-MANUAL RESEARCH PROJECT-

COURSE CODE (8613)

Name : Summra Munawar

Roll No : BN658887
Registration No : 17PBN02563

Program : B.Ed. (1.5) Year

Semester : Spring 2019
Submitted to :
Topic : Corporal Punishment
In Schools

1
 Table of Content

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………..5
: Background of Study……………………………………………………5
: Statement of the Problem……………………………………………….7
: Research Objectives……………………………………………………..7
: Research Questions……………………………………………………...8
: Assumptions of the study……………………………………………......8
: Significance of Study………………………….………… ...…………….8
: Limitations of the Study…………… ………………..………………….9
: Delimitation of the Study……………………….…..…………………...10
: Research Methodology………………………..…………………………10
: Operational Definitions………………… ..……………. ………………10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………………………….12

: Definitions of Corporal Punishment……………………………………12
: History of Corporal Punishment……………………………………….12
: Opposition of Corporal Punishment……………………………………15
: Support for Corporal Punishment………………………………………17
: Core Factors Linked with Corporal Punishment………………………19
: Gaps in Literature………………………………………………………..21

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………...24

: Research Design………………………………………………………….24
: Population………………………………………………………………...24
: Sampling Techniques & Sample………………………………………...25
: Data Collection Instruments…………………………………………….26
: Student Questionnaire.................................... ..................................27
: Head Teachers Questionnaire…………………… ………………27
: Teachers Questionnaire………………………………….…………27
: Validity of the Research Instruments…………...…………………27
: Reliability of the Instruments………………………………………28
: Data Analysis and Presentation……………… ……………………28

2
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION .............................................. 29
: Demographic Data………………………………………………………………29
: Student Information……….….…………………………………………………29
: Kinds of School…………………………………………………… ……………30
: Division of Students in Different Schools………………………………………32
: Head Teachers Data……………………………………………… ……………32
: Teachers Data………………………………………………… …………………34
: Types of Punishments Meted on Students………………………………………35
: Reasons for Continued use of Corporal Punishment in School…… …………36

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 40

: Summary…………………………………………………………………………….40
: Information About Head Teachers and Teachers………………………………..40
: Kinds of Punishment bear by Students……………………………………………40
: Reasons for Continued use of Corporal Punishment in Schools… ………… …41
: Conclusions………………………………………………………...……………….41
: Forms of Punishment bear by Students……… ……………… ………………41
: Reasons for Continued use of Corporal Punishment in Elementary and Primary…42
Suggestions…………………………………………………………………………..43

References……………………………………………………………………………………44

3
CHAPTER 1:-

INTRODUCTION
Corporal punishment – violence inflicted on children by parents, teachers, careers and

others in the name of “discipline” – is experienced by a large majority of children in many

states worldwide. Some children, including children with disabilities and young children,

are particularly likely to experience it. CP is a violation of children’s rights and international

human rights law requires prohibition of all corporal punishment, including in the family

home. There is no need to look for evidence of the negative effects of CP in order to know

that it must be prohibited and eliminated – just as there is no need for research to show that

violence against women is harmful before efforts are made to end it. However, research on

the issue can be useful for advocacy – and the message from research is very clear: corporal

punishment carries multiple risk of harm and has no benefits.

This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of

the study, research questions, and significance of the study, limitations and delimitations of

the study and lastly operational definition of terms.

1.1 Background of Study

Corporal punishment refers to intentional application of physical pain as a method of

behavioral change. CP can also be defined as “the use of physical force intended to cause

pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correcting or controlling a child’s behavior (Straus

and Donnelly, 2005). GersHoff (2002) further discussed CP as behaviors which do not

result in significant physical injury e.g. hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking,

pinching and shaking. Pandey (2001) said that CP is being used as a means of disciplining

action against children and students worldwide but as catalytic action of education, it needs

to be planned meticulously and executed with great sensitivity.

Page 1 of 50
In Pakistan and other world developed countries, steps have been initiated to discourage the

teacher against the use of CP. The Punjab education department announced that incidents of

CP in schools would not be tolerated and stern action would be taken against teachers who

indulge in it under the Punjab Removal from service Ordinance 2000 (Daily Times, 2005).

It is assumed that increasing school violence contributes to heavy physical punishment.

Despite affirmation of anti-punishment treaties by various countries, including Pakistan, in

recent years, school shooting incident in Germany left 14 teachers, 2 students and a security

guard dead when an expelled former pupil went on a shooting spree at his school in the

Eastern German city of Erfurt (BBC news, April 26, 2002); the apparent causes are

unknown. It was reported that the killer was an abnormal and depressed person who went on

the rampage after having serious arguments with his girlfriend. He was reported many times

for his behavior towards the students and teachers. This led to an assumption that if the

teachers had managed his ill behavior, he would not have caused this killing episode.

Among many other such incidents was the shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech

University which left 33 people dead including the suspected gunman (BBC, April 17,

2007). The “Cultural Spillover” theory presented by Rohmer, Ronald, Kean, Kelvin,

Coroner and David (1991) proposes that the more a society uses force for socially legitimate

ends, the greater the tendency for those who are involved in illegitimate behaviors use force

to attain their own ends. Discipline in rising and teaching of children is necessary if they are

to become socially productive and responsible adults. Punishment is only a method of

disciplining and CP is only one aspect of punishment (Sanderson, 2003)... A frequently

punished child will be a problematic person later in life because the child being sensitive

reacts to the behavior and discipline of adults either at school or at home. Coercive

discipline techniques have been associated with decreased confidence and assertiveness in

Page 2 of 50
children and increased feelings of humiliation and helplessness (Baum rind and Black,

1967).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

There is no gainsaying that children are the hope of any caring nation that wishes to protect

their future lives. A nation that cannot give proper attention to children may not likely get

the desirable goals of development as it is known that expected and good development can

be gotten through trained people and good quality education. This research work focuses on

the many effects of CP on the student. It is obvious that effective results can be achieved

about the development of students through combating various factors, which badly affect

the students. CP, given by the teachers to students in classroom is one of these threatening

factors, which affect student’s behavior. CP is believed to cause students’ mental activities

to reduce, predispose them to play truancy, increase in acts against the existing social

system and loss of self-confidence and boldness. The students who always bear CP may be

experiencing inferiority complex that causes less intelligence. Teacher who sees CP as a

means of establishing discipline in the classroom may invite more destruction in the

academic settings. CP affects the behavior of students and that’s why they cannot expose the

internal abilities. CP becomes the cause of lack of confidence and decrease academic

performance. In this way they could not achieve their desirable goals.

1.3 Research Objectives

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of CP on student’s behavior:

 To explore and record various impacts of CP on student’s behavior.

 To find out the forms of punishment applied on students in P&E schools in

FORTABBAS.

 To examine various psychological impacts of CP on student’s personality

development and learning.

Page 3 of 50
  To assess why the use of CP has continued in schools despite the ban by the GOP.

