Providing simulated online and mobile learning experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot project

Christian Kittl, Karl-Franzens-U., Austria
Jayne Klenner-Moore, King’s College, USA
Shirlee-ann Knight, Edith Cowan U., Australia
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, The Open U., UK
Kwan Min Lee, U. of Southern California, USA
Marshall Lewis, Westpac, New Zealand
Heide Lukosch, Delft U. of Technology, The Netherlands
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, U. of Auckland, New Zealand
Kathy Lynch, U. of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
Ross Malaga, Montclair State U., USA
Masood Masoodian, Waikato U., New Zealand
David Metcalf, U. of Central Florida, USA
Warren Midgley, U. of Southern Queensland, Australia
Mahnaz Moallem, National Science Foundation, USA
Julian Newman, Glasgow Caledonian U., UK
Norbert Pachler, U. of London, UK
Krassie Petrova, AUT U., New Zealand
Christoph Pimmer, U. of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Amarolinda Zanela Saccol, U. of Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil
DaniyarSapargaliyev,InternationalAcademyofBusiness,Kazakhstan
Eunice Sari, Online Learning Community for Teacher Professional
Development, Finland
Abdolhossein Sarrafzadeh, Unitec, New Zealand
Lori Scarlatos, Stony Brook U., USA
Eric Seneca, Our Lady of the Lake College, USA
Robina Shaheen, Open U., UK
Marcus Specht, Open U. of the Netherlands, The Netherlands
Susan Stoney, Edith Cowan U., Australia
Thomas Sweeney, U. of Nottingham, UK
Siobhán Thomas, Pervasive Learning, UK
Mark Tyler, Griffith U., Australia
Matthew Valencius, IBM Center for Advanced Learning, USA
Ruth Wallace, Charles Darwin U., Australia
Marilyn Wells, Central Queensland U., Australia
Janet Williams, U. of Glamorgan Business School, UK
Jocelyn Wishart, U. of Bristol, UK
Jane Yau, Malmö U., Sweden
Ronda Zelezny-Green, London U., UK
International Editorial Review Board:
Sohaib Ahmed, Massey U., New Zealand
Panagiotes Anastasiades, U. of Crete, Greece
Trish Andrews, U. of Queensland, Australia
Rajarathinam Arangarasan, The Raj Organization, USA
Inmaculada Arnedillo-Sánchez, Trinity College, Ireland
Margaret Baguley, U. of Southern Queensland, Australia
Brenda Bannan, George Mason U., USA
Adele Botha, Meraka Institute, South Africa
Maiga Chang, Athabasca U., Canada
Yunhi Chang, Dankook U., Korea
Dragan Cisic, U. of Rijeka, Croatia
Thom Cochrane, AUT U., New Zealand
John Cook, U. of the West of England, UK
Rob Cooper, Southampton Solent U., UK
Patrick Danaher, U. of Southern Queensland, Australia
Linda De George-Walker, Central Queensland U., Australia
Rogerio De Paula, Emerging Markets Platforms Group at Intel
Corporation, Brazil
Peter Doolittle, Virginia Tech, USA
Tony Dowden, U. of Southern Queensland, Australia
Laurel Dyson, U. of Technology, Australia
Kay Fielden, Unitec, New Zealand
Elizabeth Fitzgerald, The Open U., UK
Bob Folden, Texas A&M U.-Commerce, USA
Rahul Ganguly, U. of Southern Queensland, Australia
Margarete Grimus, Technical U. of Graz, Austria
Dion Hoe-Lian Goh, Nanyang Technological U., Singapore
Tiong-Thye Goh, Victoria U. of Wellington, New Zealand
Sam Goundar, United Nations U., Macau
Joachim Griesbaum, U. of Hildesheim, Germany
Louise Hawkins, Central Queensland U., Australia
Aleksej Heinze, U. of Salford, UK
Debbie Holley, Anglia Ruskin U., UK
Andreas Holzinger, Medical U. Graz, Austria
Joaquim Jorge, Technical U. of Lisboa, Portugal
Terry Kidd, U. of Texas Health Science Center, USA
Michelle Kilburn, Southeast Missouri State U., USA
Andrew Kitchenham, U. of Northern British Columbia, Canada
Lindsay Johnston, Managing Director
Jennifer Yoder, Production Editor
Adam Bond, Journal Development Editor
Jeff Snyder, Copy Editor
Allyson Stengel, Asst. Journal Development Editor
Ian Leister, Production Assistant
IGI Editorial:
Editor-in-Chief: David Parsons, Massey U. - Auckland, New Zealand
International Advisory Board:
A.Y. Al-Zoubi, Princess Sumaya U. for Technology, Jordan
Marcelo Milrad, Linnaeus U., Sweden
Hiroaki Ogata, Tokushima U., Japan
Jaime Sánchez, U. of Chile, Chile
Mike Sharples, The Open U., UK
Associate Editors: Hokyoung Ryu, Hanyang U., Korea
Elizabeth Stacey, Elizabeth Stacey Educational Consulting, Australia
Rosemary Stockdale, Swinburne U. of Technology, Australia
John Traxler, U. of Wolverhampton, UK
Norman Vaughan, Mount Royal U., Canada
Giasemi Vavoula, U. of Leicester, UK
IJMBL Editorial Board

The International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning is indexed or listed in the following:ACM Digital Library;
Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Bacon’s Media Directory; Cabell’s Directories; Compendex
(ElsevierEngineeringIndex);DBLP;GetCited;GoogleScholar;INSPEC;JournalTOCs;Library&InformationScience
Abstracts (LISA); MediaFinder; Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD); PsycINFO®; SCOPUS; The Index
of Information Systems Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
Copyright
The International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL) (ISSN 1941-8647; eISSN 1941-8655),
Copyright © 2014 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part
of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher,
except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in
this journal are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a
claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those
of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Editorial Preface
iv10.4018/ijmbl.20140101pre DavidParsons,CollegeofSciences,SchoolofEngineeringandAdvancedTechnology,MasseyUniversity,Auckland,
New Zealand10.4018/ijmbl.20140101pre::1
Research Articles
110.4018/ijmbl.2014010101 Using Smartphone Technology in Environmental Sustainability Education: The Case of the Maasai Mara
Region in Kenya
James Dogbey, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010101::1
Cassie Quigley, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010101::2
Megan Che, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010101::3
Jeffrey Hallo, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010101::4
1710.4018/ijmbl.2014010102 ProvidingSimulatedOnlineandMobileLearningExperiencesinaPrisonEducationSetting:LessonsLearned
from the PLEIADES Pilot Project
Helen Farley, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia10.4018/ijmbl.2014010102::1
Angela Murphy, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia10.4018/ijmbl.2014010102::2
Tasman Bedford, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia10.4018/ijmbl.2014010102::3
3310.4018/ijmbl.2014010103 Blended Course Design: Where’s the Pedagogy?
Patricia McGee, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010103::1
5610.4018/ijmbl.2014010104 Analyzing the Effects of Context-Aware Mobile Design Principles on Student Learning
Eric Seneca, Our Lady of the Lake College, Baton Rouge, LA, USA10.4018/ijmbl.2014010104::1
Table of Contents
January-March 2014, Vol. 6, No. 1
International Journal
of Mobile and Blended
Learning

