities exist in prisons to-date, the SPP and proven
public interest through media attention, is providing evidence that a desire and a
need exist for such opportunities for inmates and for correctional facilities as a
whole. The SPP is able to reach demographics that are often underrepresented in
the scientific community. They are able to introduce those who have limited
60
educational backgrounds to scientific ideas and in some cases engage them in onsite conservation projects (raising plants, frogs, and butterflies). Ulrich and
Nadkarni (2008) comment on the astonishment of corrections center staff at the
energy, interest, and patience incarcerated participants exhibited in caring for
moss. Caring for a non-showy, slow-growing organism such as moss can prove
challenging and tedious, particularly to individuals lacking formal education and
coming from diverse backgrounds that do not include nature study (Ulrich &
Nadkarni, 2008). Teaching participants, empowering them to explore ways to
solve a critical environmental problem and enabling them with a real sense of
ownership allowed participating individuals to feel dedicated to the task and
successful in their achievements (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008). Another important
consideration is that the cost of higher education competes in many states with
funds that must be allocated to manage offenders and prisons house an increasing
population of stable and “teachable” men and women (Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2008).
This creates a valuable opportunity for outreach to prison communities that do not
receive much in the way of science and nature exposure. Most of the inmates
incarcerated in America today will have an opportunity to create a life outside of
prison. With the influence of EE opportunities, they could have increased
knowledge and experience enabling them to be environmental stewards, a benefit
for both society and the environment.
61
References
Ashland University (2012). Journal of Correctional Education. Retrieved June 25, 2012,
from www.ashland.edu/professionals/locations/gill-center-business-economiceducation/journal-correctional-education
Bayliss, P. (2003). Learning behind bars: time to liberate prison education. Studies in the
Education of Adults, 35(2), 157-172.
Bush-Gibson, B., Rinfret, S. R. (2010). Environmental Adult Learning and
Transformation in Formal and Nonformal Settings. Journal of Transformative
Education, 8(2), 71-88.
Clover, D.E. (2003). Global Perspectives in Environmental Adult Education. New York,
Bern, Bruxelles: Peter Lang – International Academic Publishers.
Cnaan, R.A., Draine, J., Frazier, B. Sinha, J. W. (2008) Ex-prisoners’ re-entry: An
emerging frontier and a social work challenge. Journal of Policy Practice, 7(2-3),
178-198.
Deaton, C. (2005). Humanizing Prisons with Animals: A Closer Look at “Cell Dogs” and
Horse Programs in Correctional Institutions. Journal of Correctional Education,
56(1), 46-62.
62
Diseth, A., Eikeland, O., Manger, T., Hetland, H. (2008). Education of prison inmates:
course experience, motivation, and learning strategies as indicators of evaluation.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(3), 201-214.
Duerden, M.D., Witt, P.A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the
development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30, 379-392.
Duguid, S., Hawkey, C., Pawson, R. (1996). Using recidivism to Evaluate Effectiveness
in Prison Education Programs. Journal of Correctional Education, 47(2), 74-85.
Evans, M. (2010). Recidivism Revisited. Washington State Department of Corrections, 18.
Falk, J. H., Heimlich, J. E., and Bronnenkant, K. (2008). Using Identity-Related Visit
Motivations as a Tool for Understanding Adult Zoo and Aquarium Visitors’
Meaning-Making. Curator, 51(1), 55–80.
Haugen, C.S. (2006) Environmental Adult Educator Training: Suggestions for effective
practice. Convergence, 39(4), 91-106.
Hall, R.S., Kilacky, J. (2008). Correctional education from the perspective of the prisoner
63
student. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(4), 301-320.
Heimlich, J.E., Horr, E.E.T. (2010). Adult Learning in Free-Choice Environmental
Settings: What Makes It Different? New directions for adult and continuing
educations. 127, 57-66.
Hungerford, H., Volk, T. (1990). Changing Learner Behavior through Environmental
Education. Article prepared for the World Conference on Education for all –
Meeting Basic Learning Needs. 257-270 International Centre for Prison Studies
(2012). World Prison Brief. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from
www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=190.
