Introduction
Discipline globally viewed could be termed to mean training that enables an individual to develop an orderly conduct and self control as well as self direction (Egwunyenga 2000). With reference to the school, Adesina (1980) has described it as a situation whereby students are taught to respect the school authorities to observe the school laws and regulations and to maintain established standard of behaviour. This means that respect for self and respect for others are involved (Peretomode, 1998). In the issue of discipline, the person must be guided in his behaviour to do what is right and good. But a situation where there is a deliberate violation of school rules and regulations, that is, students do as they want and undo what they are expected to do creates an undisciplined atmosphere. Some major symptoms of this situation which have been identified by Nwankwo, Nwokafor, Ighalo and Ogunsanwo (1987) generally include unrest, mass disobedience, truancy, bullying, absenteeism, drug abuse, lateness, delinquency, examination malpractice, fighting, noise making, vandalization, and violent demonstrations.

History has generally shown that many societies have become characterized by political, religious, industrial, ethnic and personal disputes which have often been settled after violence. This culture, in the words of Chianu (2001), “has gradually crept into the school system…. Often students react violently against teachers, teachers in turn vent their frustration on students-the innocent and the guilty alike”. For the school system to achieve its desired goals discipline must be properly enforced. This has often been done by the adoption of two major techniques, namely “reward” and “punishment”.

 The focus of this study is the use of punishment to instill discipline in students of secondary schools. Punishment is an aversive stimulus, whereby an unpleasant painful experience is applied in order to discourage a given type of unacceptable behaviour. It is a “traditional technique of disciplinary control which is considered a necessary corrective measure” (Nwankwo et al, 1987). It is designed to point out the teacher’s disapproval and to deal with repeated misbehaviour capable of threatening the success of the teaching-learning process. Saunders (2003) outlined the following as some common punishment practices in schools – detention with some task, withdrawal of privileges, isolation or exclusion and tidying up classrooms and picking of papers from the play ground. Others are mental punishment such as personal criticism, ridicule and sarcasm (Cohen and Lawrence, 1981) and verbal form which includes order to cease, reprimand, threat (Kyriacon, 1995). Suspension and expulsion from school are added forms of punishment.

Besides the above is physical punishment, commonly known as corporal punishment.  Greydanus (1992) sees this as the intentional application of physical pain as a method of changing behaviour. It has been an accepted method of promoting good behaviour and instilling notions of responsibility and decorum into the mischievous heads of school children (Chianu, 2001). Corporal punishment includes a wide variety

 

of methods such as hitting, slapping, punching, kicking, pinching, kneeling, use of various objects (wooden, paddles, belts, sticks and cane), painful body postures, knocking on the head, use of excessive exercise drills and prevention of urine and/or stool elimination etc. In many parts of the world, corporal punishment in school has always raised very heated debate. In the United States and many parts of Europe, many organizations and at different levels have fought to abolish its use (Frazier 1990) and (Poole 1991). 

In Nigeria, according to Okoh and Alvin (1983), corporal punishment has always been a controversial issue and always difficult to discuss rationally and objectively. Ndubisi and Uka (1981) hold that some lay critics argue that pupils would master their subjects more effectively if teachers gave them doses of corporal punishment and that education has fallen in standard because corporal punishment is no longer used on erring pupils to force them to be studious. Contrary to these views, many educationists have argued that corporal punishment has shock and dehumanizing value (Kyricon, 1995) and capable of making the learning environment a punitive place (Pieters, 2000). Ndubisi and Uka (1981) believe that fear of corporal punishment inhibits creativity in students, does not necessarily change the underlying wish to misbehave, and damages teacher/student relationship. Saunders (2003) and Purehead (2003) add that children used to corporal punishment experience psychological harm because they become an endless cycle. Psychological problems which have been associated with corporal punishment according to Rohner (1991), Donnely and Straus (1994) include depression, anxiety, aggression, inferiority complex, withdrawal syndrome and impaired self concept. Brand (2004) has argued that effective discipline does not rely upon external application of consequences designed to elicit compliance; that when desire drives activity, discipline comes from within; and that when good judgment is valued over blind obedience, the students develop a self-dedication that allows them to forgo short-term pleasures in the pursuit of loftier goals.

Research objectives
The focus of this study is on the use of corporal punishment in enforcing discipline and to ascertain its effectiveness. The study also investigates whether there is any difference in usage between public and private secondary schools.

Research questions

 

1. What type of punishment is frequently used in secondary schools?

 

2.  Does corporal punishment enforce effective discipline in secondary schools?

Hypothesis:
1.  There is no significant difference between public and private secondary schools in the use of corporal punishment as a tool of discipline.

Methodology
The study surveyed a random sample of 326 and 189 principals, respectively of public and private secondary schools from a population of 970. “Corporal punishment and Disciplinary Control of Secondary School Questionnaire (CPDCSSQ) was designed by the researcher. CPDCSSQ is a four point Likert Scale questionnaire with 28 items. The instrument was validated and tested for reliability and has a co-efficient of 0.82 using product moment correlation coefficient from split-half method.

The four point scale questionnaire was weighted 4,3,2 and 1 respectively. Accordingly, simple percentage/ranking and meanscores were employed to answer the questions on frequency of use and effectiveness while the testing of hypothesis on the views of principals of public and private schools was done by means of Z-test statistics.

Results
 The presentation of results is in line with stated research questions and hypothesis.

Research Question 1:
What is the relative frequency of the use of corporal punishment in secondary schools?

Table 1:  Forms of Punishment frequently used in Secondary Schools.

S/N	Forms of Punishment used in Delta state Secondary Schools	Agree Public & Private Principals		Disagree		Ranking / Remark
		No	%	No	%
1	Reprimand	304	59	211	41	7th    +
2	Abuse	104	20.2	411	79.8	12th      -
3	Issuing threat	110	21.3	405	78.7	11th      -
4	Corporal Punishment	419	81.4	96	18.6	15th   +
5	Detention	58	11.3	457	88.7	17th       -
6	Isolation	79	15.3	436	84.7	14th     -
7	Screaming	87	16.9	428	83.1	13th       -
8	Withdrawal of privileges	219	42.5	296	57.5	8th         -
9	Extra class work	215	41.7	300	58.3	9th         -
10	Sweeping	385	74.7	130	25.3	4th       +
11	Repairing of damaged property	321	62.3	19.4	37.7	5th        +
12	Suspension	398	77.3	117	22.7	3rd        +
13	Expulsion agents	311	60.4	204	39.6	6th         +
14	Law enforcement agents	63	12.2	452	87.8	16th       -
15	Cleaning of toilets	212	41.2	303	58.8	10th     -
16	Grass gutting	409	79.4	106	20.6	2nd        +
17	Stumping	70	13.6	445	86.4	15th      +
N  =  515

Source: Field work

+  =  Effective,  –  =   Not effective,  *  =   Most frequently used

 

The responses of the 515 principals with regard to the forms of punishment used in secondary schools are presented in table 1. These were actually calibrated on the 4 point-Likert Scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. But for the purpose of answering research question 1, strongly agree and agree were collapsed as well as strongly disagree and disagree. It assumed that any option that scored 50% and above agreeing is frequently used while the highest of all which ranked 1st is the most frequently used. Arising from the above approach, 59% agreed for the use reprimand, 81.40% for corporal punishment, 74.7% for sweeping, 62.3% for repairing damaged property, 77.3% for suspension, 60.4% for expulsion, and 79.4% for grass cutting. In other words, all forms with 50% and above are frequently used. The highest percentage is that of corporal punishment ranking 1st.

It therefore follows that corporal punishment is the form of punishment that is most frequently used in the secondary schools of  Delta State.

Research Question 2

Does corporal punishment enforce effective discipline in secondary school?

Table 2: Percentage rating of the effectiveness of corporal punishment in disciplinary control in secondary schools.

S/N	Forms of corporal punishment	Agree Public & Private Principals		Disagree		Remark
		Agree	%	Disagree	%	+
1	Flogging	283	54.95	232	45.05	-
2	Hitting with objects	213	41.36	302	68.74	-
3	Slapping	208	40.39	307	59.61	-
4	Spanking	226	44.29	287	55.73	-
5	Punching	202	39.22	313	60.78	-
6	Pinching	207	40.19	308	59.81	-
7	Kicking	205	39.10	310	60.90	-
8	Shaking student violently	200	38.80	315	61.20	-
9	Painful body posture	263	51.07	252	48.93	+
10	Prevention of excretion	202	39.22	313	60.78	-
11	Kneeling down	295	57.28	220	42.72	+
N = 515

Source: Field Work
+  =  Effective,  –  =   Not effective

Table 2 presents the responses of all the principals sampled on the effectiveness of corporal punishment in schools, indicating only three as effective. These are flogging, painful body posture and kneeing down which had percentage scores of 54.95%, 51.07% and 57.28% respectively. They are considered effective for scoring above 50%.the principals rated others not effective by reason of percentage scores below 50%. In other words, only very few forms of corporal punishment are effective. Since majority of the forms are not effective, one can clearly say that corporal punishment is not effective in disciplinary control in secondary schools.

