Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, Vol. 16, Nos. 2/3/4, 2015

267

Environmental education in prison: a comparison ofteaching methods and their influence on inmate
attitudes and knowledge of environmental topics
Sarah R. Weber*
The Evergreen State College,
3204 NE 51st Ave.,
Portland, OR 97213, USA
Email: srwsrw@gmail.com*Corresponding author

Marc P. Hayes
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife,
Natural Resources Building,
600 Capitol Way N,
Olympia, WA 98501, USA
Email: marc.hayes@dfw.wa.gov

Tiffany Webb and Carri J. LeRoy
The Evergreen State College,
Environmental Studies Lab II,
2700 Evergreen Pkwy NW,
Olympia, WA 98505, USA
Email: webbt@evergreen.edu
Email: leroyc@evergreen.edu
Abstract: This study evaluated whether lecture- or workshop-stylepresentations were more effective for teaching environmental education (EE) toboth male and female inmate students. To compare these styles, we designed
pre- and post-engagement surveys quantified on a five-point Likert scale, andopen-ended questions to capture qualitative nuances. Our findings revealed
significantly improved inmate attitudes after receiving the educational
opportunity, and the lecture-style presentations appeared more effective formale students, whereas workshop-style presentations appeared more effective
for female students in improving inmate knowledge and attitudes onenvironmental topics. Overall, we found no significant differences inknowledge or attitudes among participants prior to the presentations or between
male and female inmates, which provides evidence for learning independent ofprior conditions or gender.
Keywords: environmental education prison; environmental education; prison
education; sustainability correctional facilities; recidivism; learning styles;
teaching methods; teaching environmental education; environmental education
inmates; lecture presentations; workshop presentations; environmental review.

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

268

S.R. Weber et al.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Weber, S.R., Hayes, M.P.,
Webb, T. and LeRoy, C.J. (2015) ‘Environmental education in prison: acomparison of teaching methods and their influence on inmate attitudes andknowledge of environmental topics’, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review,Vol. 16, Nos. 2/3/4, pp.267–284.
Biographical notes: Sarah R. Weber is a graduate of the Masters ofEnvironmental Studies program at The Evergreen State College with a degree
structured to focus on environmental education, sustainability, andconservation. She also obtained a BA with a focus on Sociology, Psychology
and English from The University of North Texas. As a Research Associate for
the Sustainability in Prisons Project, she was coordinator of the Oregon spottedfrog (Rana pretiosa) program at Cedar Creek Corrections Centre, and was
inspired to conduct her thesis research on education and outreach benefits forinmate populations.
Marc P. Hayes is a Senior Research Scientist with the Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, where he directs the Forests and Fish adaptive
management science research program that focuses on amphibian research inheadwater streams. He obtained a BA at the University of California at Santa
Barbara, an MA at California State University Chico, and his PhD at the
University of Miami (Florida), where he worked on parental care of Costa
Rican glass frogs (Centrolenidae) with support from a National Science
Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant. He has been involved inamphibian and reptile research for 40 years, with a strong research emphasis in
the conservation and ecology of western North American ranid frogs. Most
recently, much of this research has focused on the at-risk Oregon Spotted Frog
(Rana pretiosa). The foci of the latter research include investigating
experimental approaches to control Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
to enhance Oregon Spotted Frog oviposition habitat, modelling the distributionof Oregon Spotted Frog to define areas of the historic distribution that remain
unrecognised, and understanding the sensitivity of Oregon Spotted Frogs to theamphibian chytrid fungus.
Tiffany Webb is currently a graduate student in the Master of Environmental
Studies program at the Evergreen State College pursuing an expandedknowledge of environmental research and social justice that is applied to assist
vulnerable communities. With SPP, she coordinates SPP’s Science andSustainability Lecture Series to be held at Washington Corrections Centre for
Women and Stafford Creek Corrections Centre. She is enthusiastic about
environmental research and sustainability in all aspects of society and theopportunities the Sustainability in Prisons Project provides to Washington
inmates.
Carri J. LeRoy is a member of the faculty at The Evergreen State College. She
has a PhD in Biological Sciences, a Masters in Liberal Studies (focus inenvironmental education) and degrees in Environmental Science andInternational Studies. She is the Co-Director of the Sustainability in Prisons
Project (SPP), a program that brings science and nature into prisons and hopes
to reduce the environmental, economic and human costs of prisons. SPP is apartnership between The Evergreen State College and the WA Dept. of
Corrections, but is now an international network of scientists, educators andprison administrators.

Environmental education in prison

1269

Introduction

Education in prisons is primarily focused on programs teaching literacy, basic adulteducation, GED courses, and vocational training (Cnaan et al., 2008). Many inmatesenter prison without basic literacy skills or job training, so a need clearly exists to focus
in these areas; however, a great need also exists for environmental education (EE) in
prisons. Working with nature and living organisms in EE programs can create atherapeutic environment and engage inmates on physical, mental, and emotional levels
that are often lacking in correctional facilities (Deaton, 2005). Further, EE programs candirectly benefit sustainable practices within correctional facilities by reducing costs
through composting, recycling, and gardening programs (LeRoy et al., 2012) while
engaging inmates in jobs and skills that have post-release benefits (Deaton, 2005). In aneffort to reduce recidivism, opportunities such as EE, which empower incarcerated
individuals with the social and professional skills to succeed after release, should be
explored.
The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and also in its history, with a
350% increase in incarcerated people between 1980 and 2010 (Schmitt, Warner andGupta, 2010). In addition, the cost of prisons has increased dramatically in the past
20 years. In 1996, $22 billion dollars were spent on state and federal corrections (Cnaanet al., 2008) compared to $75 billion in 2008 (Schmitt, Warner and Gupta, 2010).
Throughout this time, relatively little of that total, roughly 6%, was used on programs
such as vocational training, life-skills training, educational programs, social activities,
psychological treatments, and recreation (Cnaan et al., 2008). These are programs
designed to prepare inmates for life outside prison and research unambiguously reveals
that society benefits from preparing inmates for reintroduction to society (Cnaan et al.,2008; Deaton, 2005; Vacca, 2004).
Recidivism rates are closely tracked and are often strongly correlated with the level of
educational opportunities offered in prisons and received by incarcerated individuals(Evans, 2010; Newman, Lewis and Beverstock, 1993). As of 2003, approximately 1,600
inmates were released from prison daily and recidivism rates suggest that successful
re-entry into society is difficult (Cnaan et al., 2008). Effective education programs help
offenders with their social skills, offer techniques and strategies to help inmates deal with
their emotions, and emphasise academic, vocational and social education (Vacca, 2004).
Moreover, appropriate education can lead to a more humane and tolerable prison
environment in which to live and work, not only for the inmates but also for the officers,
staff and visitors (Newman, Lewis and Beverstock, 1993, Young et al., 2014).
Education in prison is important both in preparing inmates for life after release and inproviding meaningful activities and focus during incarceration. In addition, prison
education may change the attitudes of inmates and lead to improved self-esteem,
confidence, and self-awareness. Prison education, in parallel with the values ofadult education, encourages negotiation and choice, and builds self-confidence
and worth, and critical thinking (Duguid, Hawkey and Pawson, 2000). Currently, nonprofit groups provide diverse faith-based, art, athletic, and vocational programs inprisons; but the one important area of education and training that has received little
attention is EE.
Environmental education is defined as “the study of nature, earth systems,
sustainability, and individual roles in making decisions and critical thinking related toenvironmental literacy and actions” (Heimlich and Horr, 2010). The objectives of EE go

270

S.R. Weber et al.

beyond learning content, and extend to changes in attitude, life-style and behaviour.
Environmental education opportunities in prisons are growing in popularity, but they arestill a stepchild to the other educational foci. The most common types of EE in prisons
are in the form of dog training and rehabilitation, and gardening programs. But one
program expands on these to also include: science lectures, sustainable operations such ascomposting and recycling, green job training, and endangered species conservation
programs (LeRoy et al., 2012). The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) leads anational movement of sustainability and science in prisons. The SPP, which began as apartnership between the Washington Department of Corrections and The Evergreen State
College, has grown to encompass a vast network of corrections institutions withacademic and community partners across the US and beyond. This novel program wasrecently awarded a National Science Foundation grant funding their proposal to host a
conference focused upon creating a national and international SPP Network. This has
allowed for collaboration, sharing of ideas, and further evaluation of the impacts the EE
and science projects within the prisons are having upon incarcerated individuals andcommunities.
Prisons house individuals who may lack training in animal rehabilitation, gardening,or science but who do have time and a need for intellectual stimulation that supervised
research can fill (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008). Ulrich and Nadkarni (2008) report on athree-part study of environmental programs that took place at Cedar Creek Correctional
Centre (CCCC) for men in Washington State. The three projects included growing mossin prisons, implementing and maintaining a composting and vermiculture system, and amonthly science lecture series that resulted from partnerships among ecologists,sustainability practitioners, correctional administrators, and inmates (Ulrich andNadkarni, 2008). All three projects received positive responses from inmates, prison
staff, and the media. Inmates were engaged and patient in the tedious and repetitive taskof watering and growing various mosses, which was attributed to their being active andvalued participants in solving an environmental problem (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008).
Upon learning composting and gardening techniques, many inmates expressed the desire
to continue the practice outside prison, and one participant went on to enrol in ahorticulture program upon release (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008). The lead author of thepaper, Ulrich, who was incarcerated at the time, has now completed a doctoral degree inthe sciences.
As growing human communities continue to tax natural resources, the need to movetoward environmental sustainability globally has become increasingly pressing. The
controlled environment of a prison creates an opportune setting to integrate the study ofsustainability with science programs, of which EE is a fundamental part. Considering thatthe majority of inmates will be released, it benefits both them and society to give themskills that can help them procure green jobs, increase their environmental awareness, andmotivate them with the knowledge to seek out and participate in environmental activities.
While in prison, EE learning opportunities and programs can give inmates theopportunity to feel connected to the outside world, both intellectually and physically.
Questions remain however, in determining the best pedagogical methods for reaching
incarcerated adult audiences.
The general belief in EE is that hands-on, free-choice, workshop-style experiences are
more effective modes of teaching and learning about various environmental topics (Lord,
1999; Taylor and Neil, 2008; Zeppel, 2008). Enabling an EE student with the opportunity
to engage their senses and to take an active role in their learning is rewarding to bothEnvironmental education in prison

271

teacher and student, and often results in a formative experience for the learner. Hands-on
experiences may give the learner confidence to act on the knowledge gained in thelearning environment in a way that learning inside a classroom cannot, but these methods
may be limited for in-prison audiences and because of limitations placed upon us asresearchers working in a prison, we had to frame our workshop-type interactions
intercalated within short lecture pieces. This may not have allowed as much free-choicesensory experience as an entirely workshop style lesson might, but it did allow for
substantial hands-on, active engagement. Regardless, based upon the notion thatexperiential learning environments are more effective in teaching EE, we hypothesisedthat workshop-style presentations would be more effective in:1

conveying environmental content and improving scientific knowledge, and2

improving environmental attitudes of participating incarcerated students compared tomore standard lecture-type formats.

2

Theoretical framework

Duguid, Hawkey and Pawson (1996) suggest that an inmate assumes the mantle of their
particular offense and identifies with their individual label such as ‘thief’, ‘addict’ or‘sexual offender.’ Automatic placement of inmates into specific courses that cater to their
particular offense may exacerbate the focus on that identity, whereas the label of‘student’ avoids the negative connotation (Duguid, Hawkey and Pawson, 1996). In
correctional education, the environment created in the classroom can have a direct effecton the success of the class. Incarcerated students highly value a classroom, where they
can both voice and debate their opinions (Rose and Voss, 2003). While in the learning
environment, Rose and Voss (2003) encouraged teachers and students to push asidesocio-economic and racial barriers. Receiving the desired level of commitment fromincarcerated students hinges upon the teachers’ ability to communicate and engage
students in an active environment, and allow them to feel both safe and comfortable in
the learning environment (Mageehon, 2006).
Many challenges present themselves to students, educators and facilities as they seek
to give and receive educational opportunities, such as inadequate access to computerequipment, complicated security routines, repeated transfers between prisons,disturbances in prison and lack of access to literature (Vacca, 2004). Overcrowded prison
populations, ineffective prison conditions, and inadequate funding for teaching personnel,
supplies, and materials may hamper education in prison, and the improvement of suchproblems may be a critically important contribution to increasing educational quality(Diseth et al., 2008).

3

Description of the program

3.1 The Sustainability in Prisons Project
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) is a partnership between The Evergreen State
College and Washington State Department of Corrections (WSDOC). The mission of
SPP is to bring science and nature into prisons through scientific research and272

S.R. Weber et al.

conservation, green-collar education and training, lecture presentations, and sustainable
operations of prisons (LeRoy et al., 2012). Inmates involved with sustainable operations
and conservation projects (such as composting, recycling, gardening, and the rearing ofendangered species) are engaged daily while green-collar training and science andsustainability lecture presentations are presented to interested incarcerated individuals
monthly throughout the year. All of the SPP programs and educational opportunities
involve inmates, college students, community partners, and scientific professionals.
The SPP green-collar job training and science and sustainability lecture series
are designed to reach a larger number and broader spectrum of the inmate population.
Green-collar trainings have included presentations on arboriculture, energy efficiency,
urban horticulture, and other areas in an effort to give inmates skills they can use as
contributing members of society. Lectures cover many topics from climate change tohabitat restoration to ecology in an effort to spark an interest in participating inmatesthat may lead them to seek further education, become involved in an on-site
conservation project, or join an organisation with common environmental values upon
release. To assess the effectiveness of these science and educational programs,
knowledge, behaviour, and attitudes of participating inmates are evaluated. The SPP
hopes that the information gathered will direct their on-going effort to bring nature
into prisons.

3.2 Scope of study
The green-collar trainings and lectures offered by the SPP are presented in two styles:
Hands-on workshops in which inmates move around, discuss presented material with one
another as well as the instructor(s), and sometimes engage in a physical activity; and in
traditional lecture formats with a presenter, a power point presentation, and an
opportunity for questions and brief discussion at the end. In this study we wished todetermine whether the lecture-style or workshop-style classes would prove more
beneficial in effectively teaching environmental topics to inmates. To obtain data,
lectures and workshops were co-presented with a Washington Department of Fish andWildlife (WDFW) senior research scientist at two minimum-security prisons in
Washington State. The presented material focused on the endangered Oregon spotted frog
(OSF), the multiple causes of its population decline, the involved political processes, andthe steps being taken to augment OSF populations in the Puget Sound region. The
research questions with which we approached this study were:1

Do science lectures and workshops improve content knowledge and attitudes ofparticipating incarcerated students?

