1 Introduction
In recent years, global education systems have increasingly shifted from punitive disciplinary practices toward approaches that emphasize student well-being and positive reinforcement. Ghana has followed this trend through the Ghana Education Service’s (GES) 2017 directive banning corporal punishment in basic schools (GES, 2017). This policy aligns with international human rights frameworks, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is supported by research showing that physical punishment negatively affects students’ academic performance, emotional health, and social development (Gershoff et al., 2017; Mahlangu et al., 2021).
Corporal punishment, the use of physical force intended to cause pain or discomfort as a form of discipline, remains a contentious issue worldwide. Globally, the perception of corporal punishment is deeply divided. While some societies view it as a traditional and effective method of correcting behavior, others condemn it as a violation of human rights, particularly children’s rights. In parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, corporal punishment is still culturally accepted and often seen as a necessary tool for instilling discipline. In Africa, countries like Botswana, Uganda, and Ethiopia, studies have shown that a significant majority of children have experienced physical punishment in schools (Akyina, 2024). In Ghana, despite legal frameworks discouraging its use, corporal punishment remains common in both homes and educational institutions. Teachers and parents often use caning, slapping, and other forms of physical discipline to correct behavior (Asante, 2023).
Since the abolition of corporal punishment in Ghana, there has been limited research on the long-term use and effectiveness of alternative disciplinary practices. While a few studies have examined the implementation of these methods and educators’ perspectives on challenges in its implementation (Akyina & Heeralal, 2024; Abonyi & Salifu, 2023; Agbenyega, 2006; Matofari, 2021), the underlying reasons for their perceived (in)effectiveness remain underexplored. This study addresses these gaps by exploring the implementation, reasons for its (in)effectiveness and challenges to effective implementation. Thus, the objectives of the study are to explore the types of alternative disciplinary strategies adopted by teachers following the ban on corporal punishment, to examine reasons for teachers’ perceptions of the (in)effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies compared to corporal punishment and to explore the challenges encountered in implementing alternative disciplinary strategies.
The research focuses on three key questions: (1) What alternative disciplinary strategies are currently in use in the Ga East Municipality? (2) How (in)effective are these methods compared to corporal punishment in managing student behavior? (3) What challenges do educators face in implementing these alternatives? By addressing these questions, the study contributes to the limited body of literature on non-punitive discipline in Ghana and evaluates the practical outcomes of the GES directive (Gunu, 2019; Yeboah, 2020).
Although alternative methods promote discipline through mutual respect and clear expectations, many teachers express concerns about their effectiveness and feasibility. Issues such as increased time demands, lack of immediate behavioral change, and insufficient training hinder successful implementation (Kuwornu, 2019). These challenges highlight the need for ongoing support and professional development to sustain child-centered disciplinary reforms.
The study’s relevance lies in its potential to inform educational policy and practice in Ghana. By assessing the real-world application of the GES directive, it sheds light on whether these reforms are achieving their intended goals or being undermined by systemic barriers such as cultural resistance, inadequate teacher preparation, and increased workloads (GES, 2017). The findings aim to guide policymakers and school leaders in refining disciplinary strategies to better align with global standards and promote safe, inclusive learning environments (United Nations, 2016; Bastable et al., 2021; Heekes et al., 2022).
Conducted in the Ga East Municipality, the study covers one public basic school from each of the six educational circuits. Given that all basic schools are mandated to implement the GES directive, any school within the municipality could serve as a valid case for exploring the effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies. The study focuses exclusively on teachers’ perspectives, excluding student views on the ban of corporal punishment.
2 Literature review
2.1 Effects of corporal punishment on students’ well‑being and academic outcomes
Corporal punishment has been widely criticised for its adverse effects on children’s psychological, emotional, and academic development. Empirical evidence from both global and African contexts demonstrates that children exposed to physical punishment experience heightened anxiety, fear, and emotional distress, which negatively affect their concentration, motivation, and learning outcomes (Gershoff & Grogan‑Kaylor, 2016; Mahlangu et al., 2021). Rather than fostering self‑discipline, corporal punishment often produces compliance driven by fear, undermining intrinsic motivation and critical engagement with learning tasks.
Beyond individual outcomes, corporal punishment erodes student–teacher relationships and contributes to hostile classroom climates, reducing trust and mutual respect (Kabuka et al., 2016). Chronic exposure to stress associated with punitive discipline has also been linked to impaired cognitive functioning, particularly attention and memory, which are essential for academic success (Gershoff & Grogan‑Kaylor, 2016). Gendered dimensions further complicate these outcomes, with boys more likely to experience harsher physical punishment and girls more frequently subjected to verbal humiliation or exclusion, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and unequal emotional consequences (Skiba et al., 2002).
At the same time, research consistently links a positive and orderly disciplinary climate to improved academic performance and student engagement. Studies in Kenya and cross‑national contexts show that clear, fair, and consistently enforced rules account for significant variation in learning outcomes between schools (Kabuka et al., 2016; Ning et al., 2015). Non‑punitive disciplinary models have also demonstrated potential to support equity, empowerment, and positive school climates, particularly for marginalised learners (Parris‑Drummond & Jean‑Pierre, 2022).
However, inconsistent implementation undermines these benefits. Where teachers lack adequate training or apply alternative strategies unevenly, disciplinary systems lose credibility, leading to confusion and weakened behavioural norms (Moyo et al., 2014; Rampa, 2014). This body of evidence has informed global policy shifts toward positive, non‑violent disciplinary approaches that prioritise student well‑being, emotional regulation, and long‑term behavioural development over short‑term compliance. These shifts provide the broader empirical justification for Ghana’s decision to abolish corporal punishment in basic schools.
2.2 The Ghanaian disciplinary toolkit and the turn to positive discipline
In 2017, the GES formally banned corporal punishment in all basic and secondary schools and introduced a national Positive Disciplinary Toolkit to guide schools in implementing non‑violent and constructive behaviour management practices (GES, 2017). The toolkit serves as the official disciplinary framework for Ghanaian schools and specifies the approved alternatives to corporal punishment that teachers are expected to use in managing student behaviour.
According to the GES Disciplinary Toolkit, disciplinary measures should be corrective rather than punitive, developmentally appropriate, and aimed at helping learners understand the consequences of their actions rather than inflicting pain or fear (GES, 2017). The document explicitly prohibits all forms of physical punishment, including caning, slapping, and forcing learners into physically painful positions, and directs schools to adopt positive, rights‑based disciplinary approaches.
The toolkit outlines a range of approved disciplinary strategies, including verbal reprimands, guidance and counselling, reflective writing tasks (commonly referred to as “writing lines”), supervised cleaning activities, temporary withdrawal of privileges, seating re‑arrangements, parental engagement, and referral to school‑based guidance structures where necessary (GES, 2017). These measures are intended to promote self‑discipline, accountability, and behavioural reflection rather than fear‑based compliance.
Importantly, the GES toolkit emphasises that disciplinary actions must not humiliate learners, disrupt their dignity, or interfere excessively with instructional time (GES, 2017). Teachers are encouraged to consider the age, emotional development, and contextual circumstances of learners when selecting disciplinary responses, and to document repeated misconduct for follow‑up rather than escalating punishment severity.
While the GES toolkit is aligned with international child‑rights principles, its content is explicitly tailored to the Ghanaian school context, reflecting common classroom practices and culturally familiar corrective measures. International frameworks, such as UNESCO’s Positive Discipline in the Inclusive, Learning‑Friendly Classroom and UNICEF’s child protection guidelines, provide the broader normative foundation for non‑violent discipline but do not replace or supersede the nationally mandated GES framework (UNESCO, 2015; UNICEF, 2020). In the Ghanaian context, it is the GES toolkit, rather than international guidance, that defines what constitutes acceptable disciplinary practice in schools.
Evidence from previous studies suggests that teachers tend to rely most heavily on the disciplinary options that are explicitly mentioned in the GES toolkit and are easiest to administer within existing classroom constraints, particularly writing lines and cleaning tasks (Abonyi & Salifu, 2023; Akyina & Heeralal, 2024). Although these practices are officially sanctioned by GES, the toolkit provides limited operational guidance on how they should be implemented to promote meaningful behavioural reflection, leaving room for inconsistent and sometimes superficial application.
Furthermore, some practices observed in schools such as prolonged kneeling or standing are not clearly endorsed within the GES toolkit and occupy a grey area between non-physical discipline and physically discomforting punishment. This ambiguity complicates implementation and raises concerns about partial compliance with the spirit, rather than the letter, of the corporal punishment ban.
Comparative international studies demonstrate that alternative disciplinary approaches can be effective when supported by consistent norms, adequate teacher training, and shared understandings of discipline as a developmental process rather than a punitive one (Dubovicki & Munjiza, 2024; Abdullah & Wulandari, 2024). However, the Ghanaian experience suggests that the effectiveness of the GES disciplinary toolkit depends not only on policy alignment with international standards but also on teachers’ understanding of the toolkit itself, the clarity of its guidance, and the institutional support available for its implementation.
2.3 Challenges in implementation and teacher resistance
Despite policy reforms, numerous studies report significant challenges in implementing alternative disciplinary strategies in Ghanaian and comparable African school contexts. Teachers frequently perceive non‑violent methods as time‑consuming, labour‑intensive, and less effective than corporal punishment, particularly in overcrowded classrooms with limited support (Abonyi & Salifu, 2023; Akyina & Heeralal, 2024). The absence of immediate behavioural impact often leads to frustration and scepticism, reinforcing reliance on familiar punitive practices.
Evidence from South Africa and Kenya similarly reveals that alternative disciplinary methods struggle to gain traction where teacher capacity, parental involvement, and institutional resources are weak (Chonco et al., 2022; Mbirithi & Ghati, 2022). Teachers report increased workload, erosion of authority, and disruption of instructional time, all of which undermine consistent application of alternative strategies.
In addition, cultural endorsement of corporal punishment remains a major barrier to reform. Studies from Ghana, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Taiwan show that many parents continue to support physical discipline based on tradition, religion, and personal upbringing, even when aware of its negative effects (Ali, 2019; Chen et al., 2021; Chimbamu, 2016). This cultural resistance often places teachers in a difficult position, caught between policy directives and community expectations.
Nevertheless, emerging evidence suggests gradual shifts in attitudes, particularly among urban, younger, and more affluent households, where non‑violent disciplinary practices are increasingly preferred (Mardani et al., 2024; Petrović et al., 2016). These shifts indicate potential entry points for sustained disciplinary reform when supported by policy coherence and community engagement.
2.4 Mechanisms underlying perceived (in)effectiveness
A recurring theme in the literature is teachers’ emphasis on immediacy and deterrence as defining features of “effective” discipline. Corporal punishment is often valorised for its capacity to produce instant compliance and instil fear, whereas alternative methods are viewed as slow, negotiable, or easily ignored (Busienei, 2012; Moyo et al., 2014).
Time demands associated with supervision, counselling, and follow‑up further weaken teachers’ confidence in non‑violent strategies, particularly where curriculum coverage is already pressured (Agesa, 2015). Additionally, the cultural normalisation of chores diminishes their symbolic power as sanctions, suggesting that disciplinary measures must be culturally salient and clearly differentiated from everyday activities to function effectively (Buckner et al., 2023).
3 Theoretical framework
This study is theoretically grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), which offers a well‑established framework for understanding how individual beliefs, social influences, and perceived capacities shape behaviour. TPB is particularly relevant for examining teachers’ implementation of alternative disciplinary strategies in these basic schools because the shift away from corporal punishment represents a deliberate behavioural change rather than a purely procedural or administrative adjustment. Despite the existence of a national policy banning corporal punishment, teachers’ classroom practices continue to reflect deeply held beliefs, cultural expectations, and contextual constraints, all of which TPB is designed to explain.
According to TPB, behaviour is primarily predicted by behavioural intention, which is influenced by three core constructs: attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 2020). In the context of this study, attitudes refer to teachers’ evaluations of alternative disciplinary methods, particularly their beliefs about effectiveness, immediacy, and impact on classroom control. Many teachers assess disciplinary practices based on their ability to produce rapid compliance and maintain authority, which often results in negative attitudes toward non‑violent disciplinary strategies perceived as slow or ineffective. These attitudinal beliefs are central to understanding teachers’ perceptions of the (in)effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies and directly inform the study’s research questions.
Subjective norms relate to the social pressures teachers perceive from significant others, including colleagues, school leadership, parents, students, and the wider community. Although the Ghana Education Service formally promotes non‑violent discipline, teachers often operate within social environments where corporal punishment remains culturally legitimized and widely expected. Parental and community endorsement of physical discipline continues to shape teachers’ classroom decisions, even in the presence of legal prohibitions (Chonco et al., 2022). TPB therefore provides a useful lens for explaining the tension between institutional policy norms and culturally embedded disciplinary expectations.
Perceived behavioural control refers to teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to successfully implement alternative disciplinary strategies given available resources, skills, and contextual conditions. In overcrowded classrooms with limited training, insufficient support staff, and high workloads, teachers may feel constrained in their ability to apply non‑violent strategies consistently. Research indicates that low perceived behavioural control often results in partial compliance, inconsistent application, or reversion to familiar practices (Abonyi & Salifu, 2023; Akyina & Heeralal, 2024). The application of TPB in this study offers a theoretically grounded explanation of how attitudes, normative pressures, and perceived control interact to shape teachers’ disciplinary practices, thereby deepening understanding of the challenges associated with implementing alternative disciplinary strategies in basic schools in the GA East Municipality.
4 Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative research design to explore teachers’ experiences with alternative disciplinary methods following the Ghana Education Service’s ban on corporal punishment. Qualitative research is particularly suited to examining complex, context‑specific policy implementation processes, as it allows for in‑depth engagement with participants’ meanings, perceptions, and practices (Creswell, 2013).
The study was conducted in the GA East Municipality and is positioned as a qualitative case study rather than a nationally representative investigation. The municipality was selected as a contextually rich site for examining how the GES disciplinary policy is interpreted and enacted in everyday school practice, rather than as a proxy for all basic schools in Ghana. In qualitative research, the aim is analytical depth and transferability of insights rather than statistical generalisation, and the GA East Municipality provides an appropriate setting for exploring implementation dynamics within an urban public‑school context.
Although the findings are not intended to be statistically representative of all Ghanaian schools, they offer analytically transferable insights into the challenges, perceptions, and practices associated with alternative disciplinary strategies under the national GES policy framework. Given that all basic schools in Ghana are mandated to implement the same disciplinary directive, examining one municipal context allows for a nuanced understanding of how policy reforms unfold in practice.
The study covered six public basic schools, one selected from each of the six educational circuits within the GA East Municipality. Schools were selected through convenience sampling in collaboration with headteachers, based on accessibility and participant availability. This approach is consistent with qualitative case study research, which prioritizes information‑rich cases capable of illuminating key processes and challenges (Patton, 2002).
Participants (see table 1 for their demographic characteristics) included one teacher from the lower primary, one from the upper primary, and the headteacher from each school. All selected teachers had been employed prior to the 2017 ban on corporal punishment, ensuring they had firsthand experience with both disciplinary regimes. Two additional teachers who joined the profession after the ban were also included to provide comparative insights. This sampling strategy aligns with Patton’s (2002) recommendation that qualitative research should prioritize depth and relevance over breadth, aiming to generate rich, contextually grounded understanding.
Initial contact was made through school heads, who introduced the study to potential participants. Interviews were conducted over a 10-day period, scheduled at times convenient for the teachers. Data was collected through in-person interviews on-site at each participating school. Interviews lasted approximately 20–30 minutes. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and ethical guidelines were strictly followed.
The interviews were guided by a flexible interview protocol that allowed participants to share their experiences openly while ensuring consistency across interviews (Bryman, 2016). Questions focused on how teachers managed classroom misbehavior, whether they used the alternative disciplinary strategies recommended by the GES, and the challenges they faced in implementing these strategies. The guide included open-ended questions such as: “How do you handle misbehavior in your classroom?”, “Have you been using the alternative disciplinary strategies suggested by GES?”, and “What challenges do you face while administering these methods?” These questions were designed to elicit detailed responses and encourage participants to reflect on their experiences and perceptions.
Each interview was recorded using voice memos and later played back to participants for verification. Transcriptions were completed using voice-to-text tools, ensuring accuracy and preserving participants’ original language for thematic analysis. This approach ensured the authenticity and accuracy of the data, allowing for a faithful representation of participants’ voices and perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
This study employed thematic analysis to interpret qualitative data gathered. Thematic analysis is a widely used and flexible method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns or themes within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2021). It enables researchers to explore complex social phenomena by organizing and describing data in rich detail, making it particularly suitable for this study’s focus on educational reform.
The analysis followed a structured six-phase process. First, the researchers transcribed all audio-recorded interviews verbatim and engaged in repeated readings to become deeply familiar with the content. This initial phase allowed for immersion in the data and the identification of preliminary ideas (Nowell et al., 2017). Next, meaningful segments of the data were manually coded. These codes captured key features relevant to the research questions. In the third phase, related codes were grouped into broader themes that reflected significant patterns across the dataset. The fourth phase involved reviewing and refining these themes to ensure they accurately represented the data and were coherent in relation to the entire dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Subsequently, each theme was clearly defined and named to reflect its core meaning. Finally, the themes were integrated into a coherent narrative, supported by direct quotes from participants, grounding the findings in their lived experiences.
The TPB informed the data analysis by shaping both the development of initial codes and the interpretation of emerging themes. While the analysis followed an inductive thematic approach, it was theoretically sensitized by TPB, enabling teachers’ accounts to be examined in relation to attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Interview transcripts were first subjected to open coding to capture participants’ descriptions of disciplinary practices, perceptions of effectiveness, and experiences with implementation. These initial codes were then analytically organised in relation to the core TPB constructs. For instance, codes such as “immediate impact,” “students fear the cane,” and “alternative methods do not work” were interpreted as reflecting teachers’ attitudes toward alternative disciplinary methods, particularly their evaluative beliefs about effectiveness and behavioural outcomes. Codes including “parental expectations,” “community preference for corporal punishment,” and “students not taking punishment seriously” were aligned with subjective norms, highlighting the influence of social and cultural expectations on teachers’ disciplinary choices. Perceived behavioural control guided the interpretation of codes related to implementation capacity, such as “overcrowded classrooms,” “increased workload,” “time-consuming supervision,” and “lack of training.” These codes were consolidated into broader themes reflecting teachers’ perceived constraints in applying non‑violent disciplinary strategies. Integrating TPB into the analytical process ensured that the final themes were both empirically grounded and theoretically coherent, enabling a deeper explanation of how beliefs, social pressures, and contextual limitations shape disciplinary practices.
Formal institutional ethical approval was not required under prevailing institutional guidelines for low-risk research involving adult participants (British Educational Research Association (BERA), 2018). However, given the sensitive nature of discussing disciplinary practices and professional accountability, the researcher strictly adhered to established ethical guidelines (Creswell, 2013). Voluntary informed consent was secured from all participants, who were fully briefed on the study’s aims, processes, and their unconditional right to withdraw. To protect confidentiality within a specific sample, all data were anonymised using pseudonyms, with identifying details removed. Interviews were conducted privately, and participants were assured that no information would be disclosed to employers. Data were stored securely on password-protected devices. These precautions align with recognised best practices for ethical qualitative research involving sensitive professional topics (BERA, 2018).
| PARTICIPANT | GENDER | RELIGION | YEARS OF EXPERIENCE | AGE RANGE | EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION | ROLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | M | Christian | 28 | 40 – 50 | Degree | head |
| P2 | F | Christian | 25 | 40 – 50 | Degree | class teacher |
| P3 | F | Christian | 16 | 30 – 40 | Diploma | class teacher |
| P4 | M | Christian | 19 | 30 – 40 | Degree | head |
| P5 | F | Christian | 8 | 30 – 40 | Diploma | class teacher |
| P6 | F | Christian | 5 | 30 – 40 | Diploma | class teacher |
| P7 | M | Christian | 26 | 40 – 50 | Degree | head |
| P8 | F | Christian | 20 | 40 – 50 | Degree | class teacher |
| P9 | F | Christian | 8 | 30 – 40 | Degree | class teacher |
| P10 | M | Christian | 26 | 40 – 50 | Degree | head |
| P11 | F | Christian | 22 | 40 – 50 | Degree | class teacher |
| P12 | F | Christian | 2 | 30 – 40 | Degree | class teacher |
| P13 | F | Christian | 16 | 40 – 50 | Degree | head |
| P14 | F | Christian | 12 | 30 – 40 | Degree | class teacher |
| P15 | F | Christian | 12 | 30 – 40 | Degree | class teacher |
| P16 | F | Christian | 28 | 40 – 50 | Degree | head |
| P17 | F | Christian | 17 | 30 – 40 | Degree | class teacher |
| P18 | F | Christian | 15 | 30 – 40 | Diploma | class teacher |
5 Findings
The findings were categorized into three thematic areas in line with the objectives of the study: types of alternative disciplinary strategies used by teachers, teachers’ perception of their (in)effectiveness in comparison to corporal punishment and the challenges encountered in using the alternative punitive strategies.
5.1 Types of alternative disciplinary strategies used by teachers
Participants reported adopting various alternative disciplinary strategies to manage students’ behaviour in the absence of corporal punishment. While these strategies were largely framed as corrective rather than punitive, their implementation reflected teachers’ attempts to reconcile policy expectations with entrenched disciplinary norms and practical classroom realities. The findings suggest that teachers’ disciplinary choices are shaped by their attitudes toward alternative disciplinary strategies, perceived institutional expectations, and their perceived capacity to control student behaviour, key constructs of the TPB. Writing lines, cleaning, and classroom punishment involving kneeling and standing were the three subthemes that emerged:
5.1.1 Writing lines
Writing lines was frequently mentioned as a preferred alternative disciplinary strategy. Students were required to repeatedly write a word or sentence, often related to the offence committed. Participants viewed this method as a non-violent yet authoritative means of discipline.
We’ve been using so many disciplinary measures, such as the writing lines method. (P3)
We most often give them lines to write, sometimes, sentences to write. (P6)
Beyond its surface function as punishment, writing lines was interpreted by participants as serving both a corrective and symbolic role. Teachers perceived it as a visible demonstration of discipline that aligns with school policies discouraging corporal punishment, while still signalling authority and control. This reflects a generally positive attitude toward writing lines as an acceptable and legitimate disciplinary tool within the post-corporal punishment context. From a TPB perspective, teachers’ reliance on writing lines illustrates how favourable attitudes and supportive subjective norms (e.g., school approval of non-physical punishment) translate into behavioural intention and actual implementation. However, participants did not suggest that writing lines necessarily led to behavioural change, indicating a potential gap between disciplinary compliance and meaningful student reform. This points to a pragmatic rather than pedagogically transformative use of the strategy.
5.1.2 Cleaning
Cleaning the school compound emerged as one of the most commonly used alternative disciplinary strategies. Teachers assigned students who misbehaved to sweep classrooms or communal spaces, sometimes repeatedly and over extended periods.
If there is a place around the compound that is dirty, we ask them to sweep. If not for anything, they are helping keep the place tidy. (P9)
We ask them to sweep repeatedly. It depends, maybe a week or two. (P5)
Participants framed cleaning as both corrective and productive, suggesting that discipline could simultaneously benefit the school environment. This dual-purpose framing allowed teachers to justify the strategy morally and practically, reinforcing their belief that discipline should contribute to social responsibility rather than inflict pain. This reflects a favourable attitude toward cleaning as an educative and socially acceptable punishment. Cleaning was also perceived as easier to implement compared to other non-punitive strategies, indicating high perceived behavioural control. Teachers did not require specialised training or additional resources, making it a readily available option. In TPB terms, this high level of perceived control strengthens teachers’ intention to use cleaning as a default disciplinary measure. However, the extended duration of cleaning punishments (e.g., “a week or two”) raises questions about proportionality and whether such practices may inadvertently reproduce punitive logics under the guise of alternative disciplinary strategies. This suggests partial compliance with reform ideals, shaped more by feasibility than by a reorientation of disciplinary philosophy.
5.1.3 Classroom punishment involving kneeling and standing
Some participants reported using classroom-based punishments such as kneeling or standing for a period of time. Although these practices may involve discomfort, teachers described them as acceptable alternatives to corporal punishment.
Mostly kneeling down in the classroom for about 15 minutes is the punishment I give. (P7)
I ask them to stand at the back and raise their hands for a short time while they listen to class proceedings. (P8)
This sub-theme reveals a tension between policy-driven reform and deeply ingrained disciplinary norms. While teachers classified kneeling and standing as ‘alternative’ discipline, these practices retain elements of physical discomfort and public humiliation. Participants’ framing suggests a redefinition, rather than elimination of punitive practices. In relation to TPB, this reflects ambivalent attitudes toward non-violent discipline and weaker subjective norms against physically uncomfortable punishments. Teachers appeared to believe that such measures are still socially and professionally acceptable, especially when they stop short of physical striking. This belief facilitates their continued implementation despite policy shifts. Furthermore, these practices indicate limited perceived behavioural control over student behaviour using purely non-punitive strategies. Teachers resorted to kneeling and standing when they felt other alternatives were insufficiently deterrent, highlighting implementation challenges in contexts characterised by large class sizes, limited support, and pressure to maintain order.
5.2 (In)effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies compared to corporal punishment
This theme captures teachers’ perceptions of the relative effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies compared to corporal punishment. Participants largely evaluated effectiveness in terms of immediacy, deterrence, ease of implementation, and classroom control, rather than long-term behavioural change. Overall, the findings reveal that teachers’ judgments of effectiveness are shaped by their attitudes toward punishment, entrenched disciplinary norms, and perceived constraints on their ability to implement alternatives, key dimensions of the TPB. Five sub-themes emerged and the details of these findings are captured:
5.2.1 Ineffectiveness due to unfamiliarity and non-immediate impact
Participants frequently described corporal punishment as more effective than alternative methods because of its immediate behavioural impact and students’ familiarity with it. They argued that corporal punishment produces instant compliance, whereas alternative methods require time before behavioural change becomes evident.
I do not use alternate disciplinary methods because these students are so conversant with the cane, that it is the only thing that would make them listen. (P11)
I think the corporal punishment is very effective. This is because immediately, you are able to correct the child right there. (P15)
These accounts suggest that teachers define effectiveness primarily in terms of immediacy and visible compliance rather than sustained behavioural transformation. The familiarity of corporal punishment has created predictable behavioural responses among students, reinforcing teachers’ belief in its superiority. This reflects a strongly held attitude favouring corporal punishment, which undermines teachers’ intention to fully adopt alternative methods. This suggests that unfamiliarity with alternative disciplinary strategies weakens teachers’ confidence in their outcomes, reducing perceived behavioural control and discouraging consistent implementation. As a result, alternative disciplinary strategies is viewed as less reliable, particularly in situations requiring quick classroom control.
5.2.2 Ineffectiveness due to students’ lack of fear and disregard for alternative disciplinary strategies
Most participants believed that alternative disciplinary strategies fail to instil fear, which they regarded as essential for effective discipline. Teachers reported that students often ignored these methods, leading to a perceived decline in discipline following the ban on corporal punishment.
With this new method introduced, it seems not to have any effect on students, they are not even afraid to be punished. (P1)
They fear the cane… after the ban, these same students have become unbothered. (P18)
Participants’ emphasis on fear as a disciplinary mechanism highlights the persistence of deterrence-based conceptions of discipline. Effectiveness was equated with the capacity to induce fear, rather than to encourage self-regulation or moral reasoning. This suggests limited alignment between teachers’ disciplinary beliefs and the underlying philosophy of alternative disciplinary strategies. These perceptions reflect deeply embedded attitudes and subjective norms that legitimise fear-based discipline in terms of TPB. Where alternative methods fail to elicit fear, teachers perceive them as ineffective, leading to weak behavioural intention to implement them consistently.
5.2.3 Ineffectiveness due to time and supervision constraints
Participants highlighted practical challenges associated with implementing alternative disciplinary methods, particularly the time and supervision they require. Compared to corporal punishment, which was described as quick and disruptive only momentarily, alternative methods were seen as interfering with instructional time.
We use the canning… you can just continue with teaching, but with asking the child to pick, you have to monitor it. (P17)
This finding shows that effectiveness is closely linked to feasibility within overcrowded classrooms and demanding teaching schedules. Teachers perceived alternative methods as administratively burdensome, requiring ongoing monitoring that detracts from lesson delivery. This reflects low perceived behavioural control, a critical TPB construct. Even where teachers may recognise the policy rationale for alternative disciplinary strategies, constraints related to time, workload, and supervision reduce their ability and willingness to implement these methods effectively. Consequently, corporal punishment is perceived as more efficient and manageable within existing school conditions.
5.2.4 Ineffectiveness due to cultural normalization of alternative tasks
Participants also noted that many alternative disciplinary tasks, particularly chores, are culturally normalised within students’ home environments. As a result, students do not interpret these activities as punitive.
Children take it as normal things that go on at home. (P12)
Cool chop, students see it as easy or enjoyable. (P2)
This finding highlights a misalignment between the intended disciplinary meaning of alternative tasks and students’ experiences. When disciplinary measures resemble routine domestic responsibilities, their symbolic power as punishment is diminished. Teachers therefore viewed such methods as ineffective in producing behavioural change. This suggests that this further weakens teachers’ attitudes toward alternative disciplinary strategies and reinforces scepticism about its effectiveness. The perceived cultural irrelevance of these methods undermines both behavioural intention and sustained implementation.
5.2.5 Conditional effectiveness due to smaller class sizes
Only one participant expressed conditional support for alternative disciplinary strategies, suggesting that they could be effective in contexts with smaller class sizes.
The alternative methods will really work if you have a smaller class. (P5)
This view introduces an important contextual qualifier, suggesting that the effectiveness of alternative discipline is not inherently limited but contingent on structural conditions. Smaller class sizes were seen as enabling closer monitoring, individual attention, and consistent follow-through. In TPB terms, this reflects enhanced perceived behavioural control under favourable conditions. Where teachers feel capable of supervising and supporting behavioural correction, alternative disciplinary strategies are more likely to be viewed as viable and effective.
5.3 Challenges of alternative disciplinary strategies
This theme captures the major challenges teachers encounter in implementing alternative disciplinary strategies in everyday classroom practice. Participants acknowledged the policy shift away from corporal punishment and consistently highlighted structural, cultural, and practical barriers that undermine effective implementation. Viewed through the TPB, these challenges reflect low perceived behavioural control, weakened subjective norms supporting alternative disciplinary strategies, and persistent attitudes favouring corporal punishment, all of which constrain teachers’ capacity to implement alternative disciplinary strategies consistently and effectively. The subthemes below reveal details of findings:
5.3.1 Increased teacher workload and supervision demands
Participants consistently reported that alternative disciplinary strategies significantly increase their workload. Activities such as monitoring students writing lines or supervising cleaning tasks require sustained attention and follow-up, adding to teachers’ already demanding responsibilities.
It has increased our workload… you must verify that the student is actually writing correctly. (P4)
You have to wait until you’re sure they have completed the task… it inevitably affects our schedule. (P16)
Findings show that alternative disciplinary strategies are perceived as labour-intensive and administratively demanding. Unlike corporal punishment, which participants described as quick and self-contained, alternative methods require ongoing supervision to ensure compliance and effectiveness. This perception contributes to teachers’ frustration and reluctance to rely on these strategies. This challenge reflects low perceived behavioural control From a TPB perspective. Teachers feel constrained by time, workload, and competing instructional demands, which weakens their ability to implement alternative discipline as intended, even when they may recognise its policy legitimacy.
5.3.3 Lack of immediate consequences reducing deterrence
Participants emphasised that alternative disciplinary strategies lack the immediacy of corporal punishment, which they viewed as critical for deterring misbehaviour. Delayed consequences were perceived to dilute the seriousness of punishment.
We cannot simply do away with corporal punishment… which diminishes the perceived severity of the alternatives. (P8)
There is no immediate consequence like you would get with corporal punishment. (P13)
These statements indicate that teachers define effective discipline in terms of immediacy and severity. Alternative methods, which often involve delayed or prolonged tasks, are therefore perceived as weak deterrents. This reinforces the belief that corporal punishment is more effective for maintaining classroom order. In TPB terms, these beliefs reflect entrenched attitudes that privilege instant behavioural correction over longer-term developmental outcomes, reducing teachers’ intention to invest in alternative disciplinary approaches.
5.3.4 Disruption of instructional time and curriculum delivery
Many participants reported that implementing alternative disciplinary strategies disrupts lesson flow and delays curriculum coverage. Time spent supervising disciplinary tasks was seen as competing directly with instructional responsibilities.
These methods delay our progress… how will we ever complete the entire curriculum? (P11)
This concern highlights the tension between disciplinary reform and performance-driven educational expectations. Teachers felt pressured to prioritise syllabus completion, often at the expense of sustained behavioural interventions. As a result, alternative disciplinary strategies were seen as impractical within existing school structures. This challenge further undermines perceived behavioural control, as teachers feel unable to balance discipline and instruction effectively under current conditions.
5.3.5 Perceived decline in student academic performance and motivation
A decline in students’ academic engagement and performance, which they attributed to the reduced effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies was perceived by participants. Without strong deterrents, students were believed to lack motivation to behave appropriately or focus on learning.
This disciplinary method is really affecting students’ academic performance. (P5)
Despite punishment, students remain indifferent… hindering academic progress. (P12)
These perceptions reflect a causal link drawn by teachers between discipline and academic outcomes. Discipline was viewed as a prerequisite for learning, and any weakening of disciplinary authority was interpreted as directly undermining academic performance. However, these views prioritise control-oriented discipline over pedagogical or motivational approaches. Such beliefs reinforce negative attitudes toward alternative methods, further limiting teachers’ willingness to adopt them fully when viewed in the lens of the theory.
5.3.6 Inconsistency in implementation across classrooms
Inconsistencies in how alternative disciplinary strategies are applied across classrooms and schools came up. Differences in enforcement and interpretation were seen as undermining the credibility of disciplinary measures.
Monitoring students is challenging… makes consistent enforcement very difficult. (P16)
Inconsistent implementation created confusion among students and reduced the perceived legitimacy of alternative disciplinary strategies. Teachers felt unsupported by a lack of clear guidelines and coordinated enforcement mechanisms. This inconsistency weakens subjective norms supporting alternative discipline, as teachers observe varying levels of commitment among colleagues, reducing collective adherence to reform.
5.3.7 Cultural resistance to non-physical discipline
Cultural beliefs and long-standing norms around discipline were identified as a major barrier. Participants noted that both parents and students often continue to view corporal punishment as more effective and appropriate.
Many students and even parents still hold a preference for corporal punishment… deeply embedded in the local culture. (P14)
This finding underscores the socio-cultural embeddedness of disciplinary practices. Alternative methods are not only challenged at the classroom level but also contested within broader community belief systems. Teachers therefore face resistance beyond the school environment. Within the TPB framework, these cultural expectations represent powerful subjective norms that counteract policy-driven reforms and constrain teachers’ behavioural intentions.
6 Discussion
This study examined teachers’ implementation, perceptions of (in)effectiveness, and challenges associated with alternative disciplinary strategies in Ghanaian basic schools in the Ga East Municipality following the ban on corporal punishment. The findings indicate that although teachers have largely complied with the formal prohibition of corporal punishment, the alternative strategies currently employed, such as writing lines, cleaning, kneeling, and standing, are widely perceived as ineffective, inconsistently applied, and difficult to sustain. Interpreted through the TPB, these findings suggest that disciplinary practices are shaped less by policy awareness and more by teachers’ attitudes, perceived social expectations, and perceived capacity to enact non‑violent discipline.
Teachers’ strong preference for corporal punishment reflects entrenched negative attitudes toward alternative disciplinary strategies, particularly beliefs that such methods lack immediacy, deterrent value, and behavioural impact. Similar attitudinal patterns have been reported where teachers equate effective discipline with rapid compliance and fear‑based control (Yeboah, 2020). This suggests that these evaluative beliefs weaken teachers’ intentions to fully adopt alternative strategies, leading to minimal or symbolic compliance rather than sustained behavioural change.
Subjective norms also played a critical role in shaping teachers’ disciplinary choices. Participants’ accounts revealed persistent social pressure from parents, students, and community members who continue to view corporal punishment as legitimate and culturally appropriate. Research demonstrates that community endorsement of physical discipline often undermines school‑based reforms, even where legal bans exist (Akyina & Heeralal, 2024). TPB helps explain how this misalignment between institutional norms and community expectations constrains teachers’ willingness to consistently enforce alternative disciplinary measures.
Perceived behavioural control emerged as a major determinant of practice, with teachers describing overcrowded classrooms, limited training, increased workload, and time‑intensive supervision as significant barriers. These constraints reduced teachers’ confidence in their ability to implement alternative disciplinary strategies effectively, echoing findings from recent studies on discipline reform in low‑resource school settings (Abonyi & Salifu, 2023). Consistent with TPB, low perceived behavioural control weakened behavioural intentions and contributed to inconsistent application of non‑violent disciplinary methods.
Importantly, TPB illuminates how negative attitudes, conflicting subjective norms, and low perceived behavioural control interact to reinforce one another. Rather than functioning independently, these factors form a self‑perpetuating cycle that sustains scepticism toward alternative disciplinary strategies and limits meaningful change in classroom practice. Similar interaction effects have been observed in education reform studies applying TPB to teacher behaviour and policy implementation (Ajzen, 2020; Heekes et al., 2022).
