Utilizing a Restricted Access e-Learning Platform for Reform, Equity, and Self-development in Correctional Facilities

Yannis C. Stamatiou, Constantinos Halkiopoulos, Athanasios Giannoulis, Hera Antonopoulou


Objectives: The goal of this paper is to address the issues that arose because of the exclusion of law offenders in the Greek Correctional Institutions from second chance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, the offenders were deprived of their right to equal access to second-chance education since the pandemics blocked mobility and close contact with teaching personnel. Methods/Analysis: In this paper, we propose a framework based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that will be deployed to evaluate the acceptance of the CILMS by the learners in Correctional Institutions. We describe a methodology and a set of hypotheses that can reveal the intention of learners to use the system based on several factors, such as trust, perception of privacy, perception of usefulness, and perception of self-efficacy. Findings: We suggest that eLearning and limited Internet access should be added to the list of fundamental human rights for CI detainees as well, in order to counteract their separation from physical society. Inmates are still individuals. In fact, they should be placed in solitary confinement as prescribed by the law. Novelty/Improvement:This viewpoint has been demonstrated with the development and evaluation of acceptance by inmates through the TAM technology acceptance methodology, as well as the proposal of a generic privacy-preserving Web information and services access model for CIs that can, at the same time, provide sufficient information access freedom while respecting the restrictions that should be imposed on such an access for CI inmates.


Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-017

Full Text: PDF


Technology Acceptance Model; ICT Skills; e-learning; LMS; Correctional Facilities; Limited Network Access.


Fokides, E. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ intention to use MUVES as practitioners - A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16(1), 47–68. doi:10.28945/3645.

Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. doi:10.1108/jrit-10-2016-0007.

Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2020). Leadership types and digital leadership in higher education: Behavioural data analysis from University of Patras in Greece. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 110–129. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.4.8.

Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2021). Transformational leadership and digital skills in higher education institutes: During the covid-19 pandemic. Emerging Science Journal, 5(1), 1–15. doi:10.28991/esj-2021-01252.

Rajabalee, B. Y., Santally, M. I., & Rennie, F. (2020). A study of the relationship between students’ engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 1–20. doi:10.1177/2042753019882567.

Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2021). Associations between traditional and digital leadership in academic environment: During the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging Science Journal, 5(4), 405–428. doi:10.28991/esj-2021-01286.

Antonopoulou, H., Mamalougou, V., & Theodorakopoulos, L. (2022). The Role of Economic Policy Uncertainty in Predicting Stock Return Volatility in the Banking Industry: A Big Data Analysis. Emerging Science Journal, 6(3), 569–577. doi:10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-03-011.

Nikolaidis, S., Nath, S., Procaccia, A. D., & Srinivasa, S. (2017). Game-Theoretic Modeling of Human Adaptation in Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. doi:10.1145/2909824.3020253.

UNESCO (2017). Working Group on Education: digital skills for life and work. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, UNESCO, Paris, France.

Al-Shabandar, R., Hussain, A. J., Liatsis, P., & Keight, R. (2018). Analyzing Learners Behavior in MOOCs: An Examination of Performance and Motivation Using a Data-Driven Approach. IEEE Access, 6, 73669–73685. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2876755.

Al-Rahmi, W., Aldraiweesh, A., Yahaya, N., Bin Kamin, Y., & Zeki, A. M. (2019). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Data on higher education. Data in Brief, 22, 118–125. doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.139.

Castaño-Muñoz, J., Kalz, M., Kreijns, K., & Punie, Y. (2018). Who is taking MOOCs for teachers’ professional development on the use of ICT? A cross-sectional study from Spain. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(5), 607–624. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2018.1528997.

Bogdanova, D., & Snoeck, M. (2018). Using MOOC technology and formative assessment in a conceptual modelling course. Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings. doi:10.1145/3270112.3270120.

Giannoulis, A., Theodorakopoulos, L., & Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Learning in second-chance schools during COVID-19 Case study: Legal framework and distance learning platforms in Greek prisons. (2022). European Journal of Training and Development Studies, 9(1), 13–19. doi:10.37745/ejtds.14/vol9no1pp.13-19.

Brands, S. (2000). Rethinking public key infrastructures and digital certificates: building in privacy. Mit Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. doi:10.7551/mitpress/5931.001.0001.

Camenisch, J., Lysyanskaya, A. (2001). An Efficient System for Non-transferable Anonymous Credentials with Optional Anonymity Revocation. Advances in Cryptology — EUROCRYPT 2001. EUROCRYPT 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2045, Springer, Berlin, Germany. doi:10.1007/3-540-44987-6_7.

Camenisch, J., & Groß, T. (2012). Efficient Attributes for Anonymous Credentials. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 15(1), 1–30. doi:10.1145/2133375.2133379.

Rannenberg, K., Camenisch, J., & Sabouri, A. (Eds.). (2015). Attribute-based Credentials for Trust. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14439-9.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339. doi:10.2307/249008.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, United States.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control, 11–39, Springer, New York, united States. 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540.

Esteban-Millat, I., Martínez-López, F. J., Pujol-Jover, M., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Alegret, A. (2018). An extension of the technology acceptance model for online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(7), 895–910. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1421560.

Gkintoni, E., Meintani, P. M., & Dimakos, I. (2021). Neurocognitive And Emotional Parameters In Learning And Educational Process. ICERI Proceedings. doi:10.21125/iceri.2021.0659.

Tan, P. J. B., & Hsu, M.-H. (2018). Designing a System for English Evaluation and Teaching Devices: A PZB and TAM Model Analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6). doi:10.29333/ejmste/86467.

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors Affecting Students’ Acceptance of e-Learning Environments in Developing Countries:A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 54–59. doi:10.7763/ijiet.2013.v3.233.

Gkintoni, E., Halkiopoulos, C., & Antonopoulou, H. (2022). Neuroleadership as an Asset in Educational Settings: An Overview. Emerging Science Journal, 6(4), 893–904. doi:10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-04-016.

Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.

Chao, C.-M. (2019). Factors Determining the Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: An Application and Extension of the UTAUT Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652.

Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Examine Faculty Use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) In Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 11(2), 210–233.

Hu, P.Jh., Hui, W. (2011). Is Technology-Mediated Learning Made Equal for All? Examining the Influences of Gender and Learning Style. Technology Acceptance in Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_6.

Moghavvemi, S. (2015). Impact of Perceived Self-Efficacy and Capability to Use IT Innovation on Individual Use Behaviour. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2561739.

Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Gkintoni, E., & Katsimpelis, A. (2022). Application of Gamification Tools for Identification of Neurocognitive and Social Function in Distance Learning Education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(5), 367–400. doi:10.26803/ijlter.21.5.19.

Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learning performance. Computers and Education, 68, 429–439. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.005.

Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play, 14-17, 2011, Hilversum, Netherlands.

Gkintoni, E., Boutsinas, B., & Kourkoutas, E. (2022). Developmental Trauma And Neurocognition In Young Adults: A Systematic Review. EDULEARN22 Proceedings. doi:10.21125/edulearn.2022.1332.

Gkintoni, E., Halkiopoulos, C., Antonopoulou, H., & Petropoulos, N. (2021). Gamification of Neuropsychological Tools as a Multi-Sensory Approach to Education. Stroop’s Paradigm. Technium Romanian Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology, 3(8), 92–102. doi:10.47577/technium.v3i8.4798.

Stamatiou, Y.C, Benenson, Z., Girard, A., Krontiris, I, Liagkou, V., Pyrgelis, A., Tesfay, W. (2015). Course Evaluation in Higher Education: the Patras Pilot of ABC4Trust. In: Rannenberg, K., Camenisch, J., Sabouri, A. (eds) Attribute-based Credentials for Trust. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14439-9_7.

Gkintoni, E., & Dimakos, I. (2022). An Overview Of Cognitive Neuroscience In Education. EDULEARN22 Proceedings, Palma, Spain. doi:10.21125/edulearn.2022.1343.

Antonopoulou, H., Giannoulis, A., Theodorakopoulos, L., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2022). Socio-Cognitive Awareness of Inmates through an Encrypted Innovative Educational Platform. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(9), 52–75. doi:10.26803/ijlter.21.9.4.

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-017


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Yannis C. Stamatiou, Constantinos Halkiopoulos, Athanasios Giannoulis, Hera Antonopoulou