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(1), 17-32, January-March 2014 17
Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
ABSTRACT
This article reports on the preliminary findings, design criteria and lessons learned while developing and
piloting an alternative to traditional print-based education delivery within a prison environment. PLEIADES
(Portable Learning Environments for Incarcerated Distance Education Students), was designed to provide
incarcerated students with access to internet-independent secure digital and mobile technologies.An internet-
independent version of Moodle was developed to complement course readings deployed on eReaders. The aim
of the project was to increase access to and participation in higher education courses that are increasingly
offered exclusively online. The article begins with an overview of the current provision of education within
prison environments and introduces the rationale for commencing the project. The research findings of the
project trial are discussed and the paper concludes with the lessons learned and implications for further
research, development and implementation.
Providing Simulated Online and
Mobile Learning Experiences
in a Prison Education Setting:
Lessons Learned from the
PLEIADES Pilot Project
Helen Farley, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Angela Murphy, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Tasman Bedford, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Keywords: Design-Based Research, Digital Inclusion, Distance Learning, E-Readers, Higher Education,
Incarcerated Students, Mobile Learning, Prisons, Stand Alone Moodle
INTRODUCTION
Higher education institutions are increas-
ingly leveraging mobile learning and other
digital technology initiatives in order to remain
competitive in the modern knowledge-based
economy. The use of mobile technologies has
become essential in the delivery of distance
education courses, largely in response to an
emerging demand for flexibility in learning
(West, 2012; Jeffrey et al., 2011). Even so,
the Learning Management System (LMS) has
becometheprincipletoolusedbyinstitutionsto
deliver electronic course materials or activities
in both the face-to-face and external delivery
modes.TheuseoftheLMShasenabledstudents
DOI: 10.4018/ijmbl.2014010102

18 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(1), 17-32, January-March 2014
toengagewithpeersincollaborativeandinterac-
tive learning experiences and benefit from the
motivationandsupportprovidedsynchronously
or asynchronously by the course facilitator.
Unfortunately, this increasing reliance on the
LMS and other digital technologies is based
on the assumption that students have reliable
access to the internet. For many students this is
not the case, for example forty-four per cent of
the students who participated in the University
of Southern Queensland’s (USQ’s) Tertiary
Preparation Program (TPP) in Semester 2 2012
claimed they did not have access to the internet
(USQ, unpublished data). Consequently, this
increasing reliance on mobile and digital de-
vices for learning increases the risk of further
excluding disadvantaged students without
reliable access to the internet from engaging
in learning (Hancock, 2010).
The PLEIADES (Portable Learning Envi-
ronments for Incarcerated Distance Education
Students) project piloted the use of secure
elearning and mobile learning technologies
that are independent of the internet, for learn-
ing within a correctional centre. Incarcerated
offenders are prohibited from accessing the
internet in any way and are therefore generally
excludedfromaccessingcoursematerialselec-
tronically.Inordertoaddressthisexclusion,for
this project, course materials were loaded onto
eReaders that were incapable of accessing the
internet.Additionally, an internet-independent
version of the open source LMS, Moodle, was
developed and piloted over a seventeen-week-
semester period in a Queensland correctional
centre. TPP 7120 Studying to Succeed, a foun-
dation course in USQ’s Tertiary Preparation
Program, was modified to provide incarcer-
ated students with access to course materials,
learningexperiencesandassessmentactivities,
without needing access to the internet.
The project aimed to provide a viable
means for students without internet access to
benefit from the advantages afforded by the
inclusion of mobile and digital technologies in
learningandteaching.Thoughthispilotproject
was targeted at incarcerated students, project
outcomes would be applicable to students from
regional, rural and remote communities, low-
socio economic status backgrounds, remote
Indigenous communities and students located
in countries without reliable internet access
due to poor information and communications
technology(ICT)infrastructure.Theprojectwas
designedandimplementedusingtheprinciples
ofdesign-basedresearch,informedbyon-going
cyclesofqualitativeinterviewsandfocusgroups
with participants and key stakeholders. This
datawascomplementedbyreflectionsfromthe
project team informing iterative changes to the
processesanddesignoftheproject.Theoverall
aim of the project was to address the need for a
sustainablesolutiontoovercomethechallenges
of providing learning opportunities to students
without reliable internet access.
This paper describes the design and
implementation of the initial phase of the PLE-
IADES pilot project, presenting the findings
of preliminary research activities conducted
with participants and stakeholders prior to and
directly after the first phase of the trial. The
paper also reports on the lessons learned from
these experiences that were used to further
refine the project design for further develop-
ment and implementation of the technologies.
This pilot project aimed to test the viability of
a solution for delivering courses electronically
in the absence of internet access, rather than
evaluating the impact of these technologies on
student learning outcomes or course retention
rates. The discussion focuses on preliminary
responses to the technologies and implications
for future iterations of the project.
REVIEW OF PRISON
EDUCATION AND
CURRENT INITIATIVES
Bedford (2007, p. 48) clearly articulated the
educational disadvantage experienced by pris-
oners inAustralian jurisdictions. He concluded
that the formal education levels of Australian
prisoners in 1991 were considerably lower
than those of the general Australian popula-
tion. Though this data is some twenty years

old, more recent statistics indicate that these
levels of disadvantage have not significantly
diminished. A 2003 census of 5243 prisoners
in Queensland revealed that 10.3 per cent had
completed secondary education to certificate
level, 2.1 per cent had completed a tertiary de-
greeordiploma,and1.0percenthadcompleted
a technical or trade qualification at the tertiary
level (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003).
Data for the Queensland general population
from a 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics
census are the nearest available in time to that
of the data from the 2003 census of prisoners
in Queensland. In 2005, 22.4 per cent of the
Queenslandpopulationhadcompletedsecond-
ary school to certificate level, 13.6 per cent had
completedatertiarydegreeordiploma,and19.4
per cent had achieved a Certificate III or IV, the
nearest equivalent grouping to a trade qualifi-
cation at a tertiary level (Australian Bureau of
Statistics,2006).Thedataforprisonersin2003
cannot be exactly compared with the 2005 data
for the Queensland general population because
of differences between the data in the classifi-
cations and age groups used, but are generally
indicative of the discrepancies between levels
of education of the general population as com-
pared to incarcerated offenders. An inference
that can be drawn from the low percentage of
prisonerswhohadcompletedsecondaryschool
to certificate level is that, after release from
custody, prisoners are far less likely than other
members of the adult population to engage in
further education or to find skilled employ-
ment. In addition, the National Association of
CharitableRecyclingOrganisations(NACRO)
(2006) states that offenders who lack formal
employment-relatedqualifications,experience
severe difficulty in finding employment after
their release from custody.
CURRENT PROVISION OF
TERTIARY EDUCATION
IN PRISON
Correctional centres are highly reliant on the
provision of distance education for offenders
whowishtoundertakehighereducationstudies
(Farley & Murphy, 2012). Previously, distance
educationwasbasedprimarilyona‘correspon-
dence’modeofdeliverywithinstitutionsposting
large blocks of printed materials to students.
With the emergence of elearning and mobile
learning, distance education institutions are
becomingincreasinglyreluctanttoprintcourse
materials.Coursesdeliveredelectronicallyoften
contain interactive multimedia, internet-based
resources,computer-mediatedcommunication
and promote interaction between students and
educators through a campus-based web portal.
Higher education institutions that still provide
course materials for students without internet
access often employ exceptions handling pro-
cesses, using large volumes of printed copies
of the course materials and learning support
resources(Dorman&Bull,2003).Thisiscostly
foruniversitiestoassemble,printandpost,isin
no way interactive, and cannot incorporate all
of the learning support resources of the course.
TheuseoftheLMSindistanceandblended
learning environments has enabled students to
assume greater control of their own learning
outcomes (Edirisingha & Fothergill, 2010). In
contrast, incarcerated students often have very
little or no contact with each other and are not
able to leverage the social learning supports
that are available to most students engaged in
onlinecourses.Asaresult,incarceratedstudents
have few opportunities to develop the ICT and
team collaboration skills leveraged by social
constructivist pedagogies (Bowden, 2002).
The acquisition of these skills is necessary
in order to obtain meaningful employment in
contemporaryworkenvironments(Pellegrino&
Hilton, 2012). Incarcerated students are highly
dependent on the goodwill of the correctional
facility education officer, the university course
leader and other university personnel such as
library officers to provide them with access to
learning materials and resources. The students
obtain their learning materials in a paper-based
format that includes all essential course mate-
rials. If students are required to do additional
research, they are usually provided with the

materials by education officers who search
for, access and download the information on
the student’s behalf. As a result, there is little
opportunityforincarceratedstudentstoacquire
the skills necessary for self-directed study,
research and inquiry.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AND INTERNET ACCESS FOR
INCARCERATED STUDENTS
InAustralia, in common with most parts of the
world, the majority of prisons do not permit
prisonerstoaccesstheinternetanditisunlikely
thatprogramsenablingthisaccesswillbeavail-
able in the near future. Access to other ICTs
including mobile technologies and software to
support education is similarly limited (Justice
Action, 2012). Prisoners who are participating
in nominated higher education courses, which
excludes preparatory or Vocational Education
& Training (VET) programs, are sometimes
providedwithhighlysecureprison-issuelaptops
in their cells to complete their studies. There
are many restrictions pertaining to the types
of software that are permitted on these laptops
and prisoners are not able to install additional
software thatthey may requirefor theirstudies.
Most prisons provide a central computer lab
for students, containing a series of networked
desktop computers connected to a dedicated
education server. This network is isolated
from other networks and has no connection to
the internet.
Some countries have compensated for
increasing digitization of content and course
delivery by enabling limited and occasional
internet access for specific groups of prisoners.
Norway, for example, has provided internet
access to prisoners both in the classroom as
well as on individual computers in their cells.
Prisonauthoritieshaveaddressedsecurityissues
by installing firewalls that maintain security
protocols, while allowing limited access to the
internet and additional educational resources
(Justice Action, 2012). According to Justice
Action, the educative approach in Norway has
been highly successful with the rates of recidi-
vism at 20 per cent, compared to 56 per cent in
Australia(AustralianBureauofStatistics,2010)
and 50 per cent and 60 per cent in the US and
UK respectively (Justice Action, 2012). The
Open University in the UK has developed a
restricted‘prisonerrole’inMoodlethatenables
prisonerstoaccessonlinecourseswithoutbeing
able to engage in forums, wikis and so forth
(Pike, 2009; Hanock, 2010).
InAustralia, the Tasmania Prison Service,
in partnership with theTasmanianPolytechnic,
successfully developed a highly secure ICT
network to facilitate the access of incarcerated
students to Moodle (Koudstaal, 2009). At the
Alexander Maconochie Centre in Hume in the
Australian Capital Territory, computers are
available in the educational centre as well as
in most cells. Prisoners are permitted access to
approved internet sites containing educational
and legal resources (ACT Corrective Services,
2010). The latter is the only prison inAustralia
to allow access to the internet. No higher edu-
cation institutions have been able to develop a
solution that will enable students in an isolated
network location to participate collaboratively
in higher education courses via a LMS and
with mobile devices. Furthermore, as far as the
authorscoulddiscern,mobiletechnologiessuch
as eReaders had not previously been deployed
within prison environments in order to provide
access to course content.
BACKGROUND TO THE
STUDY: USQ’S TERTIARY
PREPARATION PROGRAM
USQ is a regional university that supports a
largeproportionofdisadvantagedstudentsfrom
lowsocio-economicstatus(SES)backgrounds,
remote communities, Indigenous communities
and correctional facilities. The Bradley Report
(Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations, 2008) states that these
groups are significantly under-represented in
Australian higher education. The extent of the
service provided by USQ to incarcerated stu-

dents in Australia illustrates the importance of
distance education in the provision of higher
education to offenders in custody. In 2011, a
totalof580prisonersincorrectionalfacilitiesin
Australia enrolled in a USQ program. Of these,
312 enrolled in the TPP and the remaining 268
enrolled in an award program at either an un-
dergraduateorpostgraduatelevel(USQ,unpub-
lished data). As noted earlier, the PLEAIDES
project involved the delivery of a modified
versionofTPP7120StudyingtoSucceed,which
is one of the core courses of the TPP. Students
who successfully complete the TPPare offered
direct entry to a USQ undergraduate program.
The TPP is offered through the Open Access
College (OAC), an organizational sub-unit of
USQ that provides entry pathways to USQ
undergraduate programs for people who have
notqualifiedforentryviatraditionalpathways.
The OAC domestic programs target socially
disadvantaged people, particularly those of
low socio-economic status background. Fund-
ing from the Australian Government enables
USQ to offer the TPP as a fee-free program.
The majority of TPP students, approximately
70 per cent, study at a distance, as do a similar
proportion of the wider USQ cohort.
In line with global trends for education
provision, USQ has moved rapidly towards
delivering courses either in a blended mode or
entirely online. Print materials are being sys-
tematically phased out in line with the Digital
First initiative. Courses offered by USQ are
hosted on an instance of Moodle 2.1 called
the USQ StudyDesk and is exclusively acces-
sible via the internet. In the distance mode,
TPP courses are primarily delivered via the
StudyDesk. The supply of print-based course
materials is limited to students who do not
have internet access or the hardware to access
it. In the case of incarcerated students, print
materials are delivered to correctional centers
and distributed by education officers. These
students are not eligible for the use of in-cell
laptops which are restricted to those studying
in degree or postgraduate programs.
INITIATION OF THE
PLEIADES PROJECT
ThePLEIADESprojectoriginatedasaresultof
increasing concerns that incarcerated students
were not able to acquire the e-literacy and e-
research skills that are necessary for study and
work upon release. Discussions began in 2011
between members of USQ’sAustralian Digital
FuturesInstitute(ADFI),theOpenAccessCol-
lege(OAC),SercoAsiaPacific(aprivateprison
provider)andrepresentativesfromQueensland
Corrective Services (QCS).ADFI is a research
institute within USQ that conducts research
on the innovative use of digital technologies
to enhance learning and teaching. The project
leveragestwotechnologies:eReadersandStand
Alone Moodle (SAM). SAM is an internet-
independent version of the USQ StudyDesk
that provides students with a simulated online
learning experience.
eReaders
Although most prisons in Australia provide
studentswithaccesstocomputersineducational
centres,thenumbersofcomputersavailableare
limitedandstudentsareonlypermittedtoaccess
thesecomputersforafewhourseachweek.The
eReaders are considered to be essential to the
success of the project by permitting students
to review and annotate their course readings in
their own time, thereby adding flexibility and
mobilitytothelearningexperience.Asecondary
benefit of including the eReaders in the project
wastoreducethecostsassociatedwithprinting
materials. The eReaders had to be specially
chosen to comply with QCS security require-
ments. The devices were not permitted to have
the capacity to connect to the internet whether
viawirelessinternetor3G.Theyneededtohave
a long battery life to minimise the frequency
of charging and batteries had to be integral to
the device such that they couldn’t be removed
andusedforillicitpurposes.SDcardslotswere
prohibited as potentially pornographic images

could be viewed on the eReaders. As most
eReaders are manufactured with memory card
slotsfor additionalstorage,thiswas thehardest
requirementtoaccommodate.TheSonyReader
Pocket Edition PSR-350 and PSR-300 were, at
thetimeofpurchase,theonlyeReadersthatmet
all of these requirements. These eReaders are
now obsolete, and the project team were only
able to obtain seventeen from a re-seller with
considerable difficulty. Each eReader had a
touchscreenandstylus,providedstorageforup
to 1,200 eBooks, had two weeks of battery life
and supported multiple file formats including
ePub, PDF and txt (Sony, n.d).
Permission from academic publishers to
load course readings onto the eReader was
obtained by USQ’s Learning and Resources
Development Services department and took a
periodoffourmonths.Coursematerialswritten
bycourseleadersfromtheOACwereconverted
to ePub format. This format was chosen as it
permits text to reflow on a screen and enables
materials to be more interactive with the inclu-
sion of multimedia and self-marking quizzes.
Text within PDFs is not able to reflow and
therefore limits text size without the need for
scrolling.TheeReaderswerepreloadedwithall
thecoursereadingsfortheTPPcourseStudying
toSucceedinePubformatpriortosendingthem
to the correctional centre hosting the pilot. The
eReaders were handed back to the correctional
centreofficersbythestudentsonceperfortnight
for charging and checking to ensure that the
devices were not tampered with or damaged.
During the planning stage of the project, it
was anticipated that the use of eReaders would
havepotentialbenefitsinadditiontoeasyaccess
of the course materials. Prisoners are allowed
limited space for storage and the large blocks
ofprintedtextquicklyconsumethisallowance.
TheeReaderscancontainhundredsofadditional
books and learning resources without the use
of additional memory cards. The provision
of eReaders results in fewer physical objects
that need to be searched on a weekly basis in
a prisoner’s cell by corrections officers. The
eBooks are also a cheaper option to purchasing
textbooks, as many prisoners are required to
purchase new textbooks as second-hand text-
books are considered to be a potential security
threat.One majorconcernwas that the students
wouldmisusetheeReadersorthatstudentsmay
become the targets of other prisoners because
of these devices, however no such problems
were evident.
Stand Alone Moodle (SAM)
ICT Services staff at USQ developed an exten-
sion to Moodle that does not require access to
the internet, yet will still enable students to
participate in online courses electronically.
SAM can be installed on a single computer or
on an isolated system of networked computers
using a desktop server or virtual machine. It
will enable students in areas without internet
access to collaborate and work interactively. In
the correctional centre, SAM is installed on a
server in the education centre and is accessed
throughthecomputerlabsusedbystudents.This
network is isolated from the rest of the prison’s
computer networks and has no capability to ac-
cess the internet. Through SAM students have
access to the course materials, course calendar,
assessment activities and course resources in-
cludingcachedwebsitesormultimediacontent
such as video lectures or podcasts recorded by
the course lecturers. Students are able to par-
ticipate within their correctional centre study
group in the course discussion forums, which
contain the same questions as those available
tootherstudents,therebyimprovingthequality
of the student learning experience. The student
responses to these discussion forums can be
downloadedbythecorrectionalcentreeducation
officer and sent to the course leader. Similarly
responses from the course leader or answers to
questionscanbepostedinthediscussionforum
by the education officer on the moderator’s
behalf, permitting a greater level of personal
interaction between lecturer and student than
previously possible.
A number of steps were carried out by the
course leader to prepare the course Studying
to Succeed to function effectively on SAM. A
separate copy of the course was made in the

SAM environment for modification to ensure
no disruption to the primary course structure.
Amendments included downloading cached
copiesofwebsitesandembeddingthese,aswell
as audio and video resources hosted elsewhere
into the SAM course. All links were checked
to ensure that they pointed inward to the SAM
course rather than outward to the internet and
all materials were reviewed for copyright com-
pliance. As a result of copyright restrictions, it
was not possible to include the course readings
on the SAM site which made the use of the
eReaders essential to the project.
METHODOLOGY
The overall project was conceptualised using
a design-based research methodology with
iterative cycles of planning, implementation
and revision in response to feedback from par-
ticipants and key-stakeholders. Design-based
researchisablendofempiricalresearchwiththe
theory-based design of learning environments
(Design-basedResearchCollective,2003).The
method centres on the systematic investigation
ofinnovationsdesignedtoimproveeducational
practice through an iterative process of design,
development, implementation and analysis in
real-world settings (Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
A major strength of design-based research lies
in its adaptability to adjust the intervention
based on on-going findings from participants
(see Figure 1).
Arange of data sources was used to inform
thedevelopmentoftheprojectaswellasinform
the on-going evaluation of the project progress
and areas of refinement required. Data sources
includednotesfromprojectteammemberstaken
during meetings with stakeholders and during
project planning activities, email communica-
Figure 1. Design-based research phases of project pilot

tions between team members and stakehold-
ers, focus groups and surveys conducted with
students and education officers at the Southern
Queensland Correctional Centre during each
stage of the pilot project, and observations
of project team members during and after the
launch of each stage of the pilot.
Participants in the
First Pilot Phase
During the first phase of the pilot project, the
technologiesandprocessesweredeployedwith
a small cohort of students located at a privately
managed medium to high security all male
prison in Queensland. The initial aim was for
seventeen students to participate in the project,
but only seven proceeded as participants in the
trial. One education officer from the prison
was allocated to support the students during
the project trial. Students were each provided
with an eReader prior to the beginning of the
semester and SAM was installed onto the
education network for students to access on a
weekly basis. For the trial phases of the study
students were still provided with access to the
print materials if they felt they could not cope
with the new technologies to facilitate the
change process and ensure that students were
not inadvertently penalised for any flaws that
may occur. For future implementation, these
materials will be withheld from students. Eight
studentsparticipatedsuccessfullyinthesecond
phase of the project trial. Due to space limita-
tionsonlythefocusgroupfindingsfromthefirst
phase of the trial are presented in this article.
The project team members consisted pri-
marily of staff members fromADFI, OAC and
ICTServices.TworesearchersfromADFIwere
responsible for project planning and manage-
ment, co-ordination of day-to-day activities
and development of the research evaluation.
Two OAC members, the TPP coordinator and
the TPP 7120 course lecturer, were involved in
the planning of the project, refinement of the
TPP course and research activities, and three
members from ICT Services were responsible
for developing and implementing SAM. The
project was further supported by members of
USQ’sLearningSystemsSupport(LSS),Learn-
ing Resource Development Services (LRDS)
departments and other members from USQ
departments as necessary.
Data Collection and Analysis
The notes captured during meetings with
stakeholders,emailcontentandobservationsof
project team members captured the issues and
challengesthatemergedduringthedevelopment
and implementation of the project, as well as
highlighted areas requiring consideration for
later phases of the project:
• Focus groups: Four focus groups were
conducted with staff and students at the
correctional centre, two prior to the start
and two directly after completion of each
semester. The aim of the focus groups
was to identify the unique challenges
and barriers faced by students studying
from within a correctional centre. The
first group was conducted with students
who had completed the Semester 1 of the
course with the traditional print materials
and the second group with students who
were participating in the Semester 2 trial.
Thestudentsinthesecondgroupwerealso
providedwithanoverviewoftheactivities
to be undertaken during the first phase of
the pilot study. After the first phase of the
trial, focus groups were conducted with
the students who had just completed the
Semester 2 course and students who were
enrolledfortheSemester3course(phase2
ofthepilotproject).Theaimofthesefocus
groups was to identify the experiences of
students participating in the trial and to
prepare the next group of students for the
second trial phase (see Figures 2 and 3).

Students were provided with an informa-
tionsheetandinformedconsentformoneweek
prior to the focus group sessions. The forms
were emailed to the education officer who
printedanddistributedthesheetstobepre-read
and completed. These forms were collected
prior to the commencement of the focus group
discussion and permission to make an audio
recording of the session was obtained. The
focus groups were based on a semi-structured
discussion guide and lasted for approximately
sixty minutes. Rooms within the correctional
centre’s education centre were used to host the
groups which were facilitated by project team
members. The education officer was present
during the focus group to facilitate discussion
and clarify information to the students about
the project processes where necessary:
Figure 2. Pilot project team members, participants and key stakeholders
Figure 3. Research activities, aims and participants

• SAM survey: A satisfaction and usage
survey was constructed within the SAM
course environment for students to com-
plete on a weekly basis. The aim of the
survey was to provide a means of tracking
theactualuseofthetechnologiesaswellas
to identify problems experienced, aspects
that were particularly useful, the extent to
which the use of the devices helped with
the students’studies and experiences with
using the discussion forums. An instruc-
tion was placed at the end of the course
information for each week of the course
that students were required to fill in the
survey. Only two students responded to
the survey regularly; these were the same
students who successfully completed the
course at the end of the semester. As a re-
sult of the small sample size, no statistical
analysiscouldbe conducted.Responses to
open-ended questions were used to inform
the qualitative analysis of the findings;
• Online survey: An online survey was
developed for completion by the educa-
tion officer on a weekly basis to capture
the experiences of students and staff with
the technologies as well as any challenges
experienced by education officers. The
purpose of the survey was to provide the
research team with timely information on
the progress of the project. Through this
tool it was possible to identify a number
of significant problems at the beginning of
the study and implement solutions with-
out needing to wait for formal reporting
processes. The education officer initially
assigned to the project completed the sur-
vey regularly. Completion of the survey
ceased four weeks into the project because
ofstaffchangeswithinthecentre.Thedata
obtainedfromthefirstweekswastherefore
used to form the basis of the qualitative
analysis. The qualitative data collected
from the interviews and surveys were
transcribed and coded in an Excel spread
sheet and subjected to thematic analysis to
identifykeythemes,challenges,successes
and areas requiring improvement during
the next phases of the study.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Results of the analysis of the data collected
prior to and during the first phase of the pilot
are reported according to student use of and
experiences with SAM and the e-Readers, the
challenges and limitations of the project design
and processes and the successes and benefits
identified.
ICT Skills of Students
During the planning of the project, it was
expected that the ICT skills of students would
be low. To overcome this potential issue, the
project team ensured that the education officer
and IT support staff were trained in the use of
the technologies. These staff in turn, would
train the students in the use of the eReaders
and SAM. The prior levels of experience of the
studentswithcomputersandmobiledeviceswas
mixed, with some students (usually those who
had been in prison for a shorter period of time)
being more familiar with the technologies than
others. This was evidenced by the following
pre-trial focus group responses:
Facilitator: Have any of you used a smart
phone before?
Student 1: I played around with one before. I
used an iPhone before I came in here; it was
a piece of crap. I messed around with it, but
didn’t actually use it. Like, eBooks weren’t even
out when I came to jail.
Student2:I’veneverevenseenamobilephone
other than on TV.
Facilitator:You’veneverseenamobilephone?

Student 2: Nope, only on TV.
Student 3: For a lot that are studying here,
technology hasn’t been around for them for say
the last five to ten years. They haven’t done any
sort of training at all.
One of the students who participated in the
course and completed with a good result, was
highly confident about his ability to learn the
new skills required quickly:
Student: I should be able to pick it up pretty
quick, being a tester for games and software.
If I can’t pick up a new piece of technology,
even without seeing anything new for 3 years,
if I can’t pick it up with half an hour I should
just shoot myself.
The variability in ICT skills of students as
wellasstaff,impactedextensivelyontheeffec-
tiveness of the first phase of the trial. Students
did not make effective use of the technologies
as a result of lack of knowledge about how they
worked and education officers were often not
awareofthenecessaryfeaturestoassiststudents
effectively in spite of training by PLEIADES
team members.
Student Usage and Experiences
of the eReaders
Responses to the eReaders were mixed and
students reported both positive and negative
experiences with the devices. The research
team initially expected that the results would
be greatly impacted by the Hawthorn effect
and that students would report highly positive
changes in behaviours and attitudes as a result
of the novelty of these devices. The responses
from students were highly variable however,
withsomereportingthattheyenjoyedusingthe
eReaders whereas others stated they required
more experience with them before feeling
confident. These findings are supported by
the following comments from the post-trial
focus group:
Student 1: It’s the way of the future. I used it
all the time; it’s pretty useful.
Student2:Idon’tusetheeReadermuchatallas
I have only just learned how to turn a computer
on. I had to learn how to use it. The dictionary
was very good but I’m old fashioned with the
books. I prefer the hard copy study materials.
Student 3: With the extra readings available,
it’s just like a textbook only easier. Solves the
troubles of missing (not received) textbooks.
The words dictionary is very helpful, on the
other hand it has its downsides. Small letter-
ings. Charging them was sometimes difficult.
The effectiveness of the eReaders as an
exclusive replacement for print materials is
stilluncertain.Anumberofstudentsindicateda
preferencefortheprintbooksovertheeReaders
and expressed concerns that that the e-Readers
may replace print materials altogether:
Student 4: The eReader was not ideal. I didn’t
use it much as it lagged too much so it was
easier to use the [hard copy] book.
Student 5: I would have loved to keep the
eReader just or the dictionary but it’s too small
to read long texts on it. I used it extensively it
was the best dictionary I ever had.
It is possible that as the students become
more familiar with the technologies that these
concerns will decrease. The students also com-
plained that no training had been available to
show them how to use the eReaders:
Student6:Mostofthestudentsfacedifficulties
trying to operate the eReader. They don’t know
how to magnify it, so they just complain it is

too small to read because they actually don’t
know how to use the eReader [to enlarge text].
Aspecial video had been developed by the
course team that explained step-by-step how to
use the eReaders and was placed prominently
on the SAM site but due to limited access to the
computerlabs,theresourcewasunderutilised.A
primaryreasonfortheinclusionoftheeReaders
in the project was also the ability to take notes,
highlighttextandannotatereadingmaterialson
thedevices.Asthestudentswereinexperienced
withthesedevices,thesefunctionswerenotused
but it is possible that students will utilise these
facilities once they become more comfortable
with the devices.
Student Usage and
Experiences of SAM
TheexperiencesofthestudentswithusingSAM
on the computers were impacted negatively by
limited access to the computer labs as well as
lack of support from the education officers. It
wasagreedduringtheset-upstageoftheproject
that the education officers would provide the
students with an overview of how to use SAM
and assist them during the course. This did not
occurandthestudentswerenotprovidedaccess
to the SAM system until a few weeks into the
Semester.WhenteammembersatOACbecame
aware of this problem a lecturer was assigned
to visit the prison once a fortnight to provide
support and assistance to the students with the
technologies and the course. Responses to the
availability of SAM and its features was mixed
with some students finding it valuable and for
some it was a distraction:
Student 1: It’s easy to use... [ But] I didn’t use
it much.... I’m not real computer savvy.
Student 2: I used a lot of the quizzes. The quiz-
zes gave me another platform for learning and
were quite helpful. It helped me negotiate my
way around the computer.
Student 3: I didn’t want to use this and this
and this [various different media] I just wanted
to get it done.
Access to the Education Centre
The access that students had to the computer
centre to use SAM was considered to be insuf-
ficient. Students were permitted four hours
access to the computers each week. The time
allowed was not enough for students to keep up
withtheweeklycourseinformation,participate
in discussions and self-marking quizzes and
complete assignments:
Student 1: The problem you have in jail is get-
ting access to the room. We’re only allowed to
use the computer room 4 hours a week [2 X 2
hour blocks].
Student 2: And you have to type your assign-
ment in that time too.
Student1agreesandcomplainsaboutaparticu-
lar prison officer/staff member who is suppos-
edly particularly inflexible and authoritarian
inhisapproachandapparentlyrefusesstudents
fair access to the computer labs.
The Role of the Discussion Forum
in Minimising Feelings of Isolation
Oneoftheprimarybenefitstoprovidingstudents
with access to the Moodle course environment
is the potential to use the discussion forums.At
this stage it is not possible for course leaders to
easilyplaceanswersandcommentstoquestions
asked in the discussion without the education
officertypingtheminonthecourseleader’sbe-
half.Forfutureimplementationtheprojectteam
will explore ways of automating this process
so that comments from lecturers can be easily
exported from the online Moodle site into the
SAMenvironment.Theimportanceofincluding
this feature was enforced by comments made

by students during the pre-trial focus groups
that described the problems experienced with
late delivery of course materials, delays in
communication with lecturers and the sense of
isolation often felt:
Student:Ittakesforevertogetyourassignment
backs; communicating with lecturers is near
impossible. Some of the guys are so motivated
to start and all of a sudden they hit a brick wall.
There is no help; you’re on your own.
Theactualuseofthediscussionforumwas
less than anticipated as a result of the learning
preferences and culture of the prison. It was
difficult to convince students to collaborate
on the discussion forum as students preferred
to work alone.
Project Trial Challenges
and Limitations
Conversion of Content and
Copyright Concerns
Despite extensive assistance from USQ’s
copyright officer, copyright issues were a
major hindrance to the success of this project.
Althoughmostpublisherspermittedreadingsto
be placed on the eReaders in the original PDF
format, few permitted the conversion to more
usable formats such as ePub without large fees
(in excess of $3,000 in one case). Affordable
copyright permissions could not be obtained
for two of the articles and the education officer
needed to provide these articles to prisoners by
printingthemofftheUniversitylibrarywebsite.
To overcome these problems, the project team
will replace all readings, including textbook
extracts and journal articles with open educa-
tional resources.
The majority of the course materials
were originally only available in PDF format.
This format is difficult to read on eReaders
as the text is often small and zooming in only
increases the size of the page. Users therefore
need to scroll back and forth on the page to read
each line of text. Where copyright permitted,
documents were converted to ePub format to
provide greater functionality and ease of use
forstudents.Theprocesstoconvertthesedocu-
ments was laborious and a number of technical
challengeswereexperienced.Materialsneeded
to be converted into Rich Text Format first and
the software,Apple Pages, was used to convert
to ePub. Styles often did not apply consistently
within the same documents and tables and im-
ages were not converted correctly during this
process, requiring extensive reformatting of
the documents. A number of the readings did
not convert well when saved as rich text format
from pdf documents. To overcome this, each
reading had to be thoroughly checked, which
was enormously time consuming. The aim was
originally to combine all course readings into
onedocumentforeachweek,butthefilesizeof
thesedocumentswastoobigforthesoftwareto
cope with and individual files for each reading
were created instead.
Training and Communication
with Education Officers
Inapreviousstudyaboutprisoneducation,Watts
(2010)discussedthedifficultiesexperiencedas
a higher education provider gaining access to
students and the negative and uncooperative
attitudes of prison staff towards facilitating
education. This was not the experiences of the
project team, as all prison staff involved with
the project trial were immensely supportive of
boththeprojectandeducationwithinthecentre
in general. A number of circumstances outside
theprojectteam’scontroldidnegativelyimpact
onthesupportprovidedbyeducationofficersto
theprojectteamandstudentsduringthisperiod.
Thefirstwasthattheeducationcentremovedto
a different location during this period and most
resources were being utilised to re-organise
and re-establish prison systems. As a result, a
number of personnel changes occurred at both
the management level and in the education
centre. The handover of information between
personnel was not well managed within the

prisonandtheprojectteamwasoftenfrustrated
as continuity was lost and the support for the
project activities was disrupted.
To provide training to prison staff in the
use and administration of both SAM and the
eReaders it was decided to offer a dedicated
training workshop two weeks prior to the com-
mencement of the semester 2 trial.The training
was offered to all education and ICTstaff at the
prison, however only two personnel attended:
the education officer who was working with
the TPP students and an ICT staff member.
The training was found to be insufficient by
the officers who attended. Education officers
requested the provision of printed training
guides for the technologies and a manual that
explained the project requirements and pro-
cesses in a step-by-step manner. Although the
aim of the project was to move away from the
need to provide printed resources it appears
that these materials are required during the
initial stages to facilitate the change process.
Education officers also felt that their own ICT
skills required upgrading. Their own inexperi-
ence with computers and mobile technologies
resulted in lack of confidence with facilitating
the education of students in how to use these
devices appropriately.
Support from Senior Leadership
and Key Stakeholders
Supportfromseniorleadershipwithintheprison
andwellasinQCSingeneralwasakeysuccess
factor, without which this project would not
have been possible. A great deal of time was
spent by the project team securing approval
and support for the project from the different
committees and managers within these depart-
ments.As a result of this support, the team was
abletoobtainassistanceinresolvingissuesthat
arose during the trial.An example can be found
in the scheduling conflict that arose when the
fortnightly visit by the USQ lecturer coincided
with paid work opportunities for prisoners. As
a result only one or two students were attend-
ing these sessions. After bringing this to the
attention of prison management, they agreed
to pay the students the equivalent amount to
attend the sessions with the lecturers that they
would receive working.
Anotherkeyfactoroutsidethecontrolofthe
projectteamthathasimpactedtheprojectisthe
resultofsignificantchangesandorganisational
restructure that occurred within Queensland
Corrective Services.Anumber of stakeholders
at the QCS leadership level that were highly
supportive of the project were redeployed and
funding for education was cut. As a result, the
projectteamwasconcernedthatsupportforthe
future implementation of this initiative and for
educationwithinQueenslandprisonsingeneral
would be negatively affected.
CONCLUSION AND
NEXT STEPS
Of the seven students who participated in the
course,twoparticipatedfullyandobtainedgood
final grades. Four students in total obtained a
passing grade. Two did not participate in the
course at all and received a fail grade and one
withdrew from the course but re-enrolled for
semester3.Itwasdifficulttodeterminewhether
the participation trends were as a result of
the changing technologies or because of the
disruptions within the prison environment
which were remarked upon by the students
in the post-semester 2 focus group. Though a
very small cohort participated in the trial, the
results are encouraging. The project team feels
confidentthatthereisconsiderablepotentialfor
e-Readers and SAM to alleviate the problems
encounteredbyincarceratedstudentsinaglobal
educational environment increasingly reliant
on mobile learning and e-learning initiatives.
Though many challenges were encountered,
these could be overcome with careful planning
and goodwill on the part of both correctional
centre staff and USQ staff.
The PLEIADES project was scheduled to
finish at the end of semester 3, February 2013.
Intheopinionsoftheprojectteam,theeReaders
areaviablemeansofsupplyingcoursematerials
for students to access outside of computer lab

times.The OpenAccess Collegehas purchased
200 BeBook Pures for deployment in a further
four Queensland correctional centres pending
security clearances from QCS. Though these
eReaders are unable to connect to the internet,
they do have SD card slots which need to be
adequately disabled for deployment in the
correctional centres. Various options are being
considered including filling the slots with hard
glue,gluingplasticcardsintotheslotsorcover-
ingthemwithtamper-proofsecuritytape.SAM
was found to be very labour-intensive both for
USQICTServicesstaffandforcorrectionalcen-
tre staff. In its current form it is not considered
suitable for a wider deployment. However, the
PLEIADES project team successfully applied
for Australian Government Office of Learning
and Teaching Innovation and Development
Program funding which will allow them to
further develop SAM so that the installation
and harvesting of results and information can
be automated. This project began early in 2013
and will be completed at the end of 2014. If
successful, the project team will make SAM
more widely available.
Seniormanagementatboththecorrectional
centre and within USQ have acknowledged the
importance of supporting further development
and advancement of the project. Although the
security of the technologies was a primary
considerationinthedevelopmentoftheproject,
no issues were encountered with the student’s
use of the technologies during the trial. It is
anticipated that with certain modifications
both eReaders and SAM could provide solu-
tions for other groups of students without ac-
cess to reliable internet. These groups would
include students from low SES backgrounds,
Indigenous communities, rural, regional and
remote communities and students in countries
with poor ICT infrastructure.
REFERENCES
ACTCorrectiveServices.(2010).AlexanderMacon-
ochie Centre: Information booklet. Retrieved from
http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000177634
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Prisoners in
Australia no. 4517.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Education
andTrainingExperience,Australia,2005no6278.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Australian
Social Trends, no. 4102.0.
Bedford,T.A.(2007).Educationandincarceration:
An interpretive study of prisoners’ narratives. Re-
trieved December 13, 2012, from https://www120.
secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/f0fb7a8c-fabb-0ecd-
769a-e0a5f0e10519/1/02Whole.pdf
Bowden, T. S. (2002). A snapshot of state prison
libraries with a focus on technology. Behavioral &
Social Sciences Librarian, 21, 1–12. doi:10.1300/
J103v21n02_01
Department of Education. Employment and Work-
placeRelations.(2008).ReviewofAustralianhigher
education, final report. Retrieved from http://www.
deewr.gov.au/highereducation/review/pages/re-
viewofaustralianhighereducationreport.aspx
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-
based research: An emerging paradigm for educa-
tional inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
doi:10.3102/0013189X032001005
Dorman, M., & Bull, D. (2003). Aligning educa-
tional needs with institutional priorities: Facilitating
offender reintegration into contemporary society.
In Proceedings of the Workshop presented at the
Australasian Corrections Education Association
Conference: Unlocking Doors – Rebuilding Lives
ThroughEducation,Melbourne,Australia.Retrieved
from http://www.acea.org.au/Content/2003%20
papers/Paper%20Dorman_Bull.pdf
Edirisingha, P., & Fothergill, J. (2009). Balancing
e-lectures with podcasts: A case study of an under-
graduate engineering module. Engineering Educa-
tion: Journal of the Higher Education Academy En-
gineeringSubjectCentre,4(2),14–24.doi:10.11120/
ened.2009.04020014
Farley, H., & Murphy, A. (2012). The use of mobile
technologiestoovercomedigitalinequitiesinprison
education: a pilot project. In M. Specht, M. Sharples
& J. Multisilta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th World
Conference On Mobile and Contextual Learning,
Helsinki, Finland (pp.180-185).
Hancock,V.(2010).Essential,desirableoroptional?
Makingdistancee-learningcoursesavailabletothose
without internet access. European journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning, 2(2).

Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Co-
burn,D.,&McDonald,J.(2011).Developingdigital
information literacy in higher education: Obstacles
and supports. Journal of Information Technology
Education, 10, 383–413.
Justice Action. (2012). Computers in cells: Main-
taining community ties. Retrieved from http://jus-
ticeaction.org.au/cms/images/JusticeReformPapers/
computers%20in%20cells%20pdf.pdf
Koudstaal, D., Cianchi, J., Knott, M., & Koudstaal,
M. (2009). Creating cooperatively with all stake-
holders an advanced and highly secure interactive
ICT learning network for all inmates within exist-
ing cultural prison practices. In Proceedings of the
ACEA/ReintegrationPuzzleConference,WA,Perth.
Retrieved from http://koudstaal.org/wp-content/
uploads/2009/03/ACEA_Koudstaal_2009_v2.pdf
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Educa-
tion for life and work: developing transferable
knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National
Research Council, Washington, DC. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/EdOp/
Education%20for%20Life%20and%20Work-%20
National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences.pdf
Pike, A. (2009). Developing online communities to
support distance learning in secure environments.
In F. Malpica, B. Tait, A. Tremante, & F. Welsch
(Eds.),Proceedingsfromthe2ndInternationalMulti-
Conference Society, Cybernetics and Informatics
(Vol. 1, pp. 13–16). Orlando, FL: The International
Institute of Informatics and Cybernetics.
Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technol-
ogy perspective. In J. V. D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer,
S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational
design research (pp. 52–66). Routledge.
Sony. (n.d.). Reader pocket edition model number:
PRS-350SC.Retrievedfromhttp://store.sony.com/p/
PRS-350SC/en/p/PRS350SC
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based
research and technology-enhanced learning envi-
ronments. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(4),5–23.doi:10.1007/BF02504682
Watts, J. H. (2010). Teaching a distance higher
education curriculum behind bars: Challenges
and opportunities. Open Learning, 25(1), 56–67.
doi:10.1080/02680510903482256

Providing simulated online and mobile learning experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Providing simulated online and mobile learning experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot project

Similar to Providing simulated online and mobile learning experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot project (20)

More from Helen Farley

More from Helen Farley (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Providing simulated online and mobile learning experiences in a prison education setting: Lessons learned from the PLEIADES pilot project