Overall, the findings suggest that challenges associated with alternative disciplinary strategies in Ghanaian basic schools in the Ga East Municipality are not merely technical or procedural but fundamentally behavioural and contextual. Effective reform therefore requires interventions that simultaneously reshape teachers’ beliefs about discipline, realign social expectations among parents and communities, and strengthen teachers’ capacity to implement alternative strategies within realistic classroom conditions. Without addressing all three TPB components, disciplinary reforms are unlikely to achieve sustained effectiveness or legitimacy.
The TPB shaped the interpretation of the findings by framing teachers’ disciplinary practices as outcomes of interrelated beliefs, social pressures, and perceived constraints rather than isolated implementation challenges. Teachers’ strong preference for corporal punishment was interpreted through TPB as reflecting negative attitudes toward alternative disciplinary strategies, particularly beliefs about their limited effectiveness, lack of immediacy, and reduced deterrent value. Emphasis on fear and instant compliance signaled evaluative beliefs that weakened teachers’ intentions to consistently adopt non‑violent strategies.
Findings related to parental resistance, cultural endorsement of corporal punishment, and students’ disregard for alternative punishments were interpreted as manifestations of subjective norms, highlighting the social pressures that encourage conformity to traditional disciplinary expectations despite formal policy prohibitions. Challenges such as overcrowded classrooms, increased workload, limited training, and time‑intensive supervision were interpreted through perceived behavioural control, illustrating how teachers perceived inability to effectively implement alternative methods constrained practice. Overall, TPB enabled a theoretically grounded interpretation of how negative attitudes, conflicting norms, and low perceived control collectively contribute to inconsistent implementation and perceptions of ineffectiveness.
7 Policy implications
The mixed reception of the alternative disciplinary toolkit has broader implications for educational policy and practice. While the GES’s initiative represents an important step toward more humane disciplinary practices, its success depends on a comprehensive strategy that includes ongoing teacher training, clear guidelines, and stakeholder engagement. Policymakers must consider the cultural context in which these methods are being introduced. A sustained effort to educate teachers, students, and parents about the benefits and proper use of the toolkit is essential. Furthermore, the development of supportive policies, such as targeted training programmes and additional resources for classroom management, could bridge the gap between the theoretical advantages of alternative disciplinary measures and their practical application.
8 Conclusion
This study explored the implementation of alternative disciplinary strategies in basic schools in the Ga East Municipality in Ghana following the ban on corporal punishment. Although the Ghana GES introduced a Positive Disciplinary Toolkit to minimize physical punishment, its overall effectiveness has been limited. Only one participant reported success with the new methods, and that was in the context of a smaller class size. Most teachers still believe that corporal punishment, despite its controversies, ensures immediate compliance. This preference reflects deeply rooted cultural beliefs, contributing to a widespread reluctance to fully embrace alternative approaches.
The study also identified several challenges hindering the effective application of non-violent disciplinary measures. Teachers pointed to increased workloads, difficulties in monitoring student behavior, and a perceived decline in their authority. Furthermore, the absence of clear guidelines and comprehensive training has led to inconsistent implementation, negatively impacting both instructional time and student academic performance. These findings suggest that while the shift toward non-violent discipline aligns with international human rights standards, its practical adoption is constrained by systemic limitations, cultural resistance, and insufficient resources.
9 Recommendations
To ensure that non-violent disciplinary methods are both practical and impactful, a multifaceted strategy is essential, thus the following recommendations:
A foundational step in this process is the provision of comprehensive training for teachers. The Ministry of Education (MoE) and the GES must prioritize regular, in-depth professional development programs that go beyond theoretical instruction. These training sessions should equip educators with practical tools and strategies for managing classroom behavior constructively. Workshops and seminars that simulate real classroom scenarios can help teachers build confidence in applying alternative methods, reducing their reliance on punitive discipline.
Equally important is the provision of adequate resources and support systems within schools. Many teachers operate in overcrowded classrooms with limited assistance, making it difficult to implement individualized or restorative disciplinary approaches. To address this, schools should be supplied with the necessary materials and additional staff to support behavior management. The presence of more personnel would not only ease the burden on teachers but also enhance supervision and ensure that disciplinary efforts do not detract from instructional time.
Clear and consistent guidelines are also critical to the success of alternative disciplinary measures. The GES should develop standardized protocols that outline specific procedures and best practices for non-violent discipline. These guidelines must be uniformly enforced across all schools to prevent inconsistencies in application. Furthermore, regular monitoring and evaluation should be instituted to ensure compliance and to identify and address challenges as they arise.
Another important component of successful implementation is stakeholder engagement, particularly with parents and community members. Cultural norms that favor corporal punishment remain deeply entrenched, and without community buy-in, efforts to reform disciplinary practices may face resistance. Schools should therefore organize community forums and informational sessions to educate stakeholders on the benefits of alternative disciplinary strategies. Building a shared understanding and collective support will be essential in changing long-standing attitudes and behaviors.
Finally, the MoE and GES must establish mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and policy refinement. The effectiveness of any disciplinary approach depends on its adaptability to changing classroom dynamics and student needs. Feedback from teachers and school administrators should be systematically collected and used to inform periodic reviews of the disciplinary toolkit. This iterative process will help ensure that policies remain relevant, practical, and capable of producing positive behavioral outcomes over time.
References
Abdullah, S., & Wulandari, D. (2024). “Reach out, not harm”: Navigating between physical punishment and alternative strategies in addressing student discipline challenges for a positive learning environment. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(8), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.8.12
Abonyi, U. K. & Salifu, I. (2023). Assessing the implementation of school discipline policy in Ghanaian basic schools. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 8(3), 636–674. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1246045
Agbenyega, J. S. (2006). Corporal punishment in the schools of Ghana: Does inclusive education suffer? The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(3), 107–122.
Agesa, R. I. (2015). Effectiveness of alternative disciplinary strategies used in secondary schools in Starehe division, Nairobi County, Kenya. Policy and Curriculum Studies, Kenyatta University.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behaviour: Frequently asked questions. Human Behaviour and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Akyina K.O. (2024). A critical literature review of corporal punishment and its use in society. British Journal of Education, 12(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.37745/bje.2013/vol12n5117
Akyina, K. O., & Heeralal, P. J. H. (2024). Challenges with the use of alternative strategies to corporal punishment in Ghanaian basic schools. Open Access Library Journal, 11(7), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111825
Ali, N. M. (2019). Parental Use of and Attitude towards Corporal Punishment in Dessie, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa). https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/26240
Ampofo, E. T. (2021). “Spare the rod, spoil the child”: The ban of corporal punishment fueling indiscipline among students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 5(6), 1–7.