Lord, T. R. (1999). A Comparison Between Traditional and Constructivist Teaching in
Environmental Science. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3) 22.
Mageehon, A, (2003), Incarcerated women s educational experiences. The Journai of
Correctionai Education, 54(4), 191-199.
Mageehon, A. (2006). What makes a “good” teacher “good”: Women in transition from
prison to community reflect. Journal of Correctional Education, 57(2), 145-157.
Newman, A.P., Lewis, W. and Beverstock, C. (1993), Prison Literacy. Philadelphia:
National Center of Adult Literacy.
64
Parkinson, A., Steurer, S. (2004). Overcoming the Obstacles in Effective Correctional
Instruction. Journal of Corrections Today, 66(2), 88-91.
Rose, J.E., Voss, M. (2003). The unity in community: Fostering academic success among
diverse communities of male offenders in correctional institutions. Journal of
Correctional Education, 54(4), 131-159.
Schmitt, J., Warner, K., Gupta, K. (2010). The High Budgetary Cost of
Incarceration.
Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1-19.
Stapp, W., Bennet, D., Bryant W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall,
R., Havlick, S. (1969). The Concept of Environmental Education. Journal of
Environmental Education, 1(1), 30-36.
Steurer, J., Smith, L. (2001). Education Reduces Crime: Three-State Recidivism Study.
Executive Summary. Correctional Education Association. 1-20.
Storksdieck, M., Ellenbogen, K., & Heimlich, J. E. (2005). Changing minds? Reassessing
outcomes in free-choice environmental education. Environmental Education
Research, 11, 353–369.
65
Sustainable Prisons Project (2012). About Us: Mission. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/about.
Taylor, E. W., Neill, A. C. (2008) Museum Education: A Nonformal Education
Perspective. Journal of Museum Education, 33(1), 23-32.
Tootoonchi, A. (1993). College Education in Prisons: The Inmates’ Perspective.
HeinOnline, 57. Retrieved from http:www.heinonline.org
Ulrich , C., Nadkarni, N. (2008). Sustainability Research and Practices in Enforced
Residential Institutions: Collaborations of Ecologists and Prisoners. Environment,
Development, and Sustainability, 11(4), 815-832.
Vacca, J. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.
Vella, J. (2001). Taking Learning to Task: Creative Strategies for Teaching Adults. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vella, J. (2002). Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The power of Dialogue in
Educating Adults. Revised edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66
Walter, P. (2009). Philosophies of adult environmental education. Adult Education
Quarterly, 60(1), 3-25
Winters, C.A. (2000). Promising practices in adult correctional education. Journal of
Correctional Education, 51(4), 312-314.
Zeppel, H. (2008). Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours:
Developing free-choice learning experiences. Journal of Environmental
Education, 39(3), 3-17.
67
Appendix A
Extended Methods
In April 2012, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Senior Research
Scientist Marc Hayes and I presented lectures and workshops at two minimumsecurity prisons in Washington State. The two prisons were: Mission Creek
Corrections Center for Women (MCCCW) in Belfair, WA. and Cedar Creek
Corrections Center for Men (CCCC) in Littlerock, WA. Both MCCCW and
CCCC were selected because they are prisons in which the SPP has implemented
conservation projects, and because they house individuals who will be released
within 5 years. Because of the interest created by SPP, we knew that at each
prison we would have some attendees who were involved with or exposed to the
conservation projects within those facilities, and some that were not. We also felt
that, due to their imminent release, our students may include inmates seeking
educational opportunities that could influence their direction and choices once
outside of the prison system.
