Group Collaboration with Internet Education

By Betty Cypser, bcypser@bestweb.net

Objectives: Modern technology and the internet have gifted this generation with almost unlimited online educational capability. Effective education, however, requires active participation and free dialog in the process. We here suggest one procedure.

    Group collaboration can be employed to enhance the internet educational programs which are now available to all the world, including those incarcerated. The incarcerated are of different races, nationalities, and cultures, and hold different religious beliefs and ethical value systems. They also possess different levels of educational ability. Some grab onto facts, while others create imaginative drawings. A small group, actively participating in an educational project, can make use of all these capabilities to build an effective learning community. All persons in a video educational group should be committed to using their talents to get the course information to all members of the group.

Process: Gather 3 to 10 incarcerated persons, and 1 or 2 facilitators. Facilitators can be outside volunteers, or those incarcerated, or those employed in the prison. All participants must be prepared to attend all the sessions of a particular course; sessions should be scheduled once or more each week. Some internet courses are as short as 4 sessions; others may be as long as 30 sessions.

    The group, with guidance from someone in the prison administration, must decide what video topic they want to work with. It must also be decided if there is a need for a program with course credits. For some, a certificate, with an annotation on the subject matter chosen, may be sufficient. There may also be some possibility of college credits via the College Level Education Program (CLEP) testing or the American Council on Education (ACE) Credit Recommendation, which must be clarified at the outset (see www.bestweb.net/~cureny/CLEP.htm ).

    Facilitators would be expected to review the video before the session, to control playing and the re-plays of parts of the video, to prepare discussion questions, any assignments, quizzes or exams, and to facilitate the discussion of the video so as to encourage full participation. The video would be procured from the internet by prison staff or designated volunteers, and remain under the control of the director of Educational Programs at the particular prison.

Illustrative Agendas: Agendas would preferably be a mixture of community building, playing the video, and active discussion of the video or assignments. For example, for the first session:

·         Opening Rap (Ground Rules, Goals, Information on Topic Chosen, Number of Sessions,  etc.)

·         Gathering: introductions: (e.g., each participant: “Something about myself ..., why I want to participate in this program ...”)

·         Video Playing: (with facilitator regulating questions, comments, interruptions, and replays)

·         Planned discussion: Questions on video prepared by facilitator. Review of any assignments.

·         Closing: (e.g., each participant: final questions or comments. “What I learned that was new for me.” “What I want particularly to remember.”)

Dual Role of the Facilitator. It is hoped that volunteer facilitators might devise assignments or exercises to further both the understanding of the video and also the building of a sense of community. Some preparation of the volunteers for this added role would be helpful. The facilitator might then strive to encourage the growth of each participant’s confidence in self, communication ease, concern for others, and cooperation among the participants.

   
   The “Group Collaboration with Internet Education” thus could become a vehicle for both academic progress and personal growth, both of which are often necessary parts of rehabilitation and reentry.

   A class in a Columbia prison   photo by Alan Pogue