Asante, B. O. (2023). Corporal punishment laws in minors: A case study of implementation challenges in homes and families within the Asokwa Municipal Assembly, Ghana (Master’s thesis, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University).
Behera, G. (2024). Classroom discipline, emerging concerns and research priority. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(2), 3460–3463. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0224.0612
Bastable, E., Falcon, S. F., Nese, R., Meng, P., & McIntosh, K. (2021). Enhancing school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports tier 1 core practices to improve disciplinary equity. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1937020
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
British Educational Research Association. (BERA) (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.). London: BERA. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buckner, W., Wrangham, R., Medupe, D., Ringen, E., Glowacki, L., & Garfield, Z. (2023). Norm violations and punishments across human societies. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2023.7.
Busienei, A. (2012). Alternative methods to corporal punishment and their efficacy. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3, 155–161.
Chen, J. K., Pan, Z., & Wang, L. C. (2021). Parental beliefs and actual use of corporal punishment, school violence and bullying, and depression in early adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6270. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126270
Chimbamu, V. (2016). An Investigation into the Effects of the Abolishment of Corporal Punishment on learner Behaviour in Schools: A Case of Epworth-Mabvuku-Tafara District. Harare Metropolitan Province.
Chonco, D., Kapueja, I., Kutame, A., & Adigun, O. (2022). ‘I dread to enter some classrooms’: Perspectives regarding alternatives to corporal punishment in secondary schools. Interchange, 53, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-022-09460-w.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Diamantes, T. (1992). Alternatives to corporal punishment. The Clearing House, 65, 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1992.10114212.
Dubovicki, S., & Munjiza, E. (2024). Strategies for disciplining students in the “old school” practice in Croatia. Review of Croatian history, 20(1), 7–34.
Gershoff, E. T., Sattler, K. M., & Ansari, A. (2017). Strengthening causal estimates for links between spanking and children’s externalizing behavior problems. Psychological Science, 29(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617729816
Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453–469.
Ghana Education Service. (2017). Directive on the Ban of Corporal Punishment in Schools. Ghana Education Service. https://moe.gov.gh/publications/
Gunu, I. M. (2019). Exploring alternative disciplinary measures in Ghanaian high schools: Unveiling the guidelines for positive behaviour management in policy and practice. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 10(2), 133– 139.
Heekes, S., Kruger, C. B., Lester, S. N., & Ward, C. L. (2022). A systematic review of corporal punishment in schools: Global prevalence and correlates. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925787
Hogan, M. (1985). Writing as punishment. English Journal, 5(74), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/817699.
Kabuka, E., Agak, J., & Simba, N. (2016). Impact of discipline on academic performance of pupils in public primary schools in Muhoroni Sub-County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7, 164–173.
Kabungo, C. J., & Munsaka, E. (2020). Parents’, teachers’ and head-teachers’ views on abolishment of corporal punishment in selected secondary schools in Kasama urban of northern Zambia. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(7), 1–15. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/3182/5818
Kuhn, B., & Larzelere, R. (2005). Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10567-005-2340-Z.
Kuwornu, S. (2019). GES, the law, and the ban on corporal punishment. Ghana Law Hub. https://ghanalawhub.com/ges-the-law-and-the-ban-corporal-punishment/
Mahlangu, P., Chirwa, E., Machisa, M., Sikweyiya, Y., Shai, N., & Jewkes, R. (2021). Prevalence and factors associated with experience of corporal punishment in public schools in South Africa. PLOS ONE, 16(8), Article e0254503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254503
Matofari, F. N. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ support for corporal punishment—A practice outlawed by the government of Kenya. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP11070–NP11086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519877949
Mardani, F., Qiu, H., & Kunorubwe, T. (2024). Perceptions of discipline and punishment in families from diverse cultural backgrounds. Journal of Psychosociological Research in Family and Culture, 2(4), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.jprfc.2.4.3.
Mbirithi, D., & Ghati, S. (2022). Effect of alternative methods to corporal punishment on student discipline in public secondary schools in Mombasa County, Kenya. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 10(7), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.24940/theijhss/2022/v10/i7/hs2207-005
Moyo, G., Khewu, N. P. D., & Bayaga, A. (2014). Disciplinary practices in schools and principles of alternatives to corporal punishment strategies. South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1–14. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/106653
Ning, B., Van Damme, J., Gielen, S., Yang, X., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2015). The influence of classroom disciplinary climate of schools on reading achievement: a cross-country comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26, 586–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1025796.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Parris-Drummond, S., & Jean-Pierre, J. (2018). Alternative school discipline principles and interventions: An overview of the literature. Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill 3(53). https://doi.org/10.32920/17707670.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Petrović, O., Vasic, V., Petrović, M., & Šantrić-Milićević, M. (2016). Positive parenting attitudes and practices in three transitional Eastern European countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia. International Journal of Public Health, 61, 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0823-y.
Rampa, S. H. (2014). Discipline in schools: Assessing the positive alternative invitational discipline approach. World Journal of Education, 4(4), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v4n4p20
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372
Thomson, P., & Pennacchia, J. (2015). Disciplinary regimes of ‘care’ and complementary alternative education. Critical Studies in Education, 57(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1117506
UNESCO (2015). Positive Discipline in The Inclusive, Learning-Friendly Classroom: A Guide for Teachers and Teacher Educators. UNESCO Bangkok. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000149284
UNESCO (2017). Gender Equality Through School: Providing a Safe and Inclusive Learning Environment. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://gem-report-2017.unesco.org/en/chapter/gender_accountability_through_school/
UNICEF (2014). Hidden in Plain Sight: A Statistical Analysis of Violence Against Children. United Nations Children’s Fund. https://data.unicef.org/resources/hidden-in-plain-sight-a-statistical-analysis-of-violence-against-children/
UNICEF (2020). Ghana Education Fact Sheets. UNICEF Ghana. https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Ghana_Fact_Sheets_Digital.pdf
United Nations (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/
Umezinwa, R. N., & Elendu, I. C. (2012). Perception of teachers towards the use of punishment in Sancta Maria primary school Onitsha, Anambra State, Nigeria. Perception, 3(2), 49–57. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/1150/1071
Yeboah, D. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of the abolition of caning in Ghanaian schools. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 379–395. https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/yeboah.pdf