1.4 Research Questions

The study was preceded by the following questions:

 Is there a relationship between CP and student’s behavior?

 Is there a relationship between CP and student learning?

 What are the forms of punishment applied on students in the P&E schools?

 Why the use of CP has continued in schools despite the ban by GOP?

1.5 Assumptions of the Study

The assumptions to be considered in this research are:

1) It is assumed that there is a relationship between CP and students behavior.

2) It is assumed student behaviors as well as teacher behaviors will be associated with

student-teacher relationship quality.

3) It is assumed that CP effects the student’s learning ability.

4) It is assumed that teachers are aware about Govt‫ ۔‬policy regarding to CP.

1.6 Significance of Study

This study was important, for few research studies directly surveyed the students who

received CP. Identifying and understanding relationships among the selected factors

addressed in this study may provide useful insights about the extent and effect of CP to

provide a foundation for developing strategies to mitigate its use. Identifying the

relationships between the use of CP and each variable would hopefully lead to a basis for

developing equitable policies and practices regarding strategies for coping with students’

misbehaviors and for creating safer school environments. The findings of this study may

Page 4 of 50
help support educators to address the needs of students and teachers more effectively, such

as changes in educational practices to encourage and explore the use of more humane

methods for maintaining orderly classrooms. This study may be beneficial for avoidance of

CP in schools and prove a positive relation between students and teacher in schools. The

work may overcome to the bad habits of students that are exists due to the CP. It may

support to teachers that they adopt new methods for teaching and learning process instead

the worst use of CP. This may helpful to create a friendly Teaching and Learning

environment. This research is beneficial for higher authorities for stopping the violence on

student. This work may also be helpful for adopt such policies that are against the

punishment and organize different activities for students and also followed the GOP policies

to stop such type of violence and introduce different techniques needs more training for

teachers. In this way students may achieve their desirable goal without any fear of CP.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The following were the limitations of the study:

(a) Inadequate resources and limited time on the part of the researcher made the research to

limit itself to only few schools of FORTABBAS instead of the whole district. If the whole

district would have been used for the study it would have been more inclusive.

(b) The study relied on the willingness of the subjects to co-operate and provide impartial

information regarding the study which is outside the control of the researcher.

(c) The study would have been more fruitful if teachers ,student and their parents gave good

responses but since it might be hard to reach them, the study therefore was limited to

students and teachers.

Page 5 of 50
1.8 Delimitation of the Study

a) The study was limited to 9 schools sampled due to lack of resources if come more school

in sample than it provide more impressive results

b) The study is limited to 6 months while one or two years would have given better and

more conclusive data.

1.9 Research Methodology

A research design compared the effects of CP between schools that engage in CP use and

those that engage in alternative to discipline project. A combination of data collection

techniques such as questionnaire, structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, open-

ended interviews, and participant observation were used to collect data. The total of 150

participants was selected among education officers, parents, head teachers, ordinary P& E

school teachers, and pupils.

1.10 Operational Definitions

Corporal punishment (CP): Corporal punishment refers to intentional application of

physical pain as a method of behavior change. It includes a wide variety of methods such as

hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, shoving, choking, use of

various objects (i.e., wooden paddles, belts, sticks, pins, or others), painful body postures

(such as placing in closed spaces), use of electric shock, use of excessive exercise drills, or

prevention of urine or stool elimination. The majority of children have experienced physical

punishment by the time they reach adolescence. CP in schools does not refer to the

occasional need of a school official to restrain a dangerous student or use physical force as a

means of protecting members of the school community subject to imminent danger.

Physical punishment: This is synonymous with CP.

Page 6 of 50
Primary school: A school in PAKISTAN consisting of grades Nursery to 5th.In addition to

English, Art, Science, and Social Studies, Islamiyat, Math (MOE).

Elementary school: A school in PAKISTAN consisting of grades 1 to 8th and the final

years of compulsory school attendance. The key goal of an Elementary school is preparing

students to take admission in high school (MOE).

-----------------------------------------

Page 7 of 50
CHAPTER 2:-

REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATURE

This literature review will be organized into six main sections: definitions of CP, history of

CP, opposition to CP, support for CP, core factors linked with CP, and gaps in the literature.

2.1 Definitions of Corporal punishment

CP is most commonly defined as physical punishment not resulting in physical injury,

including bruising, or physical harm (Hicks-Pass, 2009).Corporal punishment in the

literature is more commonly referred to as spanking. The American Academy of Pediatrics

(AAP) more specifically and narrowly defines spanking as “striking a child with an open

hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without

causing physical injury” (Saadeh et al., 2002, p.88). McLeod and Smith (2002) define CP

on a continuum with different levels of intensity with spanking being the most common

form. On an international level, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child,

which is under the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,

defines corporal punishment as “any punishment in which physical force is used and

intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light”(Middleton, 2012, p. 5).

2.2 History of Corporal Punishment

CP has a long and evolving history. The first written account of CP comes from the Old

Testament in the Bible, in the book of Proverbs. This time frame would be approximately as

early as 10th century BCE (Before Common Era). Though the classic phrase, “spare the

rod, spoil the child” is used to support the use of CP, it is actually not from the Bible at all

(Graven, 1990). However, similar sayings are found in the book of Proverbs, “Withhold not

correction from the child: for if thou beat him with the rod, he shall not die. Though shalt

beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Proverbs, 23:13-14)” (Graven,
Page 8 of 50
1990). The Bible’s book of Proverbs is the first written account that some people refer to

for the support or justification of corporal punishment. “For many centuries, the Book of

Proverbs has provided parents, preachers, and teachers with the basic aphorisms that have

justified their commitment to CP of children” (Graven, 1990, p.48).

The use of physical punishment on humans can be found throughout history in almost all

books. Cooper (1988) describes CP as being “as old as sin” (p.6). “The practice of

flagellating the human body dates from the earliest ages of mankind” (Cooper, 1988, p.

2).Before Rome was founded, whipping slaves happened daily (Cooper, 1988).

Furthermore, in the 5th century of the Christian era, people believed that if they were

whipped/beat/flogged that they would pay a penance to God which may save them from the

wrath of God, which at the time was a plague. This fear of the plague resulted in people

volunteering to be whipped as a way to save them (Cooper, 1988). This belief that physical

punishment is a way of saving people, i.e. children, from a bad future, has long roots in

history.

Illustrations in history have shown the use of CP of children both at home and at school.

There are numerous historical illustrations showing the use of a rod as a form of disciplining

slaves, women, criminals, students, and children. There is an illustration from Hans

Holbein’s Illustration to Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” titled “The Mother’s Correction”,

shows a mother with a child over her lap and her hitting the child on the buttocks with a

whip (Cooper, 1988).

A school scene in the Middle Ages shows a teacher using a whip on a student’s buttocks

while other students sit at their desk, looking on, “the flogging scene at school appears to

have been rather a favorite subject among the early caricaturists, for the scourge was looked

upon as the grand stimulant to scholarship. In those good old times, when a man recalled to

Page 9 of 50
memory his schoolboy days, he did not say, ‘When I was at school,’ but ‘When I was under

the rod’” (Cooper, 1988, p. 250).