2

Is there a difference in content knowledge or attitudes between participating maleand female incarcerated students that receive the educational opportunity?

3

Do content knowledge and attitudes of inmates show greater improvement via
lecture-style or workshop-style educational opportunities?

Environmental education in prison

4273

Methods

4.1 Study design
In April 2012, lectures and workshops were presented at two minimum-security prisonsin Washington State (Mission Creek Corrections Centre for Women; MCCCW and Cedar
Creek Corrections Centre for Men; CCCC). Both facilities are organised as work camps
where inmates from the Washington correctional system are sent to spend the last few
years or months of their sentences and as such, inmates are encouraged to work andattend classes prior to their release. Both of these facilities are also involved in SPP(LeRoy et al., 2012), and so receive regular visits from scientists, college students andcommunity partners who are running programs inside the prison, such as endangered
species rearing, organic gardening, beekeeping, dog rehabilitation, and recycling.
Because of the interest created by SPP, we knew that at each prison we would have someattendees who were involved with or exposed to the conservation projects within thosefacilities, and some that were not.
Informative flyers were posted throughout each prison inviting inmates to attend oneof the two presentations. The inmates were not aware that there would be different
presentation styles; they chose simply based upon what time slot they preferred. Given
that the presentations were in conflict with rest time, recreation time, and in the case ofMission Creek Corrections Centre for Women (MCCCW) with other classes, ourattendance was relatively low, but similarly so at both prisons. At MCCCW, we had atotal of 23 women attendees: 10 attendees at the workshop presentation and 13 at thelecture, and at Cedar Creek Corrections Centre for Men (CCCC), we had a total of 30
men attend: 16 attendees at the workshop presentation and 14 at the lecture, for an overall
total of 53 participants.
Each session lasted for two hours and included time to complete pre- and postengagement surveys. The lecture-style presentation was 90 minutes and we utilised
PowerPoint, with 15 minutes for questions at the end. The workshop-style presentation
was also 90 minutes and utilised PowerPoint to present some of the same slides as thelecture; however, throughout the workshop, handouts were used for groups of four or fiveinmates to discuss the material. Leading questions were asked about the content of eachhandout to facilitate conversation among the inmates and between inmates andpresenters. During the lectures, inmates sat together, but faced the presenter whereas
during the workshops, inmates faced the presenter at times, and at other times faced eachother. In both presentation types, substantial interaction occurred among inmates, though
it appeared more focused and purposeful during the workshops.
Operating under the SPP Human Subjects Review with the Washington Department
of Health and Social Services (2012), pre- and post-engagement surveys were designed
using a five-point Likert scale. Evaluation of the surveys allowed for the analysis ofwhether inmates gained improved knowledge or attitudes toward environmental topics
after receiving instruction via lecture-style or workshop-style presentations. The surveys
consisted of both quantitative and qualitative questions, some of which were repeatedbetween pre- to post-engagement survey to determine if answers changed after receiving
the presentation. The surveys were developed utilising a template provided by the SPP,
and tailored to suit this topic and area of interest. The surveys were submitted to both
MCCCW and CCCC for their approval prior to providing them to inmates at thepresentations.

274

S.R. Weber et al.

4.2 Statistical analysis
Mixed methodologies were utilised to measure the knowledge base of participating
inmates in the workshops and lectures. Quantitative data were generated fromcomparison of the five-point Likert scale questions on the pre- and post-engagement
surveys, and qualitative data were generated from open-ended questions included on the
post-engagement survey.
In order to determine if content knowledge increased following an educational
experience, paired t-tests were used to compare pre-engagement and post-engagementscores for each individual between groups (female vs. male, workshop vs. lecture).
Statistical tests were conducted in JMP Pro 11 (SAS Institute, Inc. 2013).
To assess changes in whole assemblages of attitudes and knowledge for eachindividual, we used multivariate analyses. We used a Bray-Curtis distance measure(Faith, Minchin and Belbin, 1987) to determine similarity among knowledge base andattitudes for inmates receiving different educational opportunities, and at male and female
institutions. Multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP) were used to determine if
significant differences in knowledge base or attitudes were apparent between pre- andpost-engagement surveys, lectures compared to workshops, and males compared tofemales. These statistical analyses were paired with non-metric multidimensional scaling
ordinations (Faith, Minchin and Belbin, 1987) to visualise differences between groups.
Multivariate analyses were conducted in PC-ORD 5.32 (MJM Software Design 2010).
Open-ended questions were evaluated qualitatively through coding of specific words
found in answers to those questions. Coded words were chosen based upon the content of
the presentations and learning objectives. The coded words were tallied and compared
between lecture-style or workshop-style presentations. Using this method we were able toevaluate whether communication and presentation of content remained consistent
between the lecture-style and workshop-style presentations.

