<\/span><\/h3>\nThe abolition of corporal punishment is and will always remain a controversial issue within South Africanschools as well as schools worldwide (Naong, 2007). Thus maintaining learner discipline today is one of the most difficult tasks facing a teacher mainly due to globalisation and social media indicates Kambuga (2017).For education to take place unhindered, the educator must assume the position of authority which must be accepted by the learner and this authority is important for eff ective teaching. However, this is often a con-tentious issue as teachers have to deal with it when teaching in diverse conditions. It is therefore importantfor educators to develop a sound environment for learners to thrive in the classroom by using the available authority resources (Esmaeli et al., 2015; Lai, Mingyue & Jingjing, 2015).<\/p>\n
Educators, however, have to cope with the fact that the traditional authority they enjoyed, where learners accepted instructions and adhered to teacher requests without being challenged, has diminished some-what in the modern era (Roberson, 2014). Thus it will be advisable for teachers to employ a five-point social justice strategy which will create a more friendly and intellectual caring environment namely acknowledging who is in a classroom; starting with the skills the learners have; creating unit plans and curricular maps; being honest about who you are and your biases and finally to inspire learners to question everything (Belle,2019). Thus in terms of classroom and teaching methods, it is important to note that teacher success will depend on the time allotted to learner activities of a practical nature as well as maintaining a social justice pedagogy (Nazari, 2014; Weiss, 2014).<\/p>\n
Research in South Africa shows that schools continue to administer corporal punishment to curtail misconduct among learners even for minor offences, and more than half (55.6%) of those learners interviewed had been subject to physical punishment for bad behaviour (Rohrs, 2016). This means that the societal practice of corporal punishment has not diminished (Harber & Mncube, 2011; Shologu, 2012). This is corroborated by Odhiambo (2017) when he mentions that corporal punishment is routine to many learners as they are beaten for minor offences which do not require corporal punishment. Hence, Makhubele (2014) believes that such practices negatively affects relationships and often creates resentment and hostility, which have been associated with learners dropping out of school and leading to social misconduct. It must thus be borne in mind that the only way to change the world is to adopt a more just education system by implementing teaching and learning practices that are fair and of benefit to society as a whole (Belle, 2019).<\/p>\n
Corporal punishment in South Africa has been used as a quick-fix solution that raises fear and pain and should therefore be replaced by instilling self-discipline. Through its constitution, South Africa is among several countries committed to abolishing corporal punishment of learners, thus being beaten is not a normal practice any longer (Govender & Sookrajh, 2015). In view of this, Frechette and Romano (2015) believe that, though corporal punishment may be highly prevalent, legal reforms and public education efforts to limit it will result in a decrease in its use. Despite this, it should be remembered that teacher authority and class discipline are imperative to the student-teacher relationship and to overall teaching effectiveness, and extremely important to maintaining effective classroom management (Lopes & Oliveira, 2017; Molina & Mar-tin, 2016). Authority thus is the establishment of a two-way relationship between the givers and receivers of orders, hence teacher authority is a key element in maintaining a functional class that strengthens student results (Mclaren, 2018; Roberson, 2014).<\/p>\n
Those who advocate corporal punishment argue that the ever-growing disregard for authority among the youth stems from the abolition of physical punishment both at home and at school, hence the belief that teachers no longer have authority since it denotes abuse and repression (Kimani, Kara & Ogetange, 2012).Teacher authority is thus consequential in the teaching-learning situation and the teacher must always be above the level of the learner (Shirgley, 2008; Cemane, 2008). As education is central to a civilised society and a key element of social justice, many educators believe that the use of corporal punishment will help tocontrol learners, asserting that, this type of punishment will rectify student behaviour which ultimately will bring about respect for the teacher and uphold his\/her dignity (Ntuli & Machaisa, 2014).<\/p>\n
The present situation in South African schools demonstrates that a lack of discipline and self-discipline among high school learners has led to a continuation of unsuccessful learning and teaching affecting teacher authority (Mtsweni, 2009). Educators, therefore, feel helpless, have to cope with challenging behaviour and poor overall discipline which has led to total disrespect for teachers (Matoti, 2012). As it is unethical to physically punish learners according to the Schools Act, no 10, the then Minister of Education, designed a comprehensive document entitled \u2018Alternatives to Corporal Punishment\u2019. Disciplinary measures to\u00a0 be taken in South African schools are clearly outlined on different levels, and with the dawning of democracy in South Africa, emphasis is placed on protecting and respecting learners\u2019 rights, posit Maphosa andShumba (2010).<\/p>\n
A study conducted by Naong (2007), shows that many teachers are not adhering to the legislation on corporal punishment and that physical punishment is still very much prevalent in South Africa despite being outlawed. Approximately 12.4% of learners experienced physical punishment by teachers to curb misconduct, suggesting that, to be effective, educators need to develop legitimate authority which should help in diminishing ill-discipline, failure rate and impulsivity (Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff , 2013). However, in recent times,schools have shown a tendency to use alternative measures of punishment such as in-school suspension and after-school detention. As the purpose of discipline is constructive rather than destructive, teachers should display both intellectual authority as well as societal authority (McClure & May 2008; Usiautti &Maatta, 2012). Thus positive management of discipline will promote equality and social justice which will enable learners to learn effectively, feel safe and supported which ultimately will bring about excellent educational opportunities, maintain Olley, Cohn & Cowan, 2011; Smith (2018).<\/p>\n
An empirical investigation was conducted based on the theoretical insights that flowed from the conceptual-theoretical framework set out above. The study aimed at exploring the undermining of teacher authority and progress towards social justice in schools as a result of the abolition of corporal punishment in South African schools.<\/p>\n
<\/span>6. Research design and methodology<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/span>6.1. Introduction to research design and methodology<\/span><\/h4>\nThe post-positivist paradigm was used to contextualise the research and was based on the assumptions that all knowledge is conjectural; hence knowledge is subject to supposition since the absolute truth cannotbe established (Creswell, 2016). Also, research is a process of making claims, thereafter moderating them orexcluding them to accommodate other claims that are deserving of acknowledgement. Finally, post-positivism is not a form of relativism and can thus retain the idea of objective truth. This is important for competent enquiry suggests Creswell (2016). The framework is the product of the researchers\u2019 constructive-hermeneutic comprehension of views expressed in the relevant literature. Conducting research in this way requires one to be mindful that knowledge is conjectural, hence absolute truth is not always established.The investigation was of a quantitative nature and, as a data-collecting technique, it was underpinned by a post-positivistic research theory where assumptions represent the traditional form of research as indicated by Creswell (2016).<\/p>\n