In the United States, the early settlers had a firm belief in the use of the rod as a way of

instilling morality in people (Cooper, 1988). A whipping post was established in a public

place and used for public lashings for the punishment of crimes (Cooper, 1988).

Furthermore, spanking was also used in the home. “Domestic flogging, or what is called

“spanking,” prevails more or less all over America, so far as the younger branches of

families are concerned. Whipping was a common punishment for both sexes in the time of

the Puritans. Sons and daughters, we are told, had to endure the Rod till they were of a

marriageable age”(Cooper, 1988, p.300).

In the 17th century, a school in Massachusetts declared that the rod should be used for

classroom discipline as ordered by God (Glenn, 1984). An autobiographical book, titled

The Wandering Boy, was published in 1839 and narrated the life of Lane, born in 1788.

This book pointed to the common use of corporal punishment in the late 18th and first half

of the 19th century (Glenn, 1984). A book by Benjamin Wadsworth, titled The Well

Ordered Family, published in the 18th century, stated that parents should use the rod to

punish children (Glenn, 1984).

However, there became public concern regarding the use of corporal punishment with

prisoners, navy men, men of war, and children during the late 1820s to the late 1850s

(Glenn, 1984). Articles against corporal punishment were prominent in educational journals

and the book, The Evil Tendencies of Corporal Punishment, was published during this time

period as well, in 1847. The New York Tribune in 1850 reported that the common practice

of flogging men in the navy is cruel and that that practice should be abolished, and Congress

did abolish it in 1850. Also, the public petitioned the US Congress to end flogging men of

war in 1850. Furthermore, popular writings during this same time period, encouraged
Page 10 of 50
parents to use methods of discipline other than corporal punishment. However, the crusade

against corporal punishment declined in the 1850s due to a change in the U.S. society’s

focus to issues of slavery and the Civil War (Glenn, 1984).

CP became a debated topic all over the world surrounding that use of CP in schools. In the

early 1890s in BRITAIN, the use of CP in schools by teachers was widely debated

(Middleton, 2012). At this time, many parents did not find CP, i.e. hitting children’s

knuckles with slates or hitting children in the head with classroom pointers, to be an

acceptable form of discipline in the classroom. However, it took over 100 years before

corporal punishment became banned in British schools, which happened in 1987

(Middleton, 2012).

Hyman (1997) defines corporal punishment as purposeful infliction of pain on the human

body as penalty for an offense. Child abuse on the other hand occurs when someone

physically harms a child and proof is seen by marks on the body for instance bruises and

cuts. From the above definitions, corporal punishment can be used without necessarily being

termed as child abuse especially in cases where no marks are left. It is also clear that child

abuse is harmful and does not necessarily occur as a result of infraction of rules.

2.3 Opposition to Corporal Punishment

There has been a lot of research on the effects of CP. Those in opposition to using CP to

discipline children site research that points to the negative outcomes to children from this

discipline method. They oppose CP since it can have emotional and psychological

consequences to the child (Andrew & Stewart, 2002; Benet & Kadin, 2003; Flynn, 1998;

GersHoff et al., 2002; Gromoske & Maguire-Jack, 2012; Hicks-Pass, 2009; Larzelere &

Kuhn, 2005; McLeod& Smith, 2002; Straus, 1996 & 2001; Simons & Wurtele, 2010;

Turner & Muller, 2004).

Page 11 of 50
Andero and Stewart (2002) oppose CP on the basis that it is an ineffective discipline

method. They argue that it is ineffective because it does not teach a child an alternative

behavior to the undesirable behavior for which discipline is warranted. Instead,

experiencing physical pain without the ability to defend oneself can result in a child having

feelings of anger, shame, humiliation and helplessness. As a result, the child ultimately

learns to avoid getting caught for misbehaving so as to avoid these feelings that often

accompany spanking.

Using the social learning theory, Benjet and Kazdin (2003) opposed corporal punishment

because it teaches children that violence is a way to solve problems. In otherworld’s,

children are learning every day from the modeling and behavior of their parents and the

society around them. If parents use physical pain to handle a problem they have with their

child, then they are teaching the child that hitting is an acceptable way to handle a problem.

Furthermore, this teaches children to associate hitting with those who love them. In other

words, this idea is that children learn from their parents how to behave in the world,

including how to solve problems. Research has shown that children who are spanked are

more likely to use hitting as a way to solve a problem with a sibling or other children

(Simons & Wurtele, 2010).Similarly to Benjet and Kazdin, Straus (1996) argued that

spanking children contributes to societal violence. Straus philosophy is called “cultural

spillover.” Straus argues that violence and overall crime would be lower in a society that

does not use physical pain or violence with their children.

Furthermore, there have been many studies that have found that children who are spanked

have more internalizing problems (Flynn, 1998; Straus, 2001; Straus & Stewart, 1999).

Internalization problems are problems such as depression, suicidal ideation, and low self-

esteem as well as having anxiety and withdrawn behaviors (Gromoske &Maguire-Jack,

2012). Gromoske and Maguire-Jack also found that children who were spanked at age one,
Page 12 of 50
had more externalizing behaviors at age three and more internalizing behaviors at age five,

suggesting a transactional effect over time.

Corporal punishment has also been linked to children having more externalization behavior

problems. Externalization problem behaviors include physically aggressive behaviors,

defiant behavior, and delinquent behavior (Lansford et al., 2012). Several studies have

found that adolescents who were spanked were more likely to have aggressive and

delinquent behaviors (Straus, 2001; Straus & Muradin, 1998; Turner &Muller, 2004).

In addition to adolescents, GersHoff et al. (2002) also found that frequency of spanking was

positively correlated to child misbehavior and aggression. Gromoske and Maguire-Jack

(2012) found that children who were spanked at age one had more externalizing behaviors

at age three. Also, mothers who reported more externalizing behaviors in their children did

report using spanking more frequently with that child or using a harsher spanking (Lansford

et al., 2012).

2.4 Support for Corporal Punishment

Despite all the research in opposition to corporal punishment and the detrimental effects of

spanking, there continues to be supporters of corporal punishment and other researchers that

have found evidence that supports the use of corporal punishment. Studies by Larzelere and

Kuhn (2005) and Straus (2001) have shown that corporal punishment can be an effective

way to raise obedient children. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 70 studies by Policy and

Violate (2004) found that there is no evidence that spanking causes several emotional or

behavioral problems in children.

A study by Slade and Warsaw (2004) found that spanking children before the age of two did

not result in significant problem behaviors four years later. Instead, these researchers found

that problem behaviors displayed by children, four years later, who were spanked before the

Page 13 of 50
age of two, were equivalent to problem behaviors displayed by their non-spanked peers.

This study did not find a connection between spanking and an increase in later

externalization problem behaviors.

