Perspectives on Correctional Education: Engaging the Voices of Instructors and Incarcerated Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correctional education plays a vital role in rehabilitating incarcerated individuals in the correctional system in Alberta, Canada. Which types of programs and correctional learning experiences impact and facilitate this rehabilitation is largely unknown. Through a case study, I gained the perspectives of both incarcerated learners and their instructors to develop a detailed understanding of learning experiences at one Alberta correctional centre. Participants were asked to reflect on their teaching and learning experiences within several correctional education programs. In order to understand which correctional education programs were distinguished as effective by study participants, the four dimensions of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains – factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge – were used to frame the incarcerated students’ learning experiences in each program (Forehand, 2005). Participants’ views provided a deeper understanding of how factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge acquisition provide students with diverse skill sets, increased self-confidence, and the tools to plan for a future once released from the correctional system. The research also revealed the instructors’ intentions to create an ideal learning environment through their curriculum and instructional design, and their observations on the impact of the curriculum on knowledge acquisition and application. Participants shared how education can serve as a catalyst for behavioural change through complex and sometimes difficult learning experiences. Drawing from the theoretical frameworks of transformational learning and desistance theory, this study illuminates participant perspectives on how education impacts student self-concept, supports desistance from crime, and, by extension, contributes to the rehabilitative process and decreasing recidivism. This research endeavours to inform learners in correctional centres, instructors who teach correctional education courses, the correctional and educational systems that administer correctional education, and society as a whole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".