Both prisons are work camp-style prisons and inmates have jobs they
perform either on or off grounds. If they are not working, then they are in
educational, social, or rehabilitative classes. These conflicts made scheduling
educational opportunities difficult, as we wanted to offer presentations at a time
when we would have the most attendees. In order to create interest in the
presentations, an informative flyer was posted throughout each prison inviting
inmates to attend and to sign up with their counselor for one of the presentation
times. Inmates were not aware that there would be different presentation styles;
68
they simply chose based upon which time slot they preferred. The captain at the
men’s prison wanted to make sure attendees were present, so he included on the
flyer that refreshments would be provided and a tray of cookies was offered at
each presentation at CCCC. Given that the presentations were in conflict with rest
time, recreation time, and in the case of MCCCW, with other classes, our
attendance numbers were not as high as we might have hoped. At MCCCW, we
had 10 attendees at the workshop presentation and 13 at the lecture. At CCCC, we
had 16 attendees at the workshop presentation and 14 at the lecture, for a total of
53 participants.
In an attempt to control for the differences in presentation times during the
day and evening, inmate attention spans as determined by time of day, and our
own possible presentation strengths and weaknesses based upon time of day, Dr.
Hayes and I decided to randomly choose the first presentation style and assign the
following three presentations accordingly. We flipped a coin to determine that the
first presentation at MCCCW would be a workshop-style presentation, and the
second presentation would be lecture-style. At CCCC we switched the order and
presented the lecture first, and the workshop second. At both prisons,
presentations were given in the facility’s visiting room which are large rooms set
up for inmates to visit with family and friends, with vending machines for snacks
and beverages, and reading corners for children. The rooms have many small
tables that seat 4-6 individuals each. At each prison we chose tables close to the
front of the room where the presentation was given to combat the background
hum of the machines and to encourage inmates to sit at tables together.
69
Each educational session lasted 2 hours including the time it took for
inmates to complete pre- and post-engagement surveys. Presented material
focused on the endangered Oregon spotted frog (OSF), the multiple causes of its
population decline, the involved political processes and the steps being taken to
augment the OSF population in the Puget Sound region. The lecture-style
presentation was 90 minutes long utilizing PowerPoint, with 15 minutes set aside
for questions at the end. The workshop was set up in the same time frame and also
utilized PowerPoint to present some of the same slides as the lecture. However,
throughout the workshop, hard copies of slides used in the lecture PowerPoint
were passed out so that groups of 4 or 5 inmates could look at a handout together.
Leading questions were asked about the content of each handout to facilitate
conversation among inmates and between inmates and presenters. During the
lecture inmates sat together but faced the presenter, whereas during the workshop,
inmates faced the presenter at times and at other times huddled their chairs around
the table to look at the handouts together. In both presentation types, significant
interaction existed amongst the inmates, though it felt more focused and
purposeful during the workshops.
Operating under the SPPs Human Subjects Review with the Washington
Department of Health and Social Services, I created pre- and post-engagement
surveys using a five-point Likert scale, an attitudinal scale developed by
psychologist Rensis Likert (1932). The surveys measure whether inmates gain
improved knowledge and attitudes towards the environmental topic after
receiving instruction via lecture presentation or workshop presentation. The
70
surveys consisted of both quantitative and qualitative questions, some of which
were repetitive from pre- to post-engagement surveys to see if answers changed
after receiving the presentation. Pre-engagement surveys were assigned a number
that each participant wrote down to remember, and they recorded that same
number on their post-survey for ease of comparison. The surveys were developed
utilizing a template provided by the SPP, and tailored to suit my topic and areas of
interest. Once finalized, the surveys were approved by SPP Co-Director Carri
LeRoy, SPP Project Manager Kelli Bush and Research Manager for Washington
Department of Corrections Teri Herold-Prayer. They were then submitted to both
MCCCW and CCCC for their approval before giving them to inmates at the
presentations.
71
Appendix B
Surveys
PRE SURVEY
In Order of Importance to You: please rank the following 1-5 (1 = most
important, 5 = least important)
I am in this workshop because:
__ It gives me something to do
__ I go to as many lectures as I can
__ I enjoy hearing about the environment
__ Conservation education is important
__ I think it is important to learn as much as I can while in prison
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
The world would not suffer if some species, like the
Oregon spotted frog, were eliminated.
