This article was downloaded by:[ABM Utvikling STM / SSH packages]On: 26 May 2008Access Details: [subscription number 788608355]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research andEvaluationAn International Journal on Theory and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592776

Education of prison inmates: course experience,motivation, and learning strategies as indicators ofevaluationÅge Diseth a; Ole-Johan Eikeland b; Terje Manger a; Hilde Hetland aa Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norwayb Eikeland Research and Teaching, Bergen, Norway

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2008

To cite this Article: Diseth, Åge, Eikeland, Ole-Johan, Manger, Terje and Hetland,Hilde (2008) 'Education of prison inmates: course experience, motivation, and learning strategies as indicators ofevaluation', Educational Research and Evaluation, 14:3, 201 — 214

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/13803610801956614URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803610801956614

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Education of prison inmates: course experience, motivation, and learning

strategies as indicators of evaluation

Age Disetha*, Ole-Johan Eikelandb, Terje Mangera and Hilde Hetlanda

aDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway; bEikeland Research andTeaching, Bergen, Norway

(Received 16 April 2007; final version received 4 September 2007)

Course experience, motivational beliefs, and self-regulated learning strategies may beconsidered to be important indicators of education quality. Inmates taking education inprison may also experience particular problems related to the learning environment andto their own learning difficulties. The present study investigated the level of thesevariables and the relationship between them among 534 inmates under education inNorwegian prisons. The results showed that the prison inmates are generally quitesatisfied with the education quality, that they are highly motivated, and use appropriatelearning strategies. However, many of them experience that problems such as lack ofaccess to computer equipment and the security routines in prison interfere with theireducation. A structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis showed that moti-vational beliefs were mediators between course experience and self-regulated learningstrategies. These findings were discussed with respect to improvement of theeducation quality in prisons and to theoretical issues with relevance beyond the prisoncontext.

Keywords: course experience; motivation; learning strategies; evaluation; prisoneducation

Introduction

Prison education is important both as a means of preparing inmates for life after prisonand of providing meaningful activities for the inmates during imprisonment. Inmates whoattend educational programmes while they are incarcerated are less likely to return toprison following their release, and recidivism rates have declined where inmates havereceived an appropriate education (Duguid & Pawson, 1998; Vacca, 2004). Prisoneducation may also change the inmates’ attitudes toward life in general, lead to improvedself-esteem, confidence, and self-awareness, and help them find a good job upon releaseand resist committing further offences (Tootoonchi, 1993).

In Norwegian prisons, there are over 3,200 inmates at any given time, and it isestimated that approximately 30% of them are enrolled in some form of education (Royalproposition No. 1, 2006–2007). It is important that this education is of high quality if it isto serve its purpose. Previous research has indicated that Norwegian prison inmates ingeneral are satisfied with the quality of education (White paper No. 27, 2004–2005).

*Corresponding author. Email: aage.diseth@psysp.uib.no

Educational Research and Evaluation

Vol. 14, No. 3, June 2008, 201–214

ISSN 1380-3611 print/ISSN 1744-4187 online

� 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13803610801956614

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

However, most of these studies have been conducted on small samples, and some of themare based on qualitative methods. Furthermore, the effectiveness of education in prisonmay be obstructed by problems such as disturbances in prison and transfer betweenprisons during education. Thus, the present study aimed at a large-scale collection ofsurvey data on various aspects of the education quality from all inmates under educationin Norwegian prisons.

There may be multiple indicators of education quality. One obvious method is toevaluate a study programme by asking students to indicate their satisfaction with differentaspects of the education quality. However, if we take a broader view on evaluation,education quality may also be indicated by the degree to which students are motivated anduse appropriate learning strategies, because these latter variables are considered to bepartly a result of the learning context (Ramsden, 1979; Ramsden, 1988; Ramsden &Entwistle, 1981). Furthermore, motivation is related to learning strategies (Pintrich &DeGroot, 1990). Hence, there are reasons to include all of these variables when examiningthe quality of education, and the role of each of them will be presented below. Finally,these variables will be included in a theoretical framework with reference to previousresearch beyond the prison context.