<\/span>6.2. Research design and methodology, continued<\/span><\/h4>\nThe study employed a quantitative approach using a descriptive survey design as it uses statistical data as a tool for saving time and resources as well as placing an emphasis on numbers in the collection and analysis of data. Thus, the quantitative method was suitable for this research since the use of statistical data reduces time and effort which the researcher could have used in explaining his result (Eyisi, 2016).<\/p>\n
Using the survey approach tends to buy into a tradition of research that emphasises the quest for details of tangible things. It is a simple approach, used with more or less sophistication in many areas of human activity. In this research, the use of the survey approach enabled the researcher to obtain information on the respondents\u2019 opinions and beliefs related to the null hypothesis tested (Maree, 2014; Bryman, 2015).<\/p>\n
Empirical observation and measurement were utilised to determine the effects of the abolition of corporal punishment on teacher authority. Thus it became apparent that using the quantitative method in analysing data would be best suited for the study since this approach involves collecting numerical data which are ob-jective and not infl uenced in any way by the researchers\u2019 prejudice as well as allowing the use of control and study groups (Denscombe, 2010; Johnson & Christensen, 2012).<\/p>\n
<\/span>6.3. Instrumentation<\/span><\/h4>\nInformation from respondents was gathered directly by means of a scheduled structured questionnaire.This method is based on a set of questions with fixed wording and indicators of how to answer each question, thus a structured (closed-ended) questionnaire using the four (4)-point Likert scale was used since it is characterised by choices between alternative responses that are given (Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree andStrongly disagree) and where questions flowed logically from one to the next. A self-constructed questionnaire with twelve items was used. The questionnaire had only one section and the wording was such that it could easily elicit appropriate reactions from the respondents. With this type of questionnaire, data can be enlarged and classified more easily and the response options should be exhaustive and mutually exclusive(Burns & Bush, 2012; Kumar, 2014)[i].<\/p>\n
<\/span>6.4. Population and Sampling<\/span><\/h4>\nThe target population was high schools in one educational region of the North West Province (n=40) and it was selected with the assistance of the Area Project Office regional managers. The findings of the study are therefore valid for schools in this region only.<\/p>\n
The sample is a small portion of the entire population, viz a small group of individuals who participate in the study, but it must be of the required sample size and should be selected using an appropriate samplingtechnique (Omair, 2014). In this study, simple random sampling was used since the benefit of this method is that each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected, hence it guarantees that the sample is selected in an unbiased way which in turn means that statistical conclusions drawn from the analysis will be valid (2019). The sample size was twenty schools (n=20). In total, 400 questionnaires were distributed to 400 students and 100 were handed out to educators. The response rate was 90% for learners and 95% for educators.<\/p>\n
Table 1: Population and Sample<\/p>\n
\n\n\n| \n Population<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n Sample<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n Schools in one region of NWP<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Number of schools<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Learners<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Educators<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n Number of schools selected<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Learners<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Educators<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n \n<\/td>\n | \n 40<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 1200<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 300<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | \n 20<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 400<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 100<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/span>6.5. Ethical considerations and Trustworthiness issues<\/span><\/h4>\nEthical guidelines were followed, which included guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents. Permission to carry out this investigation was granted by the Provincial Department of Education and further consent was given by the principals, parents, respondents as well as their legally authorised guardians where applicable. This is necessary to prove that all respondents were taking part in the research voluntarily (Ragin & Amoroso 2013). To establish the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficient was calculated for the questionnaire dealing with teacher authority, social justice and the abolition of corporal punishment; the result of 0.801 suggests that it was more than satisfactory (refer to Table 2 below), hence reliability and content validity were maintained as the questionnaires were structured in such away that questions were clearly articulated and directed. To further ensure validity, the researcher explained the rationale for the study and the anonymity of the respondents was assured.<\/p>\n Table 2:<\/b><\/span><\/span> Cronbach\u2019s Alpha<\/p>\n\n\n\n| \n Variable<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n N<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Mean<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n STD Dev<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Cronbach\u2019s<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Comment<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| \n School 20<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 500<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 3.75<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 1.27<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 0.801<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Good & consistent<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/span>6.6. Data processing and administration<\/span><\/h4>\nThe researchers distributed the questionnaires personally. The advantage of doing this was that the purpose of the study could be clearly expounded before the respondents attempted to answer the questions.Most of the completed questionnaires were collected almost immediately, but some had to be collected a ta later stage due to students writing tests. The quantitative method was applied in analysing data. The raw data were organised and analysed, and the chi-squared test was applied to test the null hypothesis. Since the Chi-squared test can be used to attempt rejection of the null hypothesis that the data are independent,it was appropriate for this study. This was done with the aid of the statistics department at the North-West University who used computer-aided statistical analysis such as calculations of frequencies, percentages,means and chi-squares by means of meta-analysis. The usual procedure is that if the P-Value is less than the significant level, normally 0.05, then we reject the hypothesis (Prabakharan, 2016).<\/p>\n <\/span>7. Findings<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/span>7.1. Abolition of corporal punishment and eff ect on teacher authority and social justice<\/span><\/h4>\nTable 3 below presents the responses to the questionnaire relating to the abolition of corporal punishmentand teacher authority. The respondents were requested to respond to fi fteen statements with regard to theabove. They were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 =Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree,4=Strongly Disagree).<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \n Statements<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Strongly agree<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Agree<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Disagree<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Strongly disagree<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n Total<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Since the abolition of corporal punishment (CP) teachers have no authority to deduct learners\u2019 marks which may change their attitude towards them<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 43 (8.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 146 (30.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 166 (34.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 130 (26.8%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 485<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Refusing to mark late submission of work does not improve their attitude towards teachers and could lead to social conflict.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 115 (23.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 226 (36.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 89 (18.4%<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 55 (11.3%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 485<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n No serious discussions take place with learners who do not submit their work on time because they have no regard for teacher authority.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 204 (42.0%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 184 (37.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 87 (17.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 11 (2.3%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 486<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers do not reprimand lazy learners because their authority is undermined which can cause poor social relations.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 170 (35.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 185 (38.2%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 106 (21.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 23 (4.8%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 484<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers have authority to use sarcasm to ridicule the offending learner which could strain relations outside the school.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 23 (4.8%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 113 (23.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 223 (46.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 120 (25.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 479<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers have power to insult learners who do not do their work, this could affect social justice.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 33 (6.85%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 86 (17.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 121 (24.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 246 (50.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 486<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers have no right to exclude the lazy culprit from the group this helps to improve social cohesion.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 91 (18.8%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 206 (42.5%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 115 (23.5%) <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 73 (15.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 485<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers cannot refuse privileges to the offending learner since they have little authority to do so and not doing so, could improve socialization.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 49 (10.2%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 226 (47.8%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 163 (33.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 43 (8.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 481<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Using CP will make the culprit change his attitude towards work and teacher, but could weaken social attitudes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 109 (22.4%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 150 (30.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 107 (27.0%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 120\u00a0 (24.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 486<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Punching, pinching and knocking on the head will enhance disrespect to the teacher and lead to poor social interaction.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 13 (2.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 76\u00a0(15.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 107 (22.1%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 289 (59.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 485<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers\u2019 powers are not limited, hence they can give the offender extra work during break which can lead to negative attitudes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 16 (3.3%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 21 (4.3%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 186 (38.4%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 262 54.0%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 485<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Learners do not like being given more work in class and undermines teacher authority.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 69\u00a0(14.3%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 201 (41.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 166\u00a0(34.4%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 46 (9.5%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 482<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teacher authority is not respected as learners do not accept detention orders anymore since the banning of CP.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 71 (14.6%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 278 (57.2%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 188 (22.2%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 29 (6.0%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 486<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teachers have no power to chase the culprit out of the class, this aggravates teacher disrespect and leads to poor social cohesion<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 50 (10.4%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 220 (45.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 172 (35.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 37 (7.7%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 479<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n\n\n| \n Teacher authority is undermined by learners as they refuse to take any form of advice and this threatens social aspects of life.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 49 (10.2%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 226 (47%) <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 163 (33.9%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 43 (8.95%)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n | \n 481<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Figure 1: Teacher and learner responses with regard to corporal punishment and its effect on misconduct<\/em><\/p>\n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |