1. Terje Manger Beate Buanes Roth In co-operation with Arve Asbjørnsen, Ole Johan Eikeland, and Lise Jones Bergen Cognition and Learning Group University of Bergen, Norway 15th EPEA Training Conference Unlocking innovation in education in prison 30 September – 4 October 2015 Antwerp, Belgium Iceland the 5thIceland– 8th of June 2013 The relationship between prisoners’ academic self-efficacy and their participation in prison education

2. Background for a number of studies on prison education in Norway: To know more and to identify needs. The Evaluation of Education in Norwegian Prisons (2000-2003) White paper no. 27, 2004-2005 on correctional education (“An other spring…”) States that there is a need for further studies of prisoners’ educational background, educational needs, motivation and their basic skills in reading, writing and mathematics in order to build practice on more evidences http://www.epea.org/images/pdf/AnotherS pring(Norway).pdf

3. Research in Norwegian and Nordic prisons (The Bergen Cognition and Learning Group, University of Bergen) Studies 2004: All prisoners in Norway 2006: All prisoners in Norway 2007: A representative sample of prisoners in Norway 2006-2007: All prisoners in the Nordic countries (in Sweden a representative sample) 2009: All prisoners in Norway 2011: Selected groups of foreigners in Nordic prisons* 2012: All Norwegian citizens in Norwegian prisons. All prisoners from Poland, Lithuania and Nigeria in Norwegian prisons 2015: All Norwegian citizens in Norwegian prisons. All prisoners from Poland, Lithuania and Albania in Norwegian prisons 2015: Prison officers’ perceptions of their role related to prisoners who want to participate in education* *In co-operation with the Research Group Knowledge, Education and Democracy (KED), University of Bergen

4. To build peoples’ competence (prisoners included) Why did «the self-esteem movement» fail? «…trying to talk people into feeling good about themselves without equipping them with needed competence is unlikely to help them much» (Bandura, 1997)

5. The aim of the research presentation To examine the effect of prisoners’ academic self-efficacy on participation in prison education To discuss how prisoners academic self- efficacy can be improved What is self-efficacy?

6. Self-efficacy The perceived ability of an individual to succeed at or accomplish a certain task (Bandura, 1997). –Self-efficacy concerns the answer to the question, “Can I do this task in this situation?" –Someone who has a high self-efficacy in a certain area is likely to attempt a new task, whereas one with low self-efficacy is more likely to try to avoid it.

7. Sources of self-efficacy Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific evaluations of the ability to successfully complete a task. An individual’s self- efficacy are formed through –mastery experiences –vicarious experiences (observations of others) –social/verbal persuasion –interpretations of psychological and emotional states Bandura (1997)

8. Self-efficacy in a prison context The academic self-efficacy of the majority of prisoners has probably been influenced by a lack of mastery experiences that otherwise could have been formed through successfully completing school and education. Time spent in prison may have influenced their sense of efficacy to use their potential skills or not.

9. Former studies of self-efficacy in prison Prisoners’ educational level yielded a significant contribution to both reading and writing self-efficacy (Jones, 2012) Incarcerated persons reported significantly lower levels of self-efficacy before participating in education (Time 1) than after participation (Time 2) (Allred et al., 2013).

10. Aim of the study To examine the effect of Norwegian prisoners academic self- efficacy on their participation in education. Method Measuring instrument: A forty item academic self-efficacy scale covering reading, writing, ICT, mathematics, and school work. Factor analysis (PCA) of the efficacy items. Logistic regression analysis to investigate the effect of the prisoners academic self-efficacy on educational participation, while controlling for other variables related to self-efficacy.

11. Factor analysis results Four academic self-efficacy components emerged: Literacy self-efficacy Mathematics self-efficacy ICT self-efficacy School work self-efficacy Control variables in the regression analysis: Age, gender, level of education, previous conviction, sentence length, sentence served, diagnosed reading and writing difficulties/dyslexia, and diagnosed ADHD

12. BS.E.Exp(B) Gender (0=female; 1=male) -.266.333.767 Age (cont.)-.037.008.964*** Level of education (ref.: no education) Compulsory school-.282.369 1.325 Upper secondary school.140.392 1.150 University/university college.239.445 1.270 Previous incarceration (0=no; 1=yes)-.146.170.864 Sentence length (continuous).174.026 1.190*** Time served (ref.: under 1/3) Between 1/3 and 2/3.749.1762.114*** Over 2/3.186.203 1.204 Literacy SE (cont. low to high)-.187.071.829*** Mathematics SE (cont.).076.042 1.079 ICT SE (cont.)-.028.037.973 School Work SE (cont.).167.058 1.182*** Diagnosed ADHD (0=no; 1=yes)-.031.196.969 Diagnosed reading and writing difficulties/dyslexia (0=no; 1=yes) -.201.211.818 Constant.730.683 2.075 Table 1: Variables predicting educational participation among Norwegian prisoners

13. Summary of the significant effects Prisoners with higher school work self-efficacy are more likely to participate in education. Prisoners with higher scores in literacy self-efficacy are less likely to participate. Control variables With increasing age, prisoners are more likely to participate in education. Prisoners who have served between 1/3 and 2/3 of their sentence are more likely to participate in education compared to prisoners who have served less than 1/3. With increasing sentence length, educational participation is more likely.

14. To be discussed Why are prisoners with higher scores in literacy self-efficacy less likely to participate in education? Prisoners who have served between 1/3 and 2/3 of their sentence are more likely to participate in education compared to prisoners who have served less than 1/3. Also, with increasing sentence length, participation in education is more likely. What are the practical implications of such findings?

15. To be discussed How can prison education improve prisoners’ self-efficacy? How visible are the sources of self-efficacy in a prison context? How can mastery experience be introduced in a prison setting to increase prisoners’ self-efficacy? How can vicarious experiences (role models) be actively used to increase prisoners’ academic self-efficacy? How can verbal persuasion be actively used to increase prisoners’ academic self-efficacy?

16. Appendix 1. Prisoners who participate in education and sentence length. Per cent.

17. Appendix 2. The length of my sentence makes it impractical to take education/training in prison. Per cent.