Those who support corporal punishment will sometimes argue that a child’s entire context

in which they are reared needs to be considered in order to make an association between

spanking and negative outcomes.

Lansford et al. (2012) and Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) found that some contexts in which

children were raised resulted in spanking not being as harmful to these children. These

researchers argue that some environments can actually decrease the possibility of harm that

the child might experience from corporal punishment. For example, according to Benjet

and Kazdin (2003), when a child feels accepted by their caregiver, as opposed to rejected, it

results in less negative effects of the spanking. Also, the meaning children attach to their

spanking influences how it affects them. Furthermore, the other contexts of the child’s

environment, such as their age, sex, race, family structure, relationship with parents, and all

affects the outcome of spanking on a child’s later behaviors (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003).

Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) studied the context of a child’s age on the effects of spanking.

The results of the study found that spanking benefited children who are under the age of six.

Detrimental effects of spanking were found for children over the age of six. GersHoff et al.

(2012) also found a more detrimental effect related to spanking as children got older,

specifically an increase in child’s aggression and antisocial behavior.

There are some researchers that support corporal punishment as a discipline method that has

positive outcomes. Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) found that corporal punishment can be

beneficial for children age two to six who are given mild or occasional spankings. Benjet

and Kazdin (2003) argue that spanking can be positive since it teaches children to respect

authority.
Page 14 of 50
They further argue that not spanking a child can result in a child learning to be disrespectful

of authority. This disrespect can result in these children becoming more unlawful as adults

and more likely to be violent. Taylor et al. (2011) also argues a similar idea. They stated

that spanking was used with past generations as a common method of discipline. They

pointed out that adults from those generations grew up to be better functioning members of

society than children in this current generation where spanking is less common (Taylor et

al., 2011).

Most studies of the effects of corporal punishment have found that it does work in the short

term. Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) and GersHoff et al. (2012) found that children who were

spanked were more immediately compliant following the spanking In addition, according to

a study by Benjet and Kazdin (2003), spanking as a form of punishment did not have any

more detrimental effects than any other type of punishment. Benjet and Kazdin compared

four types of punishment: verbal punishment, loss of privilege, grounding and spanking; and

found that there are harmful effects from punishment as a whole; not specifically from the

form of spanking.

2.5 Core Factors Linked with Corporal Punishment

There are several factors that play a role in the use of corporal punishment. This section

discusses two factors researched in connection with corporal punishment: ethnicity and

religion.

1) Corporal punishment and ethnicity: Corporal punishment has not been found to

have the same detrimental effects among all ethnicity. A study by Stacks et al. (2009)

found that spanking as a predictor of future aggression was only true for Caucasian

families but not true for Hispanic or African American families. Previous research

by Deter-Deckard et al. (2003) and Lansford et al. (2005) found similar results and

Page 15 of 50
 argued that ethnicity could be a moderating effect on spanking. These studies found

that African American children who were spanked did not have an increase in

externalization problem behaviors. However, white children who were spanked did

have more externalization problem behaviors. The researchers argue that the reason

for this difference is based on cultural norms. The African American culture

generally has a more positive view of spanking and, subsequently, this view may

affect the outcomes.

Most studies on ethnicity found that Black mothers used spanking more than other

ethnicities. Huang and Lee (2008) found that black mothers were more likely to spank their

children than white mothers. GersHoff et al. (2012) also found that of 11,040 American

mothers, Black mothers spanked the most frequently. Hispanic mothers spanked more than

White or Asian mothers. However, unlike the studies described above, GersHoff study did

not find that there is a culture normative mediation effect of spanking. Instead, he found

that the more children were spanked the more externalization problems behaviors they

displayed and that there was not a difference in effects by race. McLeod and Smith (2002)

also found that spankings prediction of aggression was not different among the races.

It is evident that there is conflicting research results on ethnicity and corporal punishment.

Some studies (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003; Lansford et al., 2005; Stacks et al., 2009) have

found that ethnicity has a moderating effect on the negative aspects of spanking while other

studies, GersHoff et al. (2012) and McLeod and Smith (2002), do not find that to be true. A

study by Vittrup and Holden (2010) found that discipline practices among black people are

based on socioeconomic status while a study by Horn et al. (2004) found that discipline

practices are based on race, not socioeconomic status.

2) Corporal punishment and religion: Support for corporal punishment is strongest

among Conservative Protestants, who use spiritual passages from the Bible to support their
Page 16 of 50
claim about the acceptability of corporal punishment. The biblical perspective of “spare the

rod, spoil the child” not only supports the use of corporal punishment but suggests that not

using corporal punishment would actually be detrimental to the child’s development

(Andero & Stewart, 2002). Andrew and Stewart (2002) state: Contemporary religious

conservatives fear that children reared without proper discipline will be unable and

unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God and, hence, will fail to enjoy the fruits of

spiritual salvation. Therefore, influential Conservative Protestant pastors and authors cite

numerous scriptural passages to support their claim that corporal punishment is the

primarily biblically ordained response to overt challenges to parental authority. (p. 92)

Therefore, Conservative Protestants are the most likely group of people to accept and utilize

corporal punishment as a form of discipline (Petts & Kysar-Moon, 2012).

2.6 Gaps in Literature

The topic impact of corporal punishment on student’s behavior has been widely debated in

the literature. Due to the high debate of this topic, corporal punishment has been

extensively and comprehensively researched. Despite all this research, the literature still

has contradictory information on the topic. Further research needs to address the

contradictory conclusions so the research can provide a conclusive answer on the effects of

corporal punishment on children both in childhood and into adulthood.

The negative effects of spanking have been shown to be evident in many research studies, as

shown by the meta-analysis of 88 studies over 62 years by GersHoff (2002). GersHoff

found an “association between parental corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and

experiences. Parental corporal punishment was associated with all child constructs,

including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral

internalization and mental health” (p. 539). However, a recent meta-analysis by Ferguson

Page 17 of 50
(2013) of 45 studies found a minimal effect of spanking on externalization problem

behaviors, internalization problem behaviors, and cognitive performance. Another meta-

analysis of 70 studies by Policy and Violate (2004) did not find a connection between

spanking and severe emotional or behavioral problems in children. Clearly there is

conflicting information found by a large number of studies. Therefore, this gap needs to be

addressed to provide conclusive information on the correlation between spanking and

possible negative outcomes.

Some studies have shown that certain factors have a moderating effect on the negative

outcomes from spanking, such as: parental warmth, parental acceptance, and maternal

warmth (Benjet & Kazdin, 2003; Lansford et al., 2012; McLeod& Smith, 2002). However,

Mackenzie et al. (2012) did not find that maternal warmth was a moderating effect of

spanking. GersHoff et al. (2010), found that formativeness of the discipline practice was a

moderator that impacted the child’s behavior. The authors concluded:

Our findings that children’s perceptions of the formativeness of discipline were related

directly to their behavior and that they moderated the associations between parent discipline

and child behavior confirm a potentially important role for children’s perceptions of

formativeness in understanding how parent discipline impacts child behavior. We encourage

more researchers to consider the role of perceived formativeness in their studies of parental

discipline and to assess the opinions of those most affected by discipline, the children

themselves (p. 500).

The literature needs to address more specifically the moderating factors on the negative

effects of spanking since this could be an important issue to address when assessing and

intervening with families and children.

Though the issue of the context in which a child is spanked has been researched, there is

still a gap in the literature on the specific context in which a child is reared. Maguire-Jack,
Page 18 of 50
Gromoske, and Berger (2012) state the importance of future research investigating the

specifics of the context in which a child is spank and how this context may be a moderating

effect on the negative outcomes of spanking.

Research on adult attitudes about corporal punishment and the acceptability of corporal

punishment needs to be further researched (Gagne et al., 2007). The factors that result in

adults accepting corporal punishment as discipline practice for children needs further studies

to determine whether these societal factors and changes can be addressed specifically

through education of professionals and parents (Gagne et al., 2007).

------------------------------------------------

Page 19 of 50
CHAPTER 3:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will discuss the procedures and strategies that are used to conducting the study.

It will describe the Research Design, Population, Sampling techniques& sample, Research

Instruments, Validity of Research Instruments, Reliability of Research Instruments and Data

Collection and Data Analysis techniques.

3.1 Research Design

This study used a descriptive survey design. Kinglier (1973) argues that survey is widely

used to obtain data useful in evaluating present practices and in providing basis for decision

making. It involves describing, recording, analyzing, and reporting existing conditions or

conditions that existed regarding a certain phenomenon. Descriptive survey is most efficient

way to collecting data since it will provide the description of the current state use of CP in

P&E schools of FORTABBAS without manipulation of variables. This study was conducted

in Tehsil FORTABBAS.

3.2 Population

The population was all the fifteen schools in this Tehsil. Of the 15 schools, there are three

boys‟ Elementary schools, three girls‟ Elementary schools, three girls Primary schools,

three boys Primary schools and three Masjid Maktab schools. The total student population is

2344 among them 1230 boys and 1114 girls.

Table 3.1 defines Student Population in Primary & Elementary Schools in FortAbbas.

Page 20 of 50
Table 3.1 Student Population in Primary & Elementary Schools in

FortAbbas

Type of school No. of school No. of students _ Total

Boys Girls

Boys Elementary 3 670 — 670

Girls Elementary 3 — 640 640

Boys Primary 3 420 — 420

Girls Primary 3 — 374 374

Masjid Maktab 3 140 100 240

Total 15 1230 1114 2344

Source: Deputy Office Fort Abbas (2018)

3.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample

Stratified random sampling was used to select ten schools from the fifteen schools in

FORTABBAS to provide evidence that schools were involved in study. This is 67% of the

total number of schools. The schools were divided into boys elementary, girls elementary,

boy’s primary, girl’s primary and Masjid Maktab schools. Two schools from each category

of schools were sampled.

A total of 150 students were sampled from a population of 2344 students. Proportionate

allocation was used to describe the number of students in each category. That is, total

number of students in each category divided by the total student population multiplied by

one hundred fifty. The number of students sampled per school was determined by the

Page 21 of 50
number of students in that particular school and the number of students allocated to the

category. All the nine deputy principals and guidance and counseling teachers from the

sampled schools participated in the study

Table 3.2 summarizes the sample size

Type of schools No. of schools Head Teachers Students

Teachers

Boys Elementary 2 2 2 43

Girls Elementary 2 2 2 40

Boys Primary 2 2 2
27
Girls Primary 2 2 2 28

Masjid Maktab 2 2 2 15

Total 10 10 10 150

Systematic (interval) sampling technique was used to select the sample of students from

selected schools. Students were drawn from form Two, Three and Form Four since form

one students of the year 2012 had not reported. This work was done by using the

questionnaire and survey method to collect the data and on the basis of it calculated the

sample that depends on population size constant calculated. From ever school desired

student from every class was selected for desirable results.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments

Questionnaires were used to collect data from sampled population. In this study both open-

ended questions and closed ended questions were used. Demographic questions were also

be used to collect information about participant’s background.

Page 22 of 50
3.4.1 Student Questionnaire

Student questionnaire was used to collect information about the involvement of students to

identify the school rules, types of punishments and whether CP they bear in the schools. It

was also used to collect the student views about CP.

3.4.2 Head Teacher’s Questionnaire

This questionnaire was used collect information about the involvement of Head teachers in

formulation of rules and regulations in school and whether CP is used in their own schools.

3.4.3 Teacher’s Questionnaire

The questionnaires were used to collect information about their qualification for teaching,

how they deal with student cases, also gathered information about the training and CP used

in their schools.

3.5 Validity of the Research Instruments

According to Ordo (2008), validity is the accuracy and meaningfulness of the inferences

which are based on the research results. That is the degree to which results obtained from

the analysis of the data actually represent the phenomenon under investigation.

There are three major kind of validity: face validity, content validity and construct validity.

Face validity describes that a question will be misunderstood or misinterpreted. This was

taken by pre-testing. Items that are likely to be misinterpreted or misunderstood are

modified to increase validity (Kilemi & Wamahiu1995). Content validity on the other hand

describes a tool that provides efficient coverage of a topic.

Page 23 of 50
3.6 Reliability of the Instruments

MugEnda (1999) defines reliability as a measure of the degree to which a research

instrument consistent results or data after repeated test. There are three methods of testing

reliability: test re-tests equivalent form and internal consistency. Reliability of the

instruments was tested by use of test-re-test method. The questionnaires were organized to

2% of the students sampled, 1 teacher and 1 head teacher. The same questionnaires were

organized after two weeks to the same group. The answered of questionnaires were scored

manually again and a difference of the results made. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was

computed to establish the extent of reliability.

3.7 Data Analysis and Presentation

Ordo (2008) observes that organizing of data make it consistent and easily understandable

for everyone to collect the data. Descriptive statistics analyze the collected data. The data

gathered from the field was cleaned, organized and recorded. The data was collected by

using ‟ close-ended questions was coded and analyzed by Statistical Package for Social

Sciences (SPSS).In Open ended questionnaire ,questions were arranged according to

research. The results were arranged to generate data which is organized and that are

accordingly to the requirement of respective research. Bell (1993) assess that when results

are known then simple descriptive statistics such as percentages have meaningful advantage

over complex statistics. The descriptive statistics were presented in form of pie charts and

frequency tables. In this study Data were presented in the form of frequency distribution

tables, pie charts and graphs.

--------------------------------------------

Page 24 of 50
CHAPTER 4:

DATA ANALYSIS AND PERESENTATION

This chapter will describe about the analysis and presentation of data that is gain through

research. The objective of the study was to explore the excessive use of CP in Primary&

Elementary schools of Fort Abbas. The study had four research questions: a) is there a

relationship between CP and student’s behavior? b) Is there a relationship between CP

and student learning? c) What are the forms of punishment applied on students in the P&E

schools? d)Why the use of CP has continued in schools despite the ban by GOP?