Course experience

A large-scale evaluation of educational quality in a prison context presents severalchallenges. This group of students is taking a variety of educational programmes atdifferent academic levels (e.g., lower/upper secondary school, craft or journeyman’scertificate, single course/degree programme at university). Furthermore, there areindividual differences with respect to learning abilities, learning problems (such as readingand writing), and information processing capabilities. As a consequence, it is especiallyimportant to produce an inventory that is relatively easy to understand and that is relevantand accessible for all study groups. With this in mind, it is still possible to create aquestionnaire which is inspired by previous research. For example, the construct of‘‘course experience’’ has been frequently utilised in research on evaluation (Byrne &Flood, 2003; Diseth, Pallesen, Hovland, & Larsen, 2006; Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002;Richardson & Price, 2003; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden, 1997).This construct refers to how students experience the quality of several aspects of aneducational programme. A performance indicator of teaching effectiveness at the level ofthe whole course or degree has been labelled as the Course Experience Questionnaire(CEQ) (Ramsden, 1991). This scale was designed to measure aspects of the learningenvironment across disciplines and institutions about which students have directexperience and are therefore able to comment (Lizzio et al., 2002). A higher orderstructure of the CEQ has been established, consisting of a teaching quality factor (goodteaching, clear goals and standards, appropriate assessment, and emphasis onindependence scales) and workload (appropriate workload) (Diseth, 2007; Kember &Leung, 1998; Wilson et al., 1997). Hence, it seems appropriate to emphasise these factorswhen developing a questionnaire for the present group of students.

Motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies

Several motivational theories include types of expectancy and value (EV) constructs (e.g.,Atkinson, 1964; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In general, EV theories regard behaviour choice,persistence, and performance to be a function of the degree to which individuals judge

202 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

their capabilities to perform designated courses of action (expectancy) and how they valuethe activity. Given the choice between several behaviour alternatives, activities with thehighest expectancy and the highest value will be selected. But, although expectancy andvalue are positively related (Battle, 1966) and this relationship tends to grow stronger withage (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998), they constitute separate factors (Eccles &Wigfield, 1995). Expectancy is regarded to be most important as a predictor of actualperformance, whereas value is more critical for selection of a particular activity, such aschoice of academic subject (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Nevertheless, both expectancy andvalue have important roles in achievement motivation because they indicate the degree ofinvolvement in a task.

There have been several conceptualisations of the expectancy component of studentmotivation, such as perceived competence, self-efficacy, and control beliefs (Eccles, 2006),but the students’ beliefs that they are able to perform the task and that they are responsiblefor their own performance is a central feature of the basic construct (Pintrich & De Groot,1990). The value component of motivation involves students’ goals for the task and theirbeliefs about the importance and interest of the task (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Similarly,value has been described as attainment value, interest, and utility value (Eccles & Wigfield,1995). In addition, the cost associated with a task has been included as a separate indicatorof value (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).

The Eccles-Wigfield (e.g., Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) model of EV has generated muchresearch in educational psychology (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This model reflects a socialcognitive and situational perspective, but it also emphasises affective memories asimportant sources of value. Furthermore, intrinsic value comprises affective componentsin terms of the pleasure and enjoyment of doing a task (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).However, if we move beyond the EV paradigm, test anxiety is a particularly importantaffective variable in educational settings (Wigfield & Eccles, 1989). Test anxiety refers tothe actual emotional arousal (i.e., fear and unease) a student has when taking a test, andthis emotional component is accompanied by cognitive factors, such as worrying about theconsequences of failing a test (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Although test anxiety has beenlinked with perceptions of competence, it is still a separate construct (Pintrich & De Groot,1990) In sum, self-efficacy (expectancy), intrinsic value, and test anxiety representimportant motivational questions that any student may ask, namely ‘‘can I do this task?’’,‘‘why am I doing this task?’’, and ‘‘how do I feel about this task?’’ (Pintrich & De Groot,1990).

All of these motivational components have been linked with self-regulated learningstrategies such as cognitive strategy use and self-regulation (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;Yumusak, Sungur, & Cakiroglu, 2007). Cognitive strategy use refers to how the studentlearns, remembers, and understands the material (Zimmerman & Pons, 1988) by means ofrehearsal, elaboration, and organisational strategies. This leads to active cognitiveengagement in learning and higher levels of achievement (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Self-regulation refers to students’ metacognitive strategies for planning, monitoring, andmodifying their cognition (Zimmerman & Pons, 1988). Research on the relationshipbetween motivation and learning strategies is typically correlational, but it appears thatthe students who choose to become cognitively engaged and self-regulating are those whoare interested in and value the task they are working on (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).Hence, it is reasonable to assume that motivation causes strategies.

Research on test anxiety has been linked to students’ metacognition, cognitive strategyuse, and effort management (Tobias, 1985). For example, highly anxious students often donot use appropriate cognitive strategies for achievement (Benjamin, McKeachie, Lin, &

Educational Research and Evaluation 203

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Holinger, 1981). However, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) claimed that it is not a simplerelationship between test anxiety and learning strategies. They found that test anxiety wasnegatively correlated with self-efficacy but not significantly correlated with value, cognitivestrategies, or self-regulation.

A modern version of the EV theory includes social and situational influences onexpectancy and value (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). For example, environmental factors mayincrease expectancy by helping students to maintain relatively accurate but highexpectations and perceptions of competence and increase value by discussing theimportance and utility value of the work with students (Pintrich & Schunck, 2002).Hence, we may assume that the learning context as perceived by the students (courseexperience) may have an effect on these motivational factors.

Finally, given a causal link between motives and strategies and a relationship betweencourse experience and motives, as described above, it is also reasonable to assume thatmotives may be mediators (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986) between course experience andlearning strategies. For example, Eccles, Wong, and Peck (2006) found that expectancy(self-concept of ability) and value of school mediated the relationship between perceptionsof the learning environment and the outcome of learning in terms of academicachievement.

Problems and hypotheses

The main aim of the current paper is to investigate the quality of education among inmatestaking education in prison by measuring their course experience, their experience ofdifferent problems with their education in prison, the degree to which they are motivated,and their use of learning strategies. Thus, it is important to measure the level of thesevariables among the inmates participating in education. However, there may be differencesbetween groups of students taking different forms of education. Hence, it is also an aim ofthe present study to explore mean level differences of course experience, motives, andstrategies between these groups. This is important in order to identify groups of students inwhich the quality of education should be improved. Furthermore, and in accordance withthe theory outlined above and previous research findings, it is assumed that courseexperience, motivation, and strategies are related. More specifically, the followinghypotheses are proposed:

(1) Self-efficacy and intrinsic value will be positively and test anxiety negatively relatedto self-regulated learning strategies (cognitive strategies and/or self-regulation).

(2) Course experience (education quality and workload/demands) will be related tomotivational beliefs (self-efficacy and intrinsic value).

(3) Course experience (education quality and workload/demands) will predict self-regulated learning strategies directly and/or indirectly via motivation (self-efficacy,intrinsic value, and test anxiety).

Methods

Participants

The respondents were part of a target group that included all 3,289 inmates over 18 yearsof age (only 9 inmates were under 18 years of age) in Norwegian prisons. They werecontacted between 2 February and 9 February, 2006. For several reasons (e.g., illness,temporary leave, presence in court), 117 inmates were not included (thus, 3,172 were

204 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

addressed). A total of 3,165 inmates received the questionnaire, and 2,255 (71.1%) of themresponded (mean age: 35 years). Of this total, 1,509 replied that they were not taking anyeducation in prison. Of the remaining 746 inmates, a total of 534 (40 female and 494 male,mean age: 34 years) replied satisfactorily to items covering the factors of evaluation,motivation, and learning strategies which were included in the present study.

Procedure

A representative of the County Governor of Hordaland, Department of Education (theorganisation in charge of Norwegian prison education on behalf of the Ministry ofEducation), telephoned each Prison Governor and each teacher in charge of the prisoneducation, in order to outline the purpose of the study and to arrange for carrying out theassessment. In addition, a letter was sent to the same persons, explaining the procedures.In accordance with instructions from the research group, the Prison Governor in eachprison or the teacher in charge of the prison education carried out the survey. Prisonswhich failed to reply by a certain date were given a reminder and an extended deadline.

The front page of the questionnaire to all inmates explained the purpose and procedureof the study and emphasised that participation in the study was voluntary. In addition, therespondents were assured that their results would be confidential and that no specificfeedback on their performance would be provided. Inmates who were not fluent inNorwegian were given an English version of the questionnaire, and inmates with readingand writing problems or who were not fluent in English or Norwegian were offered helpduring the completion of the questionnaire. In accordance with Norwegian law, the surveywas reported to the Ombudsman for Privacy in Research, Norwegian Social Science DataServices Ltd. In order to secure anonymous replies, there was no individual identificationof each form, although the forms were given a number to identify the prison.

Instruments

Course experience

An instrument was developed to measure the inmates’ experience of education. The itemsin this instrument were constructed to be comprehensible for all of the inmates underdifferent educational programmes at different academic levels. They were constructed toreflect two underlying factors of education quality (example: ‘‘I am satisfied with theteaching’’ and ‘‘I am pleased with the educational programme’’) and the experience ofexcessive workload and demands (examples: ‘‘Some of the subjects are too hard’’ and ‘‘Therequirements are too tough’’). A factor principal component analysis (varimax rotation)supported these factors, but two of the 10 original items were deleted due to weakcommunalities and inconsistent factor loadings. The respondents were asked to indicatetheir relative agreement with the statements on a scale as follows: 5 (completely agree), 4(somewhat agree), 3 (unsure), 2 (somewhat disagree), and 1 (completely disagree). SeeAppendix 1 for a complete overview of the items.

Motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies

Items from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ) (Pintrich &DeGroot, 1990) were adapted to the subjects in the present sample. This inventoryoriginally consists of 56 items on student motivation, cognitive strategy use, metacognitive

Educational Research and Evaluation 205

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

strategy use, and management of effort. For the present study, items covering self-efficacy(expectancy), intrinsic value, test anxiety, cognitive strategy use, and self-regulation wereselected to form a 29-item questionnaire. Factor analysis of the motivation items resultedin the expected three factors of self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety. Two of theitems were deleted to stabilise the factor structure (these items had weak communalitiesand inconsistent factor loadings). Factor analysis of the items measuring self-regulatedlearning strategies produced the two factors of cognitive strategy use and self-regulation.However, 7 of 15 items had to be deleted in order to get a stable factor structure (theseitems had weak communalities and/or inconsistent factor loadings). Hence, the final scaleconsisted of 20 items for the factors of self-efficacy (4 items), value (5 items), test anxiety (3items), cognitive strategy use (4 items), and self-regulation (4 items). The respondents wereasked to indicate their relative agreement with the statements on a scale ranging from 5 to1 (as described under Course experience above).

Problems during education

The participants were asked to indicate whether different factors, such as disturbances inprison or lack of access to computer facilities, created any problems with their education inprison. They could indicate as many problems as they wished from a list of eight problems.See Appendix 1 for a complete overview of the items.

Statistical analysis

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used in order to create a multivariate model.The AMOS 6.0.0 programme (Arbuckle, 2005) offers several goodness-of-fit-indices,including the w2/df (chisquare/degrees of freedom) ratio, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) andRMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation). The CFI (Bentler, 1990) providesan evaluation of the difference between an independent model and the specified model. ACFI 4 .90 has traditionally been considered as an indication of acceptable fit to the data(Byrne, 2001), but Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended a CFI close to .95. The RMSEAestimates how well the model would fit the sample if optimal parameters were available.An RMSEA below .05 indicates good fit, but values as high as .08 may be acceptable(Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Finally, the w2 should preferably not be significant. However,because it is often unrealistic to find models in which the w2 value approximates the degreesof freedom, a w2/df below 2 is now considered as an appropriate cut-off criterion (Byrne,2001).

In the current investigation, the constructs were subjected to exploratory factoranalyses (EFA) separately, as described above, and these constructs were then utilised in aSEM. This sequential procedure is in line with recommendations by Joreskog (1993).

Results

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive data (Table 1) showed that most of the variables were normallydistributed, although intrinsic value and cognitive strategy use had slightly high skewnessand kurtosis values. Alpha values between .68 and .83 showed good internal consistency inthe scales. The participants could potentially score between one and five (total scoredivided by the number of items), and the mean values showed that they were quite satisfiedwith the education quality (3.17) and they did not think that the workload and demands

206 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

were excessive (2.10). As regards motives and learning strategies, the participants reporteda rather high mean level of self-efficacy (4.12), intrinsic value (4.51), cognitive strategy use(4.19), and self-regulation (3.35), whereas the level of test anxiety was rather low (2.73).

Differences according to study programmes

An independent sample t test showed that there were significant mean level differences incourse experience, motivation, and learning strategies between students enrolled inparticular study programmes as compared with the whole group of inmates participatingin education in prison. Students enrolled in university level courses or programmes wereless satisfied with the education quality (mean levels 2.80/2.92, respectively, for singlesubject/complete degree programme at university). However, those who participated in auniversity degree programme had a higher level of self-efficacy (4.42), intrinsic value (4.75),and self-regulating strategies (4.12). Those who took single university subjects also hadhigher levels of intrinsic value (4.73) and self-regulation (4.18). Students taking educationat university level also had lower levels of test anxiety (mean levels 2.19/2.26, respectively,for single subject/complete degree programme at university). However, those participatingin higher education had a higher level of test anxiety (mean level: 3.01).

Structural equation model

In order to examine the relationship between the variables, a structural equation model ofthe observed variables (Figure 1) was developed, based on the theoretical assumptionsdescribed in the introduction. In this model, self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxietymediated the relationship between education quality and excessive workload/demands, onthe one hand, and self-regulation and cognitive strategies on the other. This model showedexcellent fit to the data (w2 ¼ 14.304, df ¼ 8, p 5 .074, w2/df ¼ 1.788, CFI ¼ .991,RMSEA ¼ .038) according to recommended cut-off values (Byrne, 2001) as describedabove. All of the regression paths in this model were significant (p 5 .01). Additionalpaths were tested, but deleted, due to insignificant values.

Problems with education in prison

The next issue was the prevalence of factors which the inmates may experience as causes ofproblems with their education. Table 2 shows the percentage of inmates in education whoreported various problems (each inmate could report more than one problem). The most

Table 1. Descriptive statistics including minimum-maximum, mean, standard deviation, skewness,kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alpha (a).

min-max M SD skew. kurt. a

Education quality 1.00–5.00 3.17 .84 7.63 7.13 .74Workload and demands 1.00–4.50 2.10 .83 .48 7.42 .68Self-efficacy 1.25–5.00 4.12 .71 7.83 .53 .75Intrinsic value 2.00–5.00 4.51 .59 71.38 1.40 .82Test anxiety 1.00–5.00 2.73 1.12 .10 71.00 .83Cognitive strategy use 1.00–5.00 4.19 .65 71.17 2.21 .70Self-regulation 1.00–5.00 3.35 .82 7.23 7.83 .73

Educational Research and Evaluation 207

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Table 2. Percentage of inmates reporting different problems with education in prison and meanvalue difference of evaluation, motivation, and strategies between those who do not report problemsand those who report problems (only significant mean differences included).

Problem

Percentagereportedproblem

Mean valueof evaluation,motivation,and strategies

(problem notreported/reported)

1. Transfer while serving my sentence 26.1% Workload/demands (2.03/2.30)**Cognitive strategies (4.15/4.29)*Test anxiety (2.64/3.00)**

2. I will have finished my sentencebefore I finish my education

19.9% Workload/demands (2.06/2.25)**Self-regulation (3.39/3.13)*Test anxiety (2.68/2.98)*

3. My own reading or writing problems 18.4% Workload/demands (2.03/2.42)**Self-efficacy (4.17/3.88)**Self-regulation (3.47/2.75)**Test anxiety (2.59/3.41)**

4. Disturbances in prison 22.3% Education quality (3.22/3.00)*5. The security routines in the prison 34.4% Education quality (3.32/2.88)**

Cognitive strategies (4.14/4.27)*6. My own arithmetic ormathematics problems

15.9% Workload/demands (2.03/2.46)**Self-efficacy (4.17/3.84)**Self-regulation (3.47/2.65)**Test anxiety (2.64/3.24)**

7. Inadequate access to computerequipment and facilities

43.6% Education quality (3.30/3.00)**Intrinsic value (4.45/4.60)**Self-efficacy (4.04/4.22)**Cognitive strategies (4.12/4.26)*

8. Inadequate access to literature 21.4% Education quality (3.27/2.80)**Workload/demands (2.05/2.27)*Intrinsic value (4.49/4.64)*

* ¼ p 5 .05, ** ¼ p 5 .01.

Figure 1. Structural equation model of the relationship between course experience (educationquality and excessive workload/demands), motives (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety),and learning strategies (cognitive strategies and self-regulation).

208 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

frequently reported problems were inadequate access to computer equipment and facilities(43.6%), the security routines in the prison (34.4%), transfer while serving sentence(26.1%), disturbances in prison (22.3%), and inadequate access to literature (21.4%).However, other problems, such as finishing the sentence before finishing education,reading or writing problems, and arithmetic or mathematics problems were also common.Furthermore, this table also shows whether those who reported each particular problemhad different levels of evaluation (education quality and workload/demands), motivation(self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety), and self-regulated learning strategies(cognitive strategy use and self-regulation), as compared to the group of inmates who didnot report these problems. The results showed some significant group differences (t test),and the general finding was that those who reported problems had a lower mean level ofevaluation, motivation (but higher level of test anxiety), and self-regulating strategies.

Discussion and conclusions

The present study contributes both to our understanding of how inmates experienceeducation in prison and to the integration of aspects of these experiences into a theoreticalmodel which explains the relationship between them. The above findings showed thatinmates under education in Norwegian prisons in general are rather satisfied with theeducation quality and that they do not experience excessive workload and demands.Furthermore, they are reasonably well motivated and they report appropriate use oflearning strategies. However, many of them experience that different problems such asinadequate access to computer equipment, security routines, transfer between prisonsduring education, disturbances in prison, and lack of access to literature interfere withtheir education in prison. Vacca (2004) also stated that education in prison may behampered by overcrowded prison population, conditions, and inadequate funding forteaching personnel, supplies, and materials. The improvement of such problems may be animportant contribution to increasing education quality. In particular, making computerfacilities more accessible seems to be a good starting point, according to the prisoners.However, access to computers with an internet connection may obviously be in conflictwith security routines in prisons. It is also important to ask how computer equipment maybe utilised to function effectively. For example, Batchelder and Rachal (2000) found nosignificant difference in math and reading performance between prisoners receivingcomputer-assisted instruction and a control group receiving traditional instruction.

In line with previous research (Vacca, 2004), the present study also showed that asubstantial number of inmates reported learning difficulties (reading or writing/mathematicsor arithmetic) as causing problems with their education. This is particularly interestingconsidering that inmates who report such difficulties also have lower levels ofmotivation andless adequate learning strategies. Thus, it appears particularly important to identify andmotivate inmates with learning difficulties, because they may also be at risk of havingineffective learning strategies (e.g., Tait & Entwistle, 1996). In fact, previous research hasshown that inmates who had reading or writing problems were more likely to report anintention to start education (Manger, Eikeland,Asbjørnsen, &Langelid, 2006).Hence, theremay be a higher prevalence of these problems among inmates taking education.

Another issue of concern is that students taking university subjects were less satisfiedwith their education as compared to the rest of the inmates in education. One reason forthis may be that these students have to study independently in prison, without muchteaching available. On the other hand, this group of students is more resourceful withrespect to motivation and use of learning strategies, and they have less test anxiety.

Educational Research and Evaluation 209

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

The present findings clearly showed a relationship between course experience(education quality and workload/demands), motivation variables (intrinsic value, self-efficacy, and test anxiety), and self-regulated learning strategies. Hence, all of the initialhypotheses were generally supported. More specifically, intrinsic value predicted cognitivestrategies but not self-regulation, and test anxiety predicted self-regulation but notcognitive strategies. Whereas it is hard to draw any conclusion from these particularrelations, the general results add to previous research findings on the relationship betweenmotives and strategies (e.g, Diseth, 2003; Entwistle, Tait, & McCune, 2000; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Furthermore, the findings in the present study are in accordance withprevious research on the relationship between presage, process, and product factors ineducation (Biggs, 2001). Even if this type of research is based on correlations, it isreasonable to assume that motives affect strategies because students have to be motivatedto utilise strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Furthermore, the present model showsthat motives may be a mediator between course experience and self-regulated learningstrategies. More specifically, students who experience the education quality as good andwho do not experience the workload and demands as excessive may to a larger extentadopt cognitive and self-regulated learning strategies because they become motivated to doso. Conversely, the experience of excessive workload and demands had both a directnegative effect on self-regulated learning strategies and an indirect negative effect on self-regulating learning strategies via test anxiety.

In sum, these findings underscore the importance of the learning environment (courseexperience) as a source of motivation which, in turn, may affect learning strategies. This isconsistent with the view that the experience of the learning environment affects motivationand learning strategies, and not the other way around (Richardson, 2003; Richardson &Price, 2003). Furthermore, both intrinsic value and self-efficacy are assumed to havecontextual sources (Bandura, 1997; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and learning strategies aremotivated (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). In other words, appropriate learning strategiesmay be considered as important outcome factors which signify high education qualitypartly as a result of course experience and motivation. Finally, the convergence betweenthese factors is important evidence for external aspects of construct validity in theinstruments (Messick, 1995).

There are some limitations to the present study. Even though the response rate wasrather high, we do not know what the inmates who failed to reply would have respondedto the inventory. And although the observed relations between the variables are inaccordance with theoretical assumptions, they should also be tested in other samples.Finally, there seems to be consensus that self-report questionnaires can assess aptitudes ortendencies to use self-regulatory strategies, but they are not very good at capturing actualevents or dynamic processes (Pintrich, 2004).

Despite these limitations, this study has contributed to our knowledge of the relationsbetween students’ experience of the learning environment, motives, and learning strategiesin general and to how students in prison experience these factors in particular. Because theresults showed that the education is highly valued and evaluated among inmates and thatthey generally consider themselves to be effective students, this study sends a positivesignal to those who work for the promotion of prison education and to teachers who workamong inmates. But the results may also serve as a reminder of the particular problemsthat this group of students faces and that the quality of education in subgroups of studentsmay be improved. In sum, prison education should be encouraged, but the problemsfacing this type of education should also be addressed, because they have a negative effecton the educational quality.

210 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Acknowledgements

The study was initiated and funded by the County Governor of Hordaland, the Department ofEducation. We would like to thank senior adviser Torfinn Langelid at the County Governor’s office,headmasters of the prison schools, the prison governors who organised the data collection, and theinmates who participated.

Notes on contributors

Dr. Age Diseth is an associate professor at the University of Bergen, Norway. He has conductedresearch on students’ approaches to learning, cognitive styles, motivation, personality, courseexperience, prison education, and academic achievement.

Ole Johan Eikeland is a social and political scientist and researcher at Eikeland Research andTeaching in Bergen, Norway.

Dr. Terje Manger is a professor at the University of Bergen, Norway. He has conducted research ongender differences in mathematical achievement, learning motivation, behavioural problems, andprison education.

Dr. Hilde Hetland is an associate professor at the University of Bergen, Norway. She has conductedresearch on motivation, leadership, organisational psychology, and prison education.

References

Arbuckle, J.L. (2005). Amos 6.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS.Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Batchelder, J.S., & Rachal, J.R. (2000). Efficacy of a computer-assisted instruction program in aprison setting: An experimental study. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 120–133.

Battle, E. (1966). Motivational determinants of academic competence. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 4, 634–642.

Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W.J., Lin, Y.G., & Holinger, D.P. (1981). Test anxiety: Deficits ininformation processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 816–824.

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R.J. Sternberg & L.F. Zhang(Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). London: LawrenceErlbaum.

Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen &J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445–455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, andprogramming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: Anevaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,28, 135–145.

Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement.European Journal of Personality, 17, 143–155.

Diseth, A. (2007). Approaches to learning, course experience, and examination grade amongundergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies inHigher Education, 32, 373–388.

Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006). Course experience, approaches tolearning, and academic achievement. Education and Training, 48, 156–169.

Duguid, S., & Pawson, R. (1998). Education, change and transformation: The prison experience.Evaluation Review, 22, 470–495.

Educational Research and Evaluation 211

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Eccles, J.S. (2006). A motivational perspective on school achievement: Taking responsibility forlearning, teaching and supporting. In R.J. Sternberg & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), Optimizing studentsuccess in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, Resilience and Responsibility (pp. 199–202).Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 21, 215–225.

Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon &N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment (5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

Eccles, J.S., Wong, C.A., & Peck, S.C. (2006). Ethnicity as a social context for the development ofAfrican-American adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 407–426.

Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studyinginventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education,15, 33–48.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A MultidisciplinaryJournal, 6, 1–55.

Joreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.),Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–317). London: Sage.

Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). Influences upon students’ perceptions of workload.Educational Psychology, 18, 293–307.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learningenvironment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in HigherEducation, 27, 27–52.

Manger, T., Eikeland, O.-J., Asbjørnsen, A., & Langelid, T. (2006). Educational intentions amongprison inmates. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 12, 35–48.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50,741–749.

Pintrich, P.R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learningin college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407.

Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self regulated components of classroomacademic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunck, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillPrentice Hall.

Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. HigherEducation, 8, 411–427.

Ramsden, P. (1988). Situational influences on learning. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategiesand learning styles (pp. 159–184). New York: Plenum Press.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The CourseExperience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129–150.

Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches tostudying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368–383.

Richardson, J.T.E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in a shortweb-based course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 433–442.

Richardson, J.T.E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic qualityin electronically delivered courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 45–56.

Royal proposition No. 1. (2006–2007). Oslo, Norway: Ministry of justice and police.Tait, H., & Entwistle, N. (1996). Identifying students at risk through ineffective study strategies.

Higher Education, 27, 487–501.Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Educational

Psychologist, 20, 135–140.Tootoonchi, A. (1993). College education in prisons: The inmates’ perspectives. Federal Probation,

57, 34–40.Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of

learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes.Higher Education, 22,251–266.

212 A. Diseth et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Vacca, J.S. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of CorrectionalEducation, 55, 297–305.

Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

White paper No. 27 (2004–2005). Education and training in the correctional services – ‘‘AnotherSpring’’. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of education and research.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1989). Test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students.Educational Psychologist, 24, 159–183.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoreticalanalysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

Wilson, K.L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and appreciation ofthe Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 33–53.

Yumusak, N., Sungur, S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students’ biologyachievement in relation to academic self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13,53–69.

Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.

Appendix 1

Course experience

Question: What is your view of the educational programme you participate in during sentence?

Education quality

a. I am satisfied with the teachingc. The prison makes it possible to take an educationh. The teaching is suited to my needsl. I am pleased with the educational programme

Workload and demands

b. The requirements are too toughf. Some of the subjects are too hardg. There are too many lecturesi. There is too much group work

Problems

Question: Do any of the following factors create problems for you in the programme ofeducation that you are now involved in?

a. Transfer while serving my sentenceb. I will have finished my sentence before I finish my educationc. My own reading or writing problemsd.Disturbances in prisone. The security routines in the prisonf. My own arithmetic or mathematics problemsg. Inadequate access to computer equipment and facilities (ICT-equipment and facilities)h. Inadequate access to literature

Motivation and learning strategies

Instruction: Below are a number of statements that describe different ways of learning,motivation for learning, expectations, and how you experience tests. To what extent do you agree ordisagree that these statements describe you in your present educational situation?

Educational Research and Evaluation 213

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[AB

M U

tvik

ling

STM

/ S

SH

pac

kage

s] A

t: 11

:10

26 M

ay 2

008

Self-efficacy

b. I believe that I will achieve good resultsf. I expect to do wellg. I am a good learnerj. I have good study and work habits

Intrinsic value

d. It is important for me to learn what is being taughte. I like what I am learning in this programme of educationi. I think that what I am learning in this programme of education is useful for me to knowk. I think that what we are learning in this programme of education is interestingm. Understanding what I am learning is important to me

Test anxiety

c. I am so nervous during a test that I cannot remember facts I have learnedh. I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take a testn. When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing

Cognitive strategy use

s. When I study I put important ideas into my own wordsu. When studying, I copy my notes over to help me remember materialz. When I am studying a topic, I try to make everything fit togethercc. When reading I try to connect the things I am reading about with what I already know

Self-regulation

p. I ask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studyingx. I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t know what it is all about (reversed)y. I find that when the teacher is talking I think of other things and don’t really listen to what is

being said (reversed)aa. When I’m reading I stop once in a while and go over what I have read

214 A. Diseth et al.