Effect of Corporal Punishment on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of corporal punishment on students’ motivation and classroom learning. Research has indicated that behavior of teacher profoundly influences students’ learning. It has been observed with great concern that teachers in Pakistani schools resort to corporal punishment to motivate students for classroom learning. Over the years this practice has resulted in reduced students’ motivation towards learning.This study was purposefully designed to investigate this area of concern. For this purpose, the study attempted to find answer to the question that was there any relationship between corporal punishment and students’ motivation and classroom learning. Using a correlation design, the study surveyed attitudes of a randomely sampled 250 teachers from secondary schools in Malakand district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. For data analysis, SPSS was used. This research studied the relationship between the following three main variables: corporal punishment as independent variable and student motivation and classroom learning as dependent variables. To examine correlation between the variables, ANOVA and Regression Analysis were utilized. Results of the study revealed that corporal punshment was significantly negatively correlated with students’ motivation and classroom learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".