The results are laid on data gathered from sampled 10 Head teachers, 10 teachers and 150

students from Fort Abbas. Descriptive statistics is used to analyze the data. Frequency

tables, percentages and graphs are used to presented results.

4.1 Demographic Data

Demographic data is very necessary for every research work. Through it basic information

about selected sample from population is gathered. In the study, researcher explore the basic

information about participants like class, gender etc.

4.1.1 Student Information

In this study, sample of 150 students, there were 47% girls and 52% boys. All students were

between 7 to 15 years age.

Student Age Distribution

Student age was very important to know about the sample age division. It play important

role to define a correct and proper measure of results.

The table 4.1 student age division.

Page 25 of 50
Table 4.1 Student Age Division

Age Division Number Percentage

7 10 7
8 15 10

9 20 13
10 26 17
11 16 11
12 30 20
13 20 13
14 9 6
15 5 3
Total 150 100

Table 4.1 describe that seven percent of the students were 7years old, ten

percent were 8 years old, thirteen percent were 9 years old, seventeen percent were 10 years

old, eleven percent were 11 years old, twenty percent were 12 years old, thirteen percent

were 13 years old, six percent were 14 years old while 3 percent were15 years old.

4.1.2 Kinds of schools

It is important to obtain information about the kinds of schools and their equipment and

facilities. Some schools are not well furnished and well equipped. There are major problem

is lack of experienced teachers. In the study the kinds of school are described in table 4.2

Page 26 of 50
Table 4.2 kinds of School Include in the Study

Kinds of school Number Percentage

Boys Elementary 2 20

Girls Elementary 2 20

Boys Primary 2 20

Girls Primary 2 20

Masjid Maktab 2 20

Total 10 100

Table 4.2 presents that twenty percent of the schools were Boys Elementary, twenty percent were

Girls Elementary, twenty percent were Boy’s Primary, twenty percent were Girls Primary and

twenty were percent Masjid Maktab schools. This study was involved each type of school for

population.

Page 27 of 50
4.1.3 Division of Students in Different Schools

Students were divided into different kinds of school as shown in figure 2. As per

Student population is a representative the sample size.

Figure1: Division of the Students in Different Schools

4.1.4 Head teachers Data

Gender of the Head teacher

Gender of the Head teacher tells about the Gender of the head teacher .it determines to choose the

corrective measure about Head teacher responsibilities to maintain school discipline among

students. This data is showed in figure 2.

Page 28 of 50
 0% 0%

40%
Male
Female
60%

Figure 2: Gender of the Head Teacher

From this study find, out of the ten head teachers who participate, forty percent were female

while sixty percent were male. The research provides the reality that much male work as a

head teacher to maintain the discipline of the school.

Table 4.3 service period as a Head Teacher

Period Number Percentage

1-4 years 3 30

5-9 years 5 50

10-14 years 2 20

Total 10 100

Three head teachers thirty percent were served for a period of between 1 to 4 years; five

head teachers’ fifty percent work for a period of 5-9 years and twenty percent work for 10-

14 years.

Page 29 of 50
4.1.5 Teachers Data

The information about the gender of teacher is important. This study shows that males and

females maintain discipline in different way. Gender of teacher is shown below in figure 3.

0% 0%

38%

62%

Figure 3: Gender of Teacher

The pie chart shows in figure 3 that genders of teachers, thirty eight percent were male

while sixty two percent were female.

Service Period as a Teacher

Table 4.4 shows service experience teachers in the specified area. This is important to

determine the experience of teachers to handle different types of cases in different situation.

Page 30 of 50
Table 4.4 Service Period of Teacher

Period Number Percentage

1-4 years 2 20

5-9 years 4 40

10-14 years 4 40

Total 10 100

Table 4.4 presents that twenty percent were work as teachers for 1-4 years, forty percent were work

between 5-9 years and forty percent were work between10-14 years.

4.2 Types of Punishments Meted on Students

The first objective of the study was to find out the kinds of punishments that bear students in

different situations. To determine this, the 150 students were given a set of general hurts for which

they were asked to identify the kind of punishment that they bear in school. The responses for the

kind of punishment bear in form of frequency tables and percentages of the form of punishment.

The findings are as summarized in

Table 4.5 Kinds of Punishment face by Students

Reason Caned Ignore Slap stand Fine

Destroy Discipline 57% _ 33% _

Lateness 10% 20% _ 40% 10%

Noise 15% _ 64% 21% _

Without uniform 30% _ 40% — 20%

Not prepare lesson 50% _ 35% 15% —

Page 31 of 50
For destroy discipline, fifty seven percent of the students were caned while thirty three

percent were bear slap, for lateness to class ten percent of the students were caned, twenty

percent were ignored, forty percent were bear standing punishment while ten percent of the

students were given fine, For making noise fifteen percent were caned, sixty four were

slapped while twenty one percent were bear standing punishment,

For without uniform, thirty percent were caned while forty and twenty percent were stand

and slapped.

4.3 Reasons for Continued use of Corporal Punishment in Schools

The fourth research question was “Why the use of CP has continued in schools despite the

ban by GoP?”Despite the ban of use of CP in PAKISTANI, related studies have shown that

there is continued use in schools. This study, as a result, to find out why there is continued

use of CP in P&E schools in the Fort Abbas.

Students and teachers were asked if there was use of CP in their schools. This is important

to find out whether there are schools that have adhered to the government directive banning

the use of corporal punishment.

Page 32 of 50
The findings by students are presented in figure 4 .

0% 0%

11%

Yes
NO

89%

Figure 4: Students Response about the Use of CP in Schools

Figure 4 shows that eighty nine percent students reported that there was the use of corporal

punishment in their schools while in eleven percent there was no use of corporal

punishment. Teachers were also asked whether there was the use of corporal punishment in

their schools. Eleven percent of teachers reported that there was no use of corporal

punishment in their schools while eighty nine percent said that there was use of corporal

punishment in their schools.

Teachers’ Responses on the Effectiveness of Corporal Punishment

Teachers were asked to rate effectiveness of CP to stop indiscipline. The responses are

summarized in figure 5.

Page 33 of 50
 0%

13%

Very effective
Effective
Ineffective
30% 57%

Figure5: Teacher’s Responses on the Effectiveness of CP

The pie chart shows that fifty seven percent of the teachers said that CP was very effective;

thirty percent said that CP was effective while thirteen percent said that CP was ineffective

to stopping indiscipline in schools. The study found out that a total of eighty seven percent

was reported that CP was either effective or very effective.

The Head teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness of CP in their schools.

9%

10%

Very Effective
Effective
Fairly Effective
23% 58% Ineffective

Page 34 of 50
Figure6: Head Teacher Responses on the Effectiveness of CP

From the findings of the study, fifty percent of the Head teacher said that CP is very

effective; twenty three percent reported that it is very effective; Ten percent said that it is

fairly effective and eight percent of the head teacher said that it is ineffective.