1
2
3
4
5
The world would not suffer if some wildlife habitats,
like marshlands, were eliminated.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Rate your level of agreement with the statement
What I do in my life does not impact the health of
natural habitats, those places in nature that are home to
plants and animals.
Conservation of species and habitats is an important
practice.
Without human intervention many species would
become extinct.
Strongly
Disagree
Your Opinions about the Environment. We would like to know about attitudes
towards the environment before you attend the lectures. Please circle one number
for how you feel about each statement before the lectures.
72
Seek information on the environment?
Very
Likely
Likely
Neutral
Unlikely
Very
unlikely
How likely are you to…
1
2
3
4
5
Seek information about amphibians and
conservation?
1
2
3
4
5
Talk to others about issues related to the
environment?
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Talk to others about amphibians and conservation?
Your opinion. Please circle one number for each statement.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
L
1. Because amphibians are sensitive to their
environment, they can warn humans of
1
2
disease outbreak, pollution, and other
environmental issues.
2. The Oregon spotted frog is an important
1
2
species to protect.
3. Political protection of the Oregon spotted
frog is complicated but worth the effort if
1
2
the species and its habitat is protected in the
future.
4. The most devastating environmental
impact on the Oregon spotted frog is
1
2
competition with exotic and invasive
species.
5. Climate change has the potential to
create negative impacts on a scale much
1
2
greater than what we have seen
historically.
6. Education is the most important part of
conservation work.
1
2
Agree
Strongly
Agree
J
Don’t
Know
-?-
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
73
POST SURVEY
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Rate your level of agreement with the statement
Strongly
Disagree
Your Opinions about the Environment. We would like to know about your
attitudes towards the environment now that you have attended the
lecture/workshop. Please circle one number for how you feel about each statement
after the lectures.
What I do in my life does not impact the health
of natural habitats, those places in nature that are
home to plants and animals.
1
2
3
4
5
The world would not suffer if some species, like
the Oregon spotted frog, were eliminated.
1
2
3
4
5
The world would not suffer if some wildlife
habitats, like marshlands, were eliminated.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Conservation of species and habitats is an
important practice.
Without human intervention many species would
become extinct.
Your opinion. Please circle one number for each statement.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
L
1. Because amphibians are sensitive to their
environment, they can warn humans of
1
2
disease outbreak, pollution, and other
environmental issues.
2. The Oregon spotted frog is an important
1
2
species to protect.
3. Political protection of the Oregon spotted
frog is complicated but worth the effort if the
1
2
species and its habitat are protected in the
future.
4. The most devastating environmental
impact on the Oregon spotted frog is
1
2
competition with exotic and invasive species.
5. Climate change has the potential to create
negative effects on a scale much greater than
1
2
what we have seen historically.
4
5
Agree
Strongly
Agree
J
Don’t
Know
-?-
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
3
4
0
74
Seek information on the environment?
0
Very
Likely
4
Likely
3
Neutral
How likely are you to…
2
Unlikely
1
Very
unlikely
6. Education is the most important part of
conservation efforts.
1
2
3
4
5
Seek information about amphibians and conservation?
1
2
3
4
5
Talk to others about issues related to the environment?
1
2
3
4
5
Talk to others about amphibians and conservation?
1
2
3
4
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please provide us with your feedback about the lecture.
Please circle one number for each statement.
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
L
The presenter(s) was/were engaging.
1
2
I would recommend this lecture to a
1
2
friend.
I learned about the environment in this
1
2
lecture.
After this lecture I would like to find
1
2
more information about the environment.
After this lecture I would like to find
more information about conservation
1
2
practices.
Neutral
K
Agree
3
4
Strongly
Agree
J
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
OPEN-ENDED
Please provide some feedback on the program by answering the following
questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are some of the reasons you attended this lecture?
How, if at all, would you improve this lecture?
What (if anything) did you learn from attending this lecture?
Does the content presented inspire interest and/or action towards
environmental stewardship?
75
