University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Corporal punishment of students by teachers in elementary and middle schools in Taiwan: the relationship with school level, gender, school location, academic performance, and emotional reactions

(USC Thesis Other)

Corporal punishment of students by teachers in elementary and middle schools in Taiwan: the relationship with school level, gender, school location, academic performance, and emotional reactions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF STUDENTS
BY TEACHERS IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN TAIWAN:
THE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCHOOL LEVEL, GENDER,
SCHOOL LOCATION, ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE,
AND EMOTIONAL REACTIONS

by

Pokil Wong

___________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Pokil Wong
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation could not have been possible without the support and
guidance of my dissertation committee members. Dr. Melora Sundt (Chair) for
being a great mentor; Dr. Ron Astor as the subject matter expert with an endless
supply of great ideas; Dr. Stuart Gothold for being an excellent counselor during
my quest for a doctorate in education. My thanks also go to all those at the USC
Rossier School of Education who have rendered their support and assistance.
Finally, my thanks go to all my family members who supported me.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication.................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................ii
List of Tables........................................................................................................... vi
Abstract .................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................... 1
Background ........................................................................................................ 1
Bans on Corporal Punishment in Schools................................................... 1
Continuation of Corporal Punishment Despite Bans .................................. 2
History and Justification of Corporal Punishment...................................... 3
Use of Corporal Punishment in Different Cultures and in
Schools.......................................................................................... 3
Justification of Corporal Punishment on Children and
Students ........................................................................................ 9
Legality of Corporal Punishment of Students.................................... 13
The Problem ..................................................................................................... 15
Aims of This Study .......................................................................................... 16
Purpose and Significance of the Study............................................................. 16
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 18
The Humanistic Education Foundation: Studies and Agendas ........................ 18
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 19
Delimitations .................................................................................................... 20
Assumptions..................................................................................................... 20
Definition of Terms.......................................................................................... 21
Organization of the Dissertation ...................................................................... 22
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.................................................................... 23
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 23
Research on Corporal Punishment in Taiwan Schools .................................... 24
Corporal Punishment and Student Demographics ........................................... 25
Mainland China and Korea ....................................................................... 25
Israel.......................................................................................................... 26
United States ............................................................................................. 27
iv
Zimbabwe.................................................................................................. 29
Egypt ......................................................................................................... 30
Surveys of Taiwanese Students Regarding Corporal Punishment................... 31
Academic Performance and Corporal Punishment .......................................... 34
Emotional Reaction of Students to Corporal Punishment................................ 36
United States ............................................................................................. 36
Taiwan....................................................................................................... 37
Mainland China......................................................................................... 37
Africa ........................................................................................................ 38
India .......................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Summary............................................................................................. 40
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................... 42
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 42
Restatement of the Problem ............................................................................. 42
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................ 43
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 44
Research Design............................................................................................... 44
Approach for This Study........................................................................... 44
Data Collection ......................................................................................... 45
Limitations ................................................................................................ 46
IRB 46
Sampling Method...................................................................................... 47
Sample Characteristics.............................................................................. 47
Study Instrument....................................................................................... 49
HEF 2004 Survey............................................................................... 49
Survey Questions ............................................................................... 49
Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 53
Statistical Analysis............................................................................. 53
Variables ............................................................................................ 53
Chapter Summary............................................................................................. 56
Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................ 57
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 57
Participant Characteristics................................................................................ 58
Treatment of Data............................................................................................. 60
Findings and Analysis ...................................................................................... 62
Research Question 1.................................................................................. 62
Frequency of Corporal Punishment Based on School
Level ........................................................................................... 62
Gender and Number of Times Punished............................................ 67
School Location and Number of Times Punished ............................. 70
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1................................. 74
v
Research Question 2.................................................................................. 75
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic
Performance................................................................................ 75
Reason for Corporal Punishment and Academic
Performance................................................................................ 78
Summary of Finding for Research Question 2 .................................. 81
Research Question 3.................................................................................. 82
Emotional Reaction to Being Physically Punished............................ 82
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3................................. 88
Chapter Summary............................................................................................. 88
Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion of Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations ..................................................................................... 90
Summary .......................................................................................................... 90
Background ............................................................................................... 90
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 90
Research Questions................................................................................... 91
Summary (Synapsis) of Literature Review............................................... 91
Summary (Synapsis) of Methodology ...................................................... 92
Discussion of the Findings ............................................................................... 92
Corporal Punishment and School Level.................................................... 92
Corporal Punishment and Gender ............................................................. 94
Corporal Punishment and School Location .............................................. 95
Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance ................................... 97
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic
Performance................................................................................ 97
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic
Performance as Reason for Punishment ..................................... 98
Negative Emotional Reactions to Being Punished Because
of Academic Performance .......................................................... 98
Recommendations for Future Studies ............................................................ 100
Implications for Professional Practice............................................................ 102
Conclusion...................................................................................................... 105
References ............................................................................................................ 106
Appendix: HEF 2004 Corporal Punishment Questionnaire ........................... 117

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Incidence of Corporal Punishment by Grade ............................................ 29
Table 2. Literature Review Summary .................................................................... 41
Table 3. Study Participants by Gender and School Type........................................ 48
Table 4. Sample Characteristics: School Locations ................................................ 49
Table 5. Survey Questions....................................................................................... 51
Table 6. Surveyed School Locations and School Level.......................................... 59
Table 7. Valid Surveys by School Locations .......................................................... 59
Table 8. Valid Surveys by Grades........................................................................... 60
Table 9. Valid Surveys by Gender .......................................................................... 60
Table 10. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished by School Level ............... 63
Table 11. School Level and Number of Times Punished........................................ 64
Table 12. Types of Corporal Punishment................................................................ 65
Table 13. School Level and Corporal Punishment by Direct Physical
Contact ................................................................................................. 66
Table 14. School Level and Corporal Punishment by Strenuous
Postures or Activities ........................................................................... 67
Table 15. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished by Gender ........................ 68
Table 16. Number of Times Punished and Gender ................................................. 68
Table 17. Number of Times Punished With Direct Physical Contact by
Gender .................................................................................................. 69
Table 18. Number of Times Punished With Strenuous Postures or
Activities by Gender............................................................................. 69
vii
Table 19. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished and School
Location................................................................................................ 71
Table 20. Number of Times Punished and School Location................................... 71
Table 21. Direct Physical Contact and School Location......................................... 72
Table 22. Strenuous Postures or Activities and School Location ........................... 73
Table 23. Direct Physical Contact and School Location by Individual
City and County ................................................................................... 74
Table 24. Number of Times the Students Were Punished ...................................... 76
Table 25. Self-reported Academic Performance of the Students ............................ 77
Table 26. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished and Academic
Performance ......................................................................................... 77
Table 27. Number of Times Punished and Academic Performance ....................... 78
Table 28. Reasons for the Students’ Punishments................................................... 79
Table 29. Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment and
Academic Performance ........................................................................ 81
Table 30. Felt Scared, Ashamed, and Self-pity From Being Punished ................... 83
Table 31. Felt Angry and Vindictive From Being Punished................................... 84
Table 32. Felt Deserving of Punishment ................................................................. 85
Table 33. Punished for Poor Academic Performance and Considered
Teacher’s Action to be Inappropriate................................................... 86
Table 34. Punished for Poor Academic Performance and Being the
Unfortunate Victim of Teacher’s Frustration....................................... 87
Table 35. Do Not Know Emotional Reaction ......................................................... 88
Table 36. Summary of Statistical Significance for Variables Studied .................... 89
Table 37. Self-reported Academic Performance and Feeling Angry and
Vindictive From Being Punished ....................................................... 100
viii

ABSTRACT
In Taiwan, teachers’ use of corporal punishment on students is a prevalent
practice. Even though The Ministry of Education first announced banning the
practice 1947 and reiterated the ban several times through the years, it was rarely
enforced. In December 2006, it was written into law and became officially illegal.
Surveys by the Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF), a non-profit education
advocacy organization, showed that a large percentage of students were victims of
corporal punishment before 2006; however, even in 2008, two years after the legal
ban, 72% of middle schools still practiced corporal punishment, and this increased
to 88% in 2009. The press often publicized the corporal punishment incidents,
which always sparked public outcry and impassioned discussions. The topic is
divisive and controversial among all stakeholders, but, to date, few quantitative
research studies explored the subject, especially on factors such as school level,
student gender, school location, students being punished on their lack of academic
performance, and the students’ emotional reactions to physical punishment.
Using HEF 2004 student survey results from 1,311 students at 62 middle
schools and 159 elementary schools, this dissertation was the first large-sample-
size quantitative study of corporal punishment of Taiwanese students using all the
variables mentioned above.
ix
Study results indicated that middle school students were punished more
often than elementary school students, and males were punished more often than
females. There was no statistical significance in the frequency of corporal
punishment between city and county schools, but there were several locations with
high punishment rates and punishment types. Students with lower self-reported
academic performance were punished for their lack of academic performance, even
though teachers denied punishing students for this reason in other surveys. Students
with lower academic performance were also punished more often. Students
punished for their poor academic performance had mixed emotional reactions.
They felt that they deserved to be punished, yet they also felt ashamed, angry, and
vindictive.
The study made the following recommendations: Further clarifying the law,
along with more vigorous enforcement, especially for middle schools and middle
school teachers. All teachers need to be better educated on classroom management
and student discipline without resorting to corporal punishment. Teachers need to
be more sensitive to students’ negative emotional reactions from being physically
punished.
Recommendations for future studies include (a) investigