CAI in Prison_2012

Running head: CAI AND LANGUAGE IMPROVEMENT
Computer Aided Instruction and Student Motivation in the Prison Classroom: Language
Arts Improvement on the TABE
Matthew D. Wright
Texas A&M University-Central Texas
December 2012

CAI AND LANGUAGE IMPROVEMENT

2
Abstract
Teachers have long been the locus of the traditional classroom. Since the advent of
computerized learning, researchers have questioned the role of CAI in relationship to
traditional methods of instruction and supplementation. This study used a repeated
measures design to examine the impact CAI has had on language arts scores when
measured using standardized tests. Students were divided into two groups based on
time spent in the computer laboratory. Group 1 (n1=30) spent six hours per week and
Group 2 (n2=46) spent three hours per week in the computer laboratory. The TABE test
was used as the measurement device and administered three times over the 2011-2012
school year. After the first test, students were given a 30 to 40 minute instructional
lecture and the remainder of the three-hour class period on the computers. Following
the second test session, students followed the same classroom format but with no
access to the computers. The data analysis indicated a possible trend supporting
language arts improvement but without statistical significance.


3
Computer Aided Instruction and Student Motivation in the Prison Classroom: Language
Arts Improvement on the TABE
The prison programming community accepts the theory that higher educational
achievement is directly correlated to reduced recidivism (Harer, 1995). Computer-
aided-instruction (CAI) in Adult Basic Education (ABE) in penal institutions contributes
to this goal, but CAI courses are limited by restricted access to the World Wide Web.
Interaction between students, teachers, and computers is paramount to the success of
any program of instruction (McCollum, 1989). Studies have confirmed the importance
of CAI in an integrated program, but researchers caution against the reliance on the
computers alone to reach basic education goals (Batchelder & Rachal, 2000;
Greenberg, Dunleavy, & Kutner, 2007; Jenks & Springer, 2002; McCollum, 1989;
Winters, Mathew, Booker, & Fleeger, 1993).
Studies have also shown the impact of CAI as an important supplement to
traditional instruction (Jenks & Springer, 2002; McCollum, 1989; Winters, 2000). These
studies have included settings from elementary to adult education classrooms in both
public schools and prison systems. The results support the theory that CAI in any form
is highly beneficial to the student (Winters, 2000). McCollum (1989), supported later by
Jenks and Springer (2002), reported that a major contributing factor to the success of
mandatory education programs was the use of CAI as a supplement to traditional
classroom instruction. More studies are needed to determine the impact computers
have on adult incarcerated students, motivational issues these students face, and use
of CAI as a supplemental resource or primary mode of instruction, especially in
language arts instruction.


4
All computer-based instruction in this research is addressed as computer-
assisted-instruction (CAI). Literacy programs are those educational programs within the
prison systems designed for high school equivalency or General Education
Development (GED) achievement. In this research, data for specialty programs such as
special education, vocational education, and cognitive intervention programs are
included with general education data.
The purpose of this study was to identify how effective CAI was for traditional
instruction In the prison environment for language arts improvement. Language arts
improvement programs offer a variety of formats to meet the needs of students at all
levels. Most of these programs are designed for students based upon age rather than
achievement level. Supplemental programs are coupled with textbooks and offer a
tutoring format for additional practice. Other programs are stand-alone systems that
offer instruction, practice, remediation, and constant assessment, filling the majority of
the role of the teacher. These systems lack the personal attention only a teacher can
provide (Batchelder & Rachal, 2000).
Prison education programs include students that are volunteers and students that
have been mandated to attend. Flowers (2000) reported that adult students who were
mandated to participate in ABE by the courts responded negatively to instruction.
Batchelder and Rachal (2000) conducted a study that eliminated virtually all influence
besides the computer in classroom instruction. The study was conducted with the sole
purpose of determining the effectiveness of CAI as a stand-alone instructional model.
They found that CAI was not a major contributor to student achievement but personal
interaction with a teacher was the deciding factor in major improvements. This finding