Hypothesis 1:
There is no significant difference between public and private secondary schools on the use of corporal punishment as a tool of discipline.

 

Table 3: Summary table of Z – test analysis showing the use of corporal punishment in public and private secondary schools.

Groups	N	X	SD	DF	Z-Cal	Z-Crit	Level of sign	Remark
Public schools principals	326	15.52	5.60	513	7.06	1.96	0.05	Significant
Private schools principals	186	9.45	11.02
Total	515

The result of a test of difference in the views of public and private secondary school principals is shown in table 3. The decision is that their views are significantly different as the calculated z value is 7.06 which is greater than the critical value of 1.96. The hypothesis of no difference in views is hereby rejected.

Discussion
The results of this study reveal that respondents agree that there are certain forms of punishment

that are frequently used in secondary schools. Seven out of the seventeen suggested forms were said to be frequently used. These include reprimand, corporal punishment, sweeping, repairing damaged property, suspension, expulsion, and grassing cutting. But the form that has been established as most frequently used is corporal punishment. This could be because of the notion that it is a “traditional technique for disciplinary control which is considered necessary corrective measure” as was put forward by Nwankwo et al (1987).

However, on the forms of corporal punishment that are effective in disciplinary control; the study identified three out of eleven to include flogging, painful body posture and kneeling down. If only three out of eleven are effective, it means that corporal punishment is not generally seen as effective means of disciplinary control perhaps because people like Kyricon (1995), Pieters (2000) Saunders (2003) and Purehead (2003) warned about the various harms corporal punishment could cause the child. This could also explain why private secondary schools in Delta State don’t use it as much as the public secondary schools as their objective in the first place is to attract as many students as possible and not to scare them away, because the establishment of these schools is profit driven.

Conclusion    
There is no doubt, there are some forms of punishment that are frequently used in secondary schools and corporal punishment tops the list as the study reveals. But this is not to say that it is effective in disciplinary control as the study has proved. It is to be generally known that its use is more in the public secondary schools than in private.

Recommendations
 The use of corporal punishment in secondary schools be discouraged because of its harmful effects.
Other less harmful disciplinary control measures such as counselling should be frequently employed.

References
Adesina, S. (1981). Introduction to educational planning, Ile-Ife: University of Ife Press.

Chianu, E. (2001). Corporal punishment in schools: the legal position. Benin City, Enslee Limited.

Cohen, L. (1981). A guide to teaching practice: London. Longman.

Egwunyenga, E.J. (2000). Essentials of school administration, Benin City: Justice-Jeco Publishers.

Frazier, H.C. (1990). Corporal and capital punishment of juveniles, Journal of  Medical Law. 9(3), 996-1004.

Greydanus, D.E. (1992). Corporal punishment in school,  Journal of Adolescent Health 13(8), 240-246.

Kynacou, C. (1995): Effective teaching in schools. Cheltenhan, U.K.: Stanley Thornes Ltd.

Ndubisi, A.F. and Uka, A. (1981). Essentials of foundations of educational thought and practice- UPE teacher education project, Book II, Lagos: Longman.

Nwankwo J. I., Nwokafo, J. N., Ighalo A., and Ogun, S. (1987). Educational administration and supervision: associate certificate in education series. Ibadan; Heinemann Educational Books.

Okon, E. and Alvin, A. (1982): The school and Nigerian society. Ibadan: University Press Ltd.

Peretomode V. F. (1998) Introduction to educational planning and supervision. Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.

Pieters G. (2000) Reflecting on authoritarian disciplinary techniques”. Journal of Teaching, Conflict and Resolution. 2(3) 26-29.

Poole S. R. (1991) The role of the pediatrics in abolishing corporal punishment in schools”. Journal of Pediatrics. 88(4)162-166.  

Purehead S. (2003)  Corporal  punishment is not a valid  method  of  punishment, Term

Paper-top 100 term paper sites. www.fastpaper. com.

Rohner R. P. (1991) Effects of corporal punishment” Journal of Marriage and Family.  Vol. 9, No 5. Pg. 53-56. 

Saunders M. (2003) Class control and behaviour problems England: McGraw-Hill Bk Company Ltd.

Straus M. A. (1994) Beating the devil out of them:  corporal punishment in american families New York: Macmillan Incorporated.