5

Results

Both types of environmental engagement resulted in increases in content knowledge.
Paired t-tests reveal that post-engagement scores were higher than pre-engagement scoreson average for both genders and both workshops and lectures. Overall, gender had anotable influence on content knowledge scores, with female scores increasing more
substantially than male scores (paired t(51) = 6.96, p < 0.0001). In addition, lecture scores
were higher than workshop scores overall (paired t(51) = 6.95, p < 0.0001). Interestingly,
female and male students responded differently to the two types of environmental
engagement. Female student content scores increased more dramatically for thosestudents who received the workshop-style engagement (paired t(21) = 5.06, p < 0.0001);
while male student scores showed higher increases for those students who received thelecture-style engagement (paired t(29) = 4.79, p < 0.0001; Figure 1).

Environmental education in prison

275

Figure 1 Mean content score improvement for students exposed to either lecture- or workshopstyle environment programming on endangered frogs and conservation (see online
version for colours)

Note:

Female students (panel A) showed higher content knowledge scores
when material was delivered in a workshop-style format, but malestudents (panel B) showed higher content knowledge scores whenattending a lecture-style presentation. Mean improvement scores
were determined by comparing pre- to post-engagement survey
responses. Values represent means +/–1 standard error of the mean.

Interestingly, when you collectively examine survey responses as reflecting combined
knowledge and attitudes using multivariate statistics, we see a significant shift in overall
responses following both presentation types (Figure 2). Using ordination methods tocreate a visualisation of the entire assemblage of inmate attitudes and knowledge at anindividual level, each grey triangle represents an individual’s pre-presentation attitude
and knowledge and each black triangle (connected by a black line) represents the same
individual’s post-presentation attitude and knowledge (Figure 2). The ordination reveals
that prior to exposure to this opportunity, inmates had highly variable attitudes andknowledge bases (as illustrated by the widely scattered grey triangles). After theeducational opportunity, their attitudes and knowledge converge in the lower left of the276

S.R. Weber et al.

Figure, representing a new assemblage of more similar attitudes regardless ofpresentation style. Analysing all data collectively reveals that pre- and post-test results
are significantly different (A = 0.050, p < 0.0001).
Figure 2 NMDS Ordination plot showing every participating inmate's responses prior to (S) andafter (S) receiving a lecture-style or workshop-style presentation (see online version forcolours)

Note:

Lines connect each inmate’s pre - to post- engagement survey
responses and show a convergence of attitudes and knowledge
following an educational opportunity regardless of presentation style.

Examining each type of educational experience separately shows a similar shift andconvergence of attitudes and knowledge post-experience. Both pre- and post-engagement
survey responses for lecture-type presentations (Figure 3A) and workshop-type
presentations (Figure 3B) show a convergence of attitudes and knowledge following the
educational experience. The assemblage of survey responses is significantly different
prior to the educational experience compared to the following for both the lectures(A = 0.054, p < 0.001) and workshops (A = 0.035, p = 0.001), but the difference appears
larger for lectures than workshops (when comparing A values and visual scatter inFigures 3A and 3B).
It is important to note that the assemblages of attitudes and knowledge did not differ
between groups prior to the educational experiences at the outset of our study, that is,groups compared started at the same baseline. Using NMDS ordinations and MRPP
analyses, we found no significant differences between lecture and workshop participants’attitudes or knowledge based on pre-engagement surveys (A = –0.002, p = 0.558; Figure4). This confirms that no obvious bias existed in our random selection of participants foreach engagement type. In contrast, post-engagement survey responses did differ by

Environmental education in prison

277

presentation type, showing that lectures and workshops might influence attitudes andcontent knowledge differently overall (A = 0.027, p = 0.012; Figure 5).
Figure 3 NMDS Ordination plots showing every participating inmate’s responses prior to (S)and after (S) receiving a lecture-style (A) or workshop-style (B) presentation

Note:

Lines connect each inmate's pre - to post- engagement survey
responses and show a convergence of attitudes and knowledge.

Figure 4 Pre-engagement survey responses show no significant difference in overall
environmental attitudes and content knowledge prior to lectures (S) or
workshops (S) (A = –0.002, p = 0.558)

278

S.R. Weber et al.

