MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964178699 · doi:10.5430/wje.v4n6p90

Perceptions of Teachers on the Ban of Corporal Punishment in Pre-Primary Institutions in Kenya

2014· article· en· W1964178699 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beth Mwai, Isaac Njuguna Kimengi, Emmy Jerono Kipsoi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Women's Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporal punishmentPsychologyPunishment (psychology)CurriculumPerceptionStratified samplingMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to investigate perceptions of teachers on the ban of corporal punishment in pre-primaryinstitutions. The objectives of the study were to investigate teachers’ attitudes towards corporal punishment ban inpre-schools and to establish whether the level of education of teachers had an influence on the use of corporalpunishment. A descriptive survey design was used. Stratified sampling was used to select the pre-schools; simplerandom sampling was applied to select all the teachers in the pre-schools. Data was collected through questionnairesand analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Major findings indicated that: 71% agreed thatreasonable corporal punishment is beneficial to the pre-school learners; 80% of the pre-school teachers used corporalpunishment to maintain order in the classroom; Teachers perceived negatively the outlawing of corporal punishment;the level of teachers’ education had no influence on the use of corporal punishment. The instances when corporalpunishment was used by teachers were non-academic. The results form a basis of re-thinking the initial teacherstraining curriculum and subsequent in-service training in regard to classroom disruptions and how best they could behandled. As changes occur in educational setting, courses for training of teachers in the initial course, inductioncourse or later in-service courses must reflect such changes and support and develop relevant skills in the staff uponwhom these changes will impinge. The teacher trainee ought to be exposed to other methods of behaviourmodification and these methods should have their own content and well researched.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicGender and Women's RightsFrench-language works237,207