5
was supported by earlier reports that emphasized the importance of the teacher in the
classroom (Batchelder & Rachal, 2000; Jenks & Springer, 2002; McCollum, 1989;
Winters et al., 1993).
Teachers provide the instruction and personal interaction for learning to take
place, but students must be motivated to learn and be open to new technologies and
ideas that may increase their personal achievements (Winters et al., 1993). CAI is a
tool, much like a textbook or video that is only effective if the instructor is knowledgeable
enough to understand and use it. Learning basic skills becomes more important as
access to the internet and World Wide Web is strictly limited to incarcerated students.
CAI provides more than just academic interventions but also skills and exposure to
computer systems which are increasingly more prevalent in the workforce (Freasier,
1993). CAI is a primary contributor to the success of corrections education when used
as a supplement that reinforces traditional teacher-led instruction (Sutton, 1992).
Teachers in CAI classrooms
Teachers are the key to classroom success, especially in the CAI classroom.
Winters, Mathew, Booker, and Fleeger (1993) state that CAI is beneficial when coupled
with traditional classroom instruction and interactions. CAI alone has neither a positive
nor a negative impact on learning. Batchelder and Rachal (2000) noted several factors
that contributed to this phenomenon, one of which was the lack of teacher involvement
and support, and the researchers recommended that interaction from the teacher was
paramount to learning, regardless of the medium of study. The success of the federal
prison education program has been attributed to the introduction of CAI coupled with


6
teachers providing the individual attention students often require (McCollum, 1989).
Teachers must, therefore, be active participants in the CAI classroom.
Student motivation in CAI programs
Teachers and computers are only part of the educational success equation.
Student motivation is directly tied to the reason the student is enrolled in an education
course (Lawrence, Mears, Dubin, & Travis, 2002). Lawrence, et. al, (2002), stated that
when students volunteer for educational services, their motivation to complete the
course was higher. This concept is supported by other studies that also indicate that
forced-enrollment resulted in lower motivation, resentment, and the inability to
internalize educational goals (Flowers, 2000). Students in a correctional education
setting generally have a history of resistance and contempt for authority which includes
teachers (Flowers, 2000). Peer-tutoring was a common strategy used with struggling
learners, and the use of this strategy indicated an increased motivation of students as
offenders relate more to technology and peers than authority figures (Stern & Repa,
2000). Students were also more motivated to learn using CAI as the computers were
non-judgmental toward the student (Winters et al., 1993). McCollum (1989), reporting
on the resistance to mandatory education programs after the Federal Bureau of Prisons
began their mandatory program, noted that initial resistance was expected but that the
students, over time, internalized the program since successful growth was rewarded
outside of the classroom. Inmates at federal facilities were initially required to achieve a
sixth-grade literacy level that was later raised to the eighth-grade literacy level. The
requirement for educational achievement, coupled with CAI, was two major factors in
the success of the external rewards system (McCollum, 1989). The idea of external


7
rewards was promising as many students used educational programming as a means of
escaping the routine of prison life rather than as a privilege (Batchelder & Rachal,
2000).
CAI relation to achievement and age
CAI benefits were manifested at different levels depending upon age and grade
equivalents. Jenks and Springer (2002) noted that the use of CAI alone was more
beneficial to middle school students over other technologies. They continued that
elementary students benefited more than any other age group when CAI was used to
supplement the curriculum. These benefits were shown by the increase in abilities and
scores of low-level readers and English Language Learners (ELL). Coryell and Chlup
(2007) indicated that ELL students using CAI displayed a large increase in skills and
knowledge. This increase was achieved through the process of identifying specific
needs and designing Individual Educational Programs for each student. The Howard
Research and Instructional Systems, Inc. (1997) indicated that language students
responded positively to the use of CAI as part of ELL and ABE programs.
Correctional education is a hallmark of prison programming aimed at reducing
recidivism and helping released prisoners become productive members of society. A
three state study indicated a significant (0.1 level) impact of education in regard to
recidivism (Steurer & Smith, 2003). Participants of correctional education are more
likely to make socially acceptable decisions after release than those who had not
participated (Harer, 1995). A pilot program by the Texas Criminal Justice Policy
Council, focused on CAI as a continuing education program for offenders through their
respective paroles. The program evaluation, in agreement with many other


8
publications, indicated promise in the 3R program; however, it was terminated due to
planning and implementation issues before findings could be verified (Riechers, 1992).
The researcher hypothesizes that CAI exposure will increase language arts
scores on standardized tests when used as a supplement to traditional classroom
instruction. The more exposure to tutorial programs a student has increases that
student’s comprehension of language arts concepts when coupled with direct instruction
from a teacher. Studies that examine the effectiveness of CAI in the prison classroom
do not focus on specific disciplines. Most studies are generally limited to reading and
mathematics. These studies also use models of study that follow a format that includes
CAI in all facets of the studies or with no CAI in the first part and CAI use in the second
part. It is important to examine each discipline of study to develop best practices in the
use of the CAI programming.
Methods
Participants
The participants for this study were a convenience sample initially consisting of
76 offenders in one institution of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).
These offenders were enrolled in the literacy program. The age of students ranged
from 22 to 57 years old (m=34 years). Participants were separated into two groups
based on general equivalency score averages from the TABE tests. The sample was
based on enrollment prior to February 1 of the 2011-2012 school year. Group 1
consisted of students between 5.0 and 8.0, spending six hours per week in the
computer lab. Group 2 was students with a general equivalency score less than 5.0 or
higher than 8.0 with only three hours per week in the computer lab.


9
Instrumentation
The Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) was used to measure changes in
literacy achievement and as a baseline. Baselines were developed based on previous
tests using the highest score for each participant from the past school year. If students
had baseline scores over one school year old, the most recent test scores were used as
a baseline.
The TABE consists of Reading, Math Computation, Applied Math, and Language
tests. This study used only results from the Language section of the battery. The data
represent a public school year equivalency in years and months. Participants were
evaluated on usage of Standard English, sentence formation, paragraph development,
capitalization, punctuation, and writing conventions. These skills were covered in a 55-
question timed test of 55 minutes duration. The test was the final battery given on the
third day of testing. Returned scores were entered in a spreadsheet and evaluated
using the factorial repeated measures ANOVA.
Intervention
Instructional sessions included individual practice using the CompassLearning
Odyssey program. The Odyssey program was developed for public and home schools,
and uses a pre-test—practice—post-test format. The purpose of this format was to
determine what the student knew based on grade-level equivalency. The results of the
pre-tests determined the learning path the computer prescribed. The post-test was
formatted like the pre-test with many of the same questions. Student progression
required 75% mastery on the post-test before promotion to the subsequent level. Upon


10
completion of the eighth level, students were allowed to browse the language arts menu
and work on the different skills based on the daily lesson and personal preference.
Procedure
The research followed the repeated measures model of experimentation.
Student test data were examined across the time variables and across groups. This
format of analysis highlighted patterns in learning improvement over time and by level of
achievement. This used the factorial repeated measures ANOVA as there were several
variables analyzed.
Students were evaluated using the TABE results prior to the 2011-2012 school
year. These scores were used to determine placement in a literacy homeroom class as
well as the initial base-line scores for the current school year. Students were placed in
one of two groups based on time spent per week in the computer lab. This routine was
followed for four months, and the next test session was conducted followed by another
four-month instructional semester culminating in the final TABE test session.
The two four-month sessions differed for the purpose of isolating the effects of
the computer systems on test scores. The first session followed the lecture-computer
practice format. Students received 30 to 40 minutes of direct instruction and the rest of
the class period working on the computers studying language arts. The second session
followed the same format excluding access to computers. Individual practice during the
second semester was with traditional methods of worksheets and textbook exercises.
The test sessions were proctored by teachers other than the homeroom teacher. This
introduced some bias but was necessary for test security and integrity.


11
Results
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that CAI improved language
arts test cores on standardized tests. Initial tests were administered to the students
who were divided into two groups based on achievement levels and CAI exposure.
These tests were followed by a three-month period of instruction without CAI access. A
third test was administered at the end of the school year. The test scores were
analyzed by a repeated measures ANOVA comparing two groups over the two time
periods.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was violated (p=0.026) requiring an adjustment to the
degrees of freedom for subsequent tests and data comparisons. These tests include
within-subjects effects and pairwise comparisons. The within-subjects effect was
reported using the Greenhouse-Giesser with all subjects over time F(1.826)=2.213,
p=0.118. The test data was then separated by group and compared F(1.826)=2.213,
p=0.338. These data indicate a possible positive effect of CAI though not statistically
significant. The data further indicate a possible trend towards a more equal distribution
of scores across groups. Variability between groups became more similar from Test 1
to Test 3 as indicated in Figure 1. This is supported by the increase of mean scores
from Test 1 (Group 1: m=530.833, sd=22.426; Group 2: m=534.413, sd=49.453) to Test
2 (Group 1: m=540.433, sd=25.299; Group 2: m=542.283, sd=48.104) for both groups
when CAI was available. Test 2 to Test 3 had a decline in mean scores for Group 1
(m=532.500, sd=38.785) and a lesser degree of increase for Group 2 (m=546.174;
sd=44.846) as illustrated in Figure 2 after CAI was removed.


12
The pairwise comparisons provided a clearer understanding of the results of the
study. The comparison examined the significance of the mean differences with all data
combined (mtest 1=532.623; mtest 2=541.358; mtest 3=539.337). The differences were
compared from Test 1 to Test 2 (CAI available), Test 2 to Test 3 (no CAI available), and
from Test 1 to Test 3 (overall difference). The results indicated statistical significance
when access to CAI is available (mdiff T1-T2=-8.735; p=0.018). When access to CAI is
removed, the comparison is no longer significant (mdiff T2-T3=-2.021; p=0.667). The
overall comparison from Test 1 to Test 3 indicates a possible trend (mdiff T1-T3=-6.714;
p=0.154) toward a positive benefit of CAI access.
Discussion
The results of the study did not support the hypothesis. The results did indicate a
possible trend toward the positive impact of CAI on language arts scores. Statistical
significance is an important aspect of the results of any study. Educators and
researchers must analyze data deeper than just the numbers. Further investigation of
the results of this study has indicated that CAI at any level will contribute to the increase
of standardized scores. The influence of CAI was not at a level (p<0.05) that is
indicative of statistical significance; therefore, the null hypothesis should not be rejected.
Statistical significance aside, the results of the study indicate many positive
things. One of which is the improvement of scores with both groups. When CAI was
made available, the mean scores increased in both groups. This supports previous
research that indicated a positive impact of CAI in a classroom environment. This
indicates a possible trend that is in agreement with the hypothesis of this study though
not enough to reject the null hypothesis.


13
A more significant possibility is indicated by the means after the third test
session. During the second semester, CAI access was removed with the expectation of
a significant drop in scores. Figure 2 illustrates the results with surprising implication.
Group 1’s scores did decrease as expected, but Group 2’s scores increased slightly.
The increase in the second group is noteworthy as this group was only exposed to three
hours of CAI per week during the previous semester. It could be inferred that the first
group became dependent upon CAI, thereby indicating a need for research concerning
best practices in the use of CAI in prison programming
Limitations and Delimitations
Potential limitations were categorized into student, teacher, and computer system
issues. Student issues included many factors that affected student attitude, motivation,
and attendance. Teacher issues were those factors that impacted effectiveness of
delivery and assessment. Computer system issues were events that degraded the
effectiveness of the system itself. The impact of any individual event may have been
evident in more than one category.
Institutional events directly impacted student motivation and varied on a daily
basis. This variation and unpredictability of events made mitigations nearly impossible.
Personal events in the lives of the students were mitigated through teacher and staff
counseling or referral to appropriate institutional agencies. Computer system issues
may have lead to frustration wit the student that reduced the ability of the student to
learn and was mitigated by the teacher through system troubleshooting or counseling
for the student.


14
The computer system sometimes became unstable resulting in crashes and
lockups. These events degraded or eliminated access to the lessons and exercises on
the system. The impact of these particular events was reduced through professional
development of the teacher in system maintenance and student counseling.
Other bias may have been introduced through the testing process itself.
Students enrolled for more than the two semesters may have seen all versions of the
standardized test and therefore have been more familiar with the questions. This was
necessary to achieve a minimal acceptable amount of subject data. Teachers may
have inadvertently introduced bias through individual tutoring apart from the scheduled
language arts instructional period. There was no plan to minimize this effect as student
learning was always the priority and was not sacrificed for the sake of this study.
Teacher bias was mitigated through teacher training on the process of the study
and curricular guidelines. The language arts teacher had the standards of language
arts learning explained and lessons evaluated prior to implementation to ensure
consistency in delivery throughout the duration of the study. Student motivation was
constantly monitored and reinforced to provide as constant state of motivation as
possible within the prison culture.
The factorial repeated measures ANOVA was preferred over other analyses due
to the nature of the study. The factorial repeated measures ANOVA narrows the
possible outcomes of the analysis thereby providing a more focused idea of what may
be happening rather than a clouded picture.
Conclusion


15
Previous research has shown the importance of CAI in the classroom. Those
studies approached the testing of efficacy by measuring growth during the constant use
of CAI. This study took a different approach. The repeated measures design attempted
to determine the efficacy of CAI by measuring language arts performance after access
to computers was removed. The resulting data indicated a possible trend that supports
use of CAI on a regular basis though not statistically significant to reject the null
hypothesis.
Further research is needed to examine the importance of the trends indicated in
this study. Expansion of the study to multiple campuses would provide data more
generalizable toward other districts and states. Additionally, more heterogeneous
groups should be studied to determine if CAI effectiveness across gender, race, SES
background, or ethnicity. The results noted here should aid teachers throughout the
district in planning effective use of CAI as a supplement to traditional classroom
instruction.
Other studies should also investigate CAI impact based on the levels of each
student or class. This study combined both elementary level learners and secondary
level learners into a single group. This was important in order to achieve the necessary
30-participant minimum for statistical surety. Future studies should limit groups to
literacy levels to ensure more accurate statistical measures.


16
References
Batchelder, J. S., & Rachal, J. R. (2000). Effects of a computer-assisted-instruction
program in a prison setting: An experimental study. Journal of Correctional
Education, 324–332.
Coryell, J. E., & Chlup, D. T. (2007). Implementing e-learning components with adult
English language learners: Vital factors and lessons learned. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 20(3), 263–278.
Flowers, S. (2000). Understanding the learner who is court-mandated to learn. East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.(ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED445245).
Freasier, A. W. (1993). Computer-generated academic and behavioral interventions and
incentives. Instructional technology. Journal of Correctional Education, 44(1), 42–
46.
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind bars: Results from
the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy prison survey. nces 2007-473.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Harer, M. D. (1995). Prison education program participation and recidivism: A test of the
normalization hypothesis. Washington: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of
Research and Evaluation.
Howard Research and Instructional Systems Inc, Alberta Advanced Education and
Career Development, National Literacy Secretariat, Alberta Vocational College
(Calgary, A. ., & Kysela Consultants Ltd. (1997). Alberta vocational college,
calgary computer assisted reading instruction project: Evaluation report. Howard


17
Research and Instructional Systems. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=6PS9ZwEACAAJ
Jenks, M. S., & Springer, J. M. (2002). A view of the research on the efficacy of cai.
Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1(2), 43–58.
Lawrence, S., Mears, D., Dubin, G., & Travis, J. (2002). The practice and promise of
prison programming.
McCollum, S. (1989). Mandatory literacy for prisons. The Yearbook of Correctional
Education, 121–128.
Riechers, L. (1992). Reading to reduce recidivism program: Development,
implementation, and termination; implications for future correctional treatment.
Stern, R., & Repa, J. T. (2000). A study of the efficacy of computerized skill building for
adolescents: Reducing aggression and increasing pro-social behavior. ERIC
Clearinghouse.
Steurer, S. J., & Smith, L. G. (2003). Education reduces crime: Three-state recidivism
study--executive summary. Correctional Education Association.
Sutton, P. (1992). Basic education in prisons: Interim report.
Winters, C. A. (2000). Promising practices in adult correctional education. Journal of
Correctional Education, 312–314.
Winters, C. A., Mathew, M., Booker, F., & Fleeger, F. (1993). The role of a computer-
managed instructional system’s prescriptive curriculum in the basic skill areas of
math and reading scores for correctional pre-trial detainees (inmates). Journal of
Correctional Education, 10–17.


18

Figure 1: Group 1 had an initial mean score of 530.833 (SD=22.246) and Group 2 had
an initial mean of 534.413 (SD=49.453. The second test yielded means of
540.433 (SD=25.299) and 542.283 (SD=48.104) respectively. The final test
yielded means of 532.500 (SD=38.785) and 546.174 (SD=44.846),
respectively.

Figure 2: Groups 1 and 2 had similar increases during the first session. Group 2
continued to increase after CAI removal though at a lesser degree. Group 1
had a dimilar decreas to its scores in the second session.

CAI in Prison_2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (18)

Similar a CAI in Prison_2012

Similar a CAI in Prison_2012 (20)

CAI in Prison_2012