---------------------------------------

Page 35 of 50
CHAPTER 5:-

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter will present the summary and conclusions from the findings of the study.

Recommendations and the suggestions for further research are also discussed.

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 Information about Head teachers and teachers

Majority that is 60% percent of the HT were male while 40%percent were female. 30

percent of the HT had experience as they had served for a period between 1-4 years. 50% of

the HT had served between 5-10 years and 20% is served as HT between 10-14.It is possible

that who have long service have a lot of experience to stop the unpleasant situations in

school. They may take a lot of steps to stop the CP and discourage the CP.

38% of teachers were male while 62% percent were female. 20% had experience ranging

from 1-4 years while 40% had experience from 5-9 and 40% had experience from 10-14.

5.1.2 Kinds of Punishment bear by Students

For destroy discipline, fifty seven percent of the students were caned while thirty three

percent were bear slap, for lateness to class ten percent of the students were caned, twenty

percent were ignored, forty percent were bear standing punishment while ten percent of the

students were given fine, For making noise fifteen percent were caned, sixty four were

slapped while twenty one percent were bear standing punishment,

For without uniform, thirty percent were caned while forty and twenty percent were stand

and slapped. Teachers used CP despite the ban of GOP.

Page 36 of 50
5.1.3 Reasons for Continued use of Corporal Punishment in Schools

Eighty nine percent students reported that there was the use of corporal punishment in their

schools while in eleven percent there was no use of corporal punishment. Teachers were

also asked whether there was the use of corporal punishment in their schools. Eleven

percent of teachers reported that there was no use of corporal punishment in their schools

while eighty nine percent said that there was use of corporal punishment in their schools.

Fifty seven percent of the teachers said that CP was very effective; thirty percent said that

CP was effective while thirteen percent said that CP was ineffective to stopping indiscipline

in schools. The study found out that a total of eighty seven percent was reported that CP was

either effective or very effective. From the findings of the study, fifty percent of the Head

teacher said that CP is very effective; twenty three percent reported that it is very effective;

Ten percent said that it is fairly effective and eight percent of the head teacher said that it is

ineffective.

5.2 Conclusions

5.2.1 Forms of Punishment bear by Students

Based on the findings of this study, the researcher concluded that despite the ban on the use

of CP in Pakistani schools but it is used in most Elementary and Primary schools. Surveyed

different schools and interviewed different population that is selected for a sample. Three

groups are involved for interviewing –students, teachers and head teacher, find out different

levels CP that used in their schools.

Page 37 of 50
5.2.2 Reasons for Continued Use of Corporal Punishment in Elementary and

Primary

The major reasons advanced for continued use of CP were its perceived effectiveness and

the perception that it is time saving. The HT, for instance reported that the use of CP is

either effective or very effective at thirty percent and fifty seven percent respectively.

Many schools not used CP, they follow activity based learning. In this way a friendly

environment is created between teacher and student’s has great effect on student behavior.

They cannot achieve the desire results and fail in every field of life. But our some school

also follows CP for teaching in this age.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the researcher wants to make the following recommendations:

i) The public should be aware about the demerits of CP through the use various forms of

media. It is very helpful when people aware about it in this the rate of CP was reduced in

Elementary& Primary schools.

ii) Students should be participating to form and maintain the rules and regulations of the

schools. In this way schools are good to maintain rules and regulations for students.

iii) The Teachers Service Commission should asses the minimum workload for teachers

with a view to reducing the workload so as to avail more time for them to handle cases in

schools.

iv) The MoE should consider reducing further the workload of schools administrators -HT’s

- workload so as to create more time for them to handle discipline in schools using

acceptable modes of correction.

v) Teaching life skills should be providing in schools to equip learners with necessary skills

to handle the life challenges.

vi) The DEO and AEO should come to school regularly to enforcement on the ban of CP

Page 38 of 50
5.4 Suggestions

i) A similar study needs to be point out in other areas to find out whether there has been a

reduction in the use of CP in Elementary Primary schools.

ii) Further research should be processed to find out the frequency of the use of CP between

male and female gender in Elementary and Primary schools.

iii) There is need prepare such frame work are polices that make school system too friendly

for learner instead of excessive use.

---------------------------------------------

Page 39 of 50
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, J. (1993). Doing Your Research Project. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open
University Press.

Conte, A. E. (2000). In loco parentis: Alive and Well Education 121(1) 1-5
Chepkirui, K. (2011) Assessment of Guidance AND Counseling Services in Bureti
District. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis Moi University)

Daily Nation (April 8th, 2013) Stop Teacher Shortage Now Says Education Unions.
Nairobi Kenya.

David, R.D. & Amy, E.M. (2008). Corporal Punishment in US Public Schools:
Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers, in Children and Schools
vol.30 No.4

Etesi, M.Z. (2010). Time Tested Strategies of Curbing Student Indiscipline in

Learning Institutions. Nairobi: Shrend Publishers ltd.

Gaffney, V.P. (1997). A Study Preservice Teachers‟ Beliefs about Various Issues and
Myths Regarding the use of corporal Punishment. Miami: St.Thomas
University Press.

Glad well, A. (1999) A survey of Teachers Attitudes towards Corporal Punishment

After Abolishment of Corporal Punishment in South Africa (unpublished
Masters Dessertation128 (4):590-595)

Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without Failure. New York: Harper & Row.

Glasser, W. (1986) Control Theory in Classroom. New York: Harper & Row.

Glasser, W. (1972) the Identity Society. New York: Harper& Row.

Griffin, G. (1994). School Mastery. Nairobi: General Printers.

Human right watch (2003) Spare the Rod Corporal Punishment in Kenyan schools.

September Vol. 11 No. 6 (A).

Hyman, I.A. (1995). Corporal Punishment Psychological Maltreatment, Violence, and

Punitiveness in America: Research Advocacy and Public Policy. Applied and
Preventive Psychology.

Hyman, I. A. & Peron, D. C. (1998) the Other Side of School Violence: Educator
Policies and Practices That May Contribute to Student Misbehavior. Journal of
School Psychology Vol. 36 7-27.

KAAR (2007) An Assessment of Corporal Punishment in Schools. A research Report

by the Kenya Alliance for Advancement of Children. Nairobi.

Page 40 of 50
Kamugane, L.F.(2008) Impact of the Ban on Corporal Punishment on Students
Discipline in Secondary Schools

Keri linger, F. N. (1973). Foundation of Behavioral Research (2nd Edition). New York:
Holt Rinliat and Winston Incl.

Kilemi, M. & Wamahiu, S.P. (1995) Issues in Educational Research in Africa.

Nairobi: East African Education Publishes.

Kimani, G., Kara, A., and Teresa, B. (2012) Teachers‟ and Pupils‟ Views on Persistent
of Corporal Punishment in Management of Discipline in Schools .

Kothari, D. K. (1985). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi:

Willey Eastern Ltd.

Mach aria, J. W. (2005) specific challenges facing Guidance and Counseling Teachers
In Public Secondary Schools in Kiambu Division of Kiambu District.

Unpublished. Nairobi: Kenyatta University.

Meli, T. Parents, „Students and Teachers Attitudes towards the Practice of Corporal
Punishment in Selected Schools in Nairobi‟. Unpublished Bed. Thesis Catholic
University. Nairobi. 1998.

MoEST, (2005) Sessional paper No.1 on Policy Framework for Training and Research
(Meeting the challenges of Education, Training and Research in Kenya in the
21st Century.

Mugenda, O. M. & Mugenda, G.A. (1999). Research Methods, Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press.

Ndichu, M. F.(2004)„ An Examination of Philosophical Foundations of Corporal

Punishment in Kenyan Education. (Unpublished Med. Thesis.

Kenyatta University. Nairobi).

Ugandans. „Factors That Hinder Effective Counseling in Kenyan Secondary Schools‟.

(Unpublished. M.A. Thesis Catholic University. Nairobi.2002).
Okumbe, J.A.(2007). Educational Management; Theory and Practice. Nairobi
University Press.

Orodho, A.J. (2008). Techniques of Writing Research Proposal and Reports in

Education and Social Sciences. Maseno: Kenezja Enterprises.

Orodho, A. J. (2008) Elements of Education and Social Sciences Research Methods:

Maseno: Kenezja Hp Enterprises

Price, T. (2007). A Step Forward: Positive Behavior Support and School Social Work
Practice. School Social Work Selection (issue two).

Page 41 of 50
Andero, A. A., & Stewart, A. (2002). Issue of corporal punishment: Re-examined.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 90.

Bell, T., & Romano, E. (2012). Opinions about child corporal punishment and
influencing factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(11), 2208-2229.
doi:10.1177/0886260511432154

Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Spanking children: the controversies, findings, and
new directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(2), 197.

Buntain-Ricklefs, J. J., Kemper, K. J., Bell, M., & Babonis, T. (1994). Punishments:
What predicts adult approval. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 945-955.

Butler, R., & Shalit-Naggar, R. (2008). Gender and patterns of concerned responsiveness
in representations of the mother–daughter and mother–son relationship. Child
Development, 79(4), 836-851. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01162.x

Cain, D. S. (2008). Parenting online and lay literature on infant spanking: Information
readily available to parents. Social Work in Health Care, 47(2), 174-184.

doi:10.1080/00981380801970343
Cooper, W. M. (1988). An illustrated history of the rod. Hertfordshire, Great Britain:
Wordsworth Editions Ltd.

Cummings, M.S. (2001). Political correctness: Social transformation in the United States.
London: Lynne Reiner Publishers.
83
Deater-Deckard, K., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (2003).
The development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 351-360. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.17.3.351

Page 42 of 50
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: Questionnaire for Students

The objective of this questionnaire to obtain information from student related to Corporal

Punishment. Findings will help to stop the CP in Elementary and Primary level.

Background Information:-

1) Gender a) Female b) Male

2) What is your age? ________________________

3) In which school do you read?

a) Girls Primary b) Boys Primary c) Girls Elementary d) Boys Elementary e) Masjid

Maktab

4) Is there use of corporal punishment in your school?

a) YES b) NO

5) If yes in the above, give five reasons for which students have been

Caned in your school.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------

6)Did the school Head teacher ever physically punish students?

a) YES b) NO

7)In your opinion, which of the following appeared to be the teacher’s motivation for beating

students in your class?

i. Low grades in exams a) Yes b) No

ii. Not doing homework a) Yes b) No

iii. Giving a wrong answer to a question a) Yes b) No

Page 43 of 50
 iv. Forgetting books or any of the class materials a) Yes b) No

v. Talking behind the teacher’s back a) Yes b) No

vi. Disrupting the class by talking or playing a) Yes b) No

vii. Attacking another child a) Yes b) No

viii. Disobeying teacher's orders a) Yes b) No

ix. Coming late in school a) Yes b) No

x. Beating unrelated to the student’s behavior a) Yes b) No

8) Is any of the following ever happen to you as a result of beating?

i. Had to get medical treatment a) Yes b) No
ii. Missed time at school to rest at home a) Yes b) No
iii. Reported to the school or to police a) Yes b) No
iv. A scar in your body a) Yes b) No

9) What do you think of the following statement?

i. Physical punishment help me perform better in class

a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly disagree

ii. Physical punishment correct my behavior in class

a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly disagree

iii. Physical punishment make me dislike the school

a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly disagree

iv. Physical punishment make me hate teachers

a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly disagree

10) What type of Punishment that you bear in your school?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION

Page 44 of 50
 APPENDIX II: Questionnaire for Teachers

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to collect data from school teachers about the use of CP in their
schools. That information will be very helpful for stopping the use of CP in schools.
Background Information:-

1) Gender a) Female b) Male

2) What is your age? ________________________

3) In which school do you teach?

a) Girls Primary b) Boys Primary c) Girls Elementary d) Boys Elementary e) Masjid Maktab

4) What is your service period?

a)1-4 years b) 5-9 years c) 10-14 years d) None

5) How many lessons do you deliver in your class? ___________________

6) How do you deal with student’s cases?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Have you attended any training related to educator?
a) Yes b) NO
8)Is corporal punishment used in your school?
a) Yes b) NO
9) Rate the effectiveness of corporal punishment in your school.
a) Very effective b) Effective c) Fairly effective d) Ineffective
10) Give your opinion, why do you think corporal punishment is still in use in schools despite
the government ban?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION

Page 45 of 50
 APPENDIX III: Questionnaire for Head Teachers

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to collect data from school Head teachers about the use of CP in
their schools. That information will be very helpful for stopping the use of CP in schools.
They will adopt proper techniques to maintain the discipline of school without any
punishment.
Background Information:-

1) Gender a) Female b) Male

2) In which school do you teach?

a) Girls Primary b) Boys Primary c) Girls Elementary d) Boys Elementary e) Masjid Maktab

3) What is your service period?

a) 1-4 years b) 5-9 years c) 10-14 years d) None

4) Are there rules and regulations in your school?

a) Yes b) No

5)Is there use of corporal punishment in your school?

a) Yes b) No

6)Rate the effectiveness of corporal punishment in your school.

a) Very effective b) Effective c) Fairly effective d) Ineffective

7) Why in your opinion has the use of corporal punishment persisted in our schools despite

the ban by the government?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
8) Is corporal punishment effects the student’s behavior?
a) Yes b) No
9) What are the affects of corporal punishment on student’s behavior? Give your point of
view.

Page 46 of 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10)In your opinion, is the use of corporal punishment more likely to be abused now that it is
banned or earlier when it was restricted?
a) Now that it is banned b) When it was restricted to specified people

THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION

----------------------------------

Page 47 of 50