Figure 5 Post-engagement survey responses show a significant difference in overall
environmental attitudes and content knowledge following lectures (S) andworkshops (S) (A = 0.027, p = 0.012) (see online version for colours)

Albeit limited in the scale of response, average scores increase for all questions following
both types of educational events. However, larger differences in improvement wereapparent for some questions. Mean improvement scores for personal action typequestions (5–10) such as: “How likely are you to seek information on the environment?”
showed overall lower improvement than questions that were more focused on knowledge
gained in the presentation (1–4) such as: “How important is education in terms ofconservation efforts?” Several notable differences were observed in mean improvementin knowledge-based questions, and some differences in improvement when comparing
lecture to workshop presentations (Figure 6; a complete list of questions one to ten can befound in the supporting online materials). In particular, Question 9, which discusses
climate change, shows a noticeable increase in improvement for lecture respondents
compared to workshop respondents. Though the scale of response is small due to thesmall sample size, the variation in response is important as it shows each question pushes
significantly above zero.
To verify whether content was presented equally throughout the lecture-style andworkshop-style presentations, we chose words that we hoped to see in response to the
open-ended questions included on the post-surveys. Chosen words were: learn,environment, interest, and conservation (or synonyms). We tallied the number of times
we saw these words from participants in the lecture-style and workshop-stylepresentations, and found the final numbers were very similar (Table 1). From this weconclude that communication of content remained relatively consistent between the twopresentation types.

Environmental education in prison

279

Figure 6 Mean percent improvement by question overall, for both lecture respondents andworkshop respondents (see online version for colours)

Note:

Table 1

Values represent means +/–1 standard error. Questions 1–4 represent
action items, and questions 5–10 represent content questions.

Number of times coded words appeared in open-ended survey questions

Workshop

Learn(ing)

Environment

Interest(ed)Conservation

14

14

7

2

Lecture

14

12

5

3

Total

28

26

12

5

6

Discussion

Initially, we expected that workshop-style presentations would be more effective than
lecture-style presentations at increasing content knowledge, in accordance with a wide
variety of EE studies. Although this was true for incarcerated female students, we saw the
opposite trend for incarcerated male students. We surmise that participating male inmates
may have appreciated the more formal structure of the lecture over the more relaxedenvironment established in the workshops. In the lecture-style presentations, inmates
received knowledge from an expert on the topic, rather than engaging in discussion with
their peers, which they were encouraged to do in the workshop-style presentation. This is
an interesting contrast to science education with high school and college students, where
engagement with peers typically results in better learning in hands-on environments(Duerden and Witt, 2010).
Incarcerated male students may respond positively to authoritative figures in thesciences and may be less willing to judge fellow inmates as sources of knowledge inscience and sustainability fields. However, the idea behind this alternative iscontroversial. Duerden and Witt (2010), who studied the influence of direct (experiential
learning) and indirect (lecture-based learning) experiences on the development ofenvironmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, point out that EE practitioners
disagree on which methods are most effective in promoting pro-environmental behaviour.
A major part of this issue seems to be whether to promote affective (i.e., attitudes and280

S.R. Weber et al.

values) or cognitive (i.e., knowledge) learning (Duerden and Witt, 2010). In their study,
Duerden and Witt (2010) examined a program offered in three stages: a preparatory
program, an international field workshop, and a post-trip service project. The preparatory
program was classroom-based, the field workshop was experiential, and the post-service
project was designed and implemented by the students upon their return from the fieldworkshop. Duerden and Witt (2010) found that though the direct and indirect learning
experiences were different, individuals experienced similar levels of growth in both
environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes, and both of these variables had
comparable connections to environmental behaviour.
The results of Duerden and Witt (2010) conflict with findings from experiments
conducted by Fazio and Zanna (1978, 1981) on the impact of direct and indirect
experiences on attitude-behaviour consistency. Fazio and Zanna (1978, 1981) found that
direct experiences produce attitudes more likely to lead to changes in behaviour, while
indirect experiences were less likely to produce attitudes leading to behavioural changes(Duerden and Witt, 2010; Fazio and Zanna, 1978, 1981). A study conducted by
Dettmann-Easler and Pease (1999) also found that students involved in a direct EE
program developed significantly more positive attitudes and retained those attitudes up to
three months after the program. Conversely, a meta-analysis conducted by Zelezny(1999) suggests that classroom-based (indirect) programs, rather than field-based (direct)
programs, more effectively influence environmental behaviour (Duerden and Witt, 2010;
Zelezny, 1999).
Clearly, conflicting ideas exist amongst EE professionals as to what makes anenvironmental learning opportunity or program successful. If attitudes are a direct
influence on behaviour, then changing and creating positive attitudes towards theenvironment and environmental activities is of the utmost importance, considering thoseattitudes may eventually redirect behaviour. Programs that integrate direct and indirect
learning might offer a more robust, meaningful experience to learners allowing them toascertain knowledge, experience positive attitudes towards the environment, andhopefully change behaviours to the benefit of the environment.
Depending upon the goal of each EE program (positive attitude or behaviour change),
the learning opportunity might be structured to focus on the end goal, and the indirect ordirect classroom style may be chosen to promote those interests. A key question posed on
the post-engagement survey of this study asked participating inmates, “Does the content
presented inspire interest and/or action towards environmental stewardship?” Of 53 total
responses, 45 said that yes, they were inspired towards environmental stewardship.
Eighty-five percent is a large percentage of individuals who received the educational
opportunity and felt moved to perform the actions afterwards. This is encouraging frommany viewpoints:
1

the SPP is clearly reaching people and grabbing their attention

2

the DOC benefits from positive behaviour when inmates are focused on an outside
interest

3

the potential to reduce recidivism by engaging inmates in environmental experiencesthat they might pursue outside of prison is a benefit to society, both in terms of
public safety and a healthy economy.

Improvement on questions may also reveal selected patterns. Lower improvement scoreson the personal action questions in contrast to question more focus on knowledge gainedEnvironmental education in prison

281

may reflect inmates choosing to come to a science-based lecture that already had aninterest in nature and environmental practices. Moreover, the notable differences in
improvement in knowledge-based questions may reflect question content. For example,
Question 9, which discussed climate change, may be a topic that is more effectively
communicated and understood in a more formal setting such as a lecture. Certain types of
information may be viewed as more trustworthy when coming from an expert compared
to a peer.
Instructors controlled variation between presentations to the best of their ability;
however, different environments within the prisons created different dynamics amongst
the inmates, staff, and presenters that could not be controlled for. The instructors also
controlled the length of both lecture and workshop-style presentations in an effort topresent content as equally as possible. This may have caused more convergence between
the presentations than anticipated and may have diminished the experiential aspect of theworkshop-style experience for participating inmates. Future studies should explore thealternative of not controlling for time to allow for more in-depth discussion during
workshop-style presentations.
Another important limitation to note is that selected biases may have been inherent inthis study. All participants volunteered for these educational experiences, which could
have made them more prone to be influenced by environmental messages. Also, though
we intentionally chose CCCC and MCCCW as the facilities in which to present andgather data, participation by their institution in SPP programs might bias the study. It is
possible that the inmate employees of the SPP programs operating in the facility at thetime of the study, came to the presentations with previous knowledge and interest gained
from their experience in the program. We did not control for whether these individuals
were present at the lecture- or workshop-based presentation so do not know if the data
were skewed due to their attendance (though at each facility, fewer than four SPP inmate
employees existed that might skew the study).
The presentations conducted in this study focused solely on issues surrounding theendangered Oregon spotted frog (OSF). CCCC has had lectures on OSF in the past,
which could have kept some inmates from attending a similar presentation, or brought ininmates who already had a wealth of knowledge on the subject. If the SPP is able torepeat this study, it would be interesting to see results after presentations on different
topics; particularly ones to which the inmates have not previously been exposed.
However, finding presenters willing and able to commit their time to multiple
presentations in prisons is always difficult. This reality poses a challenge to conduct
studies such as this one in the future.
Currently, the SPP focuses primarily on lecture-style presentations with occasional
opportunities for hands-on or outdoor workshops. Based on the results of this research
project, we recommend that the SPP continue their educational offerings in prisons, withthis focus on lecture-style presentations at correctional institutions for men, but that SPP
work to increase workshop-style programming at correctional institutions for women.
This research may benefit the much broader SPP Network and new practitioners that aredeveloping EE experiences for inmates across the US. We would also encourage the SPP
to conduct a study similar to this one with a larger sample size and more participating
prison facilities. However, results that appear to make this study controversial need
exploration beyond issues of sample size. In particular, special effort needs to address
alternative explanations for differences and response categories. Among these include
gathering information on the demographics, age, education levels and previous

282

S.R. Weber et al.

environmental education experiences of participating inmates to enable more precise
interpretation of survey results.
Further exploration of the nature of these results is important because this research
project could inform how EE is implemented in prisons, both in the US and the rest of theworld. Refined teaching methods may help SPP programs reduce recidivism rates
through informing inmates of various environmental, educational and green collar job
opportunities. The broader SPP lecture and workshop series contributes to a connection
between incarcerated individuals, the scientific community, and project partners(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, students at The Evergreen State College,
and staff at the Washington State Department of Corrections). This research would also
contribute to the literature regarding EE in the prison education system, as well as to thediscussion of which teaching methods work best with a variety of adult learners.

7

Conclusion

Though few EE opportunities exist in prisons to date, the SPP and proven public interest
through media attention (Johnson, 2012) is providing evidence that a desire and a needexist for such opportunities for inmates and correctional facilities as a whole. The SPP isable to reach demographics that are often underrepresented in terms of science education.
They are able to introduce those who have limited educational backgrounds to scientificideas and in some cases engage them in on-site conservation projects (raising endangered
plants, frogs, and butterflies; LeRoy et al., 2012). Ulrich and Nadkarni (2008) commenton the astonishment of corrections centre staff at the energy, interest, and patience
incarcerated participants exhibited in caring for moss. Caring for a non-showy, slowgrowing organism such as moss can prove challenging and tedious particularly toindividuals lacking formal education and coming from diverse backgrounds that do notinclude nature study (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008). Empowering inmate participants to
explore ways to solve critical environmental problems, and enabling them with a real
sense of ownership allowed participating individuals to feel dedicated to the task, andsuccessful in their achievements (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008). Another importantconsideration is that the cost of higher education in many states competes with funds thatmust be allocated to manage inmates, and prisons house an increasing population of
stable and ‘teachable’ men and women (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2008). This creates avaluable opportunity for outreach to prison communities that do not receive much in theway of science and nature exposure. Most of the inmates incarcerated in the USA today
will have an opportunity to create a life outside prison. With the influence of EE
opportunities, inmates could have increased knowledge and experience enabling them tobe environmental stewards, which would benefit both society and the environment.

References
Cnaan, R.A., Draine, J., Frazier, B. and Sinha, J.W. (2008) ‘Ex-prisoners’ re-entry: an emerging
frontier and a social work challenge’, Journal of Policy Practice, Vol. 7, Nos. 2–3,
pp.178–198.
Deaton, C. (2005) ‘Humanizing prisons with animals: a closer look at “cell dogs” and horse
programs in correctional institutions’, Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 56, No. 1,
pp.46–62.

Environmental education in prison

283

Dettmann-Easler, D. and Pease, J.L. (1999) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of residential
environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife’, Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.33–40.
Diseth, A., Eikeland, O., Manger, T. and Hetland, H. (2008) ‘Education of prison inmates: course
experience, motivation, and learning strategies as indicators of evaluation’, Educational
Research and Evaluation, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.201–214.
Duerden, M.D. and Witt, P.A. (2010) ‘The impact of direct and indirect experiences on thedevelopment of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.379–392.
Duguid, S., Hawkey, C. and Pawson, R. (1996) ‘Using recidivism to evaluate effectiveness inprison education programs’, Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.74–85.
Evans, M. (2010) Recidivism Revisited, Washington State Department of Corrections, pp.1–8.
Faith, D.P., Minchin, R.N. and Belbin, L. (1987) ‘Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measureof ecological distance’, Vegetatio, Vol. 69, Nos. 1–3, pp.57–68.
Fazio, R.H. and Zanna, M.P. (1978) ‘Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitudebehavior relationship’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 4,
pp.398–408.
Fazio, R.H. and Zanna, M.P. (1981) ‘Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency’,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 14, pp.161–202.
Heimlich, J.E. and Horr, E.E.T. (2010) ‘Adult learning in free-choice environmental settings: whatmakes it different?’ New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2010, No. 127,
pp.57–66.
Johnson, K. (2012) ‘Raising frogs for freedom, prison project opens doors’, The New York Times,
CLXII(55,908), A21, Friday September 28, 2012.
LeRoy, C.J., Bush, K., Trivett, J.R. and Gallagher, B. (2012) The Sustainability in Prisons Project:
An Overview (2004–2012), Gorham Printing, Olympia, WA. ISBN: 978-0988641501.
Lord, T.R. (1999) ‘A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental
science’, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 30, No. 3, p.22.
Mageehon, A. (2006) ‘What makes a “good” teacher “good”: women in transition from prison tocommunity reflect’, Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp.145–157.
Newman, A.P., Lewis, W. and Beverstock, C. (1993) Prison Literacy. Philadelphia: National
Center of Adult Literacy.
Rose, J.E. and Voss, M. (2003) ‘The unity in community: fostering academic success among
diverse communities of male offenders in correctional institutions’, Journal of Correctional
Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.131–159.
Schmitt, J., Warner, K. and Gupta, K. (2010) The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration. Center for
Economic and Policy Research, pp.1–19.
Taylor, E.W. and Neill, A.C. (2008) ‘Museum education: a nonformal education perspective’,
Journal of Museum Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.23–32.
Ulrich, C. and Nadkarni, N. (2008) ‘Sustainability research and practices in enforced residential
institutions: collaborations of ecologists and prisoners’, Environment, Development, andSustainability, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.815–832.
Vacca, J. (2004) ‘Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison’, Journal of Correctional
Education, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp.297–305.
Young, C., Pacholke, D., Schrum, D. and Young, P. (2014) Keeping Prisons Safe: Transforming
the Corrections Workplace, Gorham Printing, Olympia, WA. ISBN: 978-09886415-2-5.
Zelezny, L.C. (1999) ‘Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: a metaanalysis’, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.5–14.
Zeppel, H. (2008) ‘Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours: developing freechoice learning experiences’, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp.3–17.

284

S.R. Weber et al.

Appendix: Supporting online material
Survey questions 1–10
1

How likely are you to seek information on the environment?

2

How likely are you to seek information about amphibians and conservation?

3

How likely are you to talk to others about issues related to the environment?

4

How likely are you to talk to others about amphibians and conservation?

5

Because amphibians are sensitive to their environment, they can warn humans ofdisease outbreak, pollution, and other environmental issues.

6

The Oregon spotted frog is an important species to protect.

7

Political protection of the Oregon spotted frog is complicated but worth the effort if
the species and its habitat are protected in the future.

8

The most devastating environmental impact on the Oregon spotted frog iscompetition with exotic and invasive species.

9

Climate change has the potential to create negative effects on a scale much greaterthan what we have seen historically.

10 Education is the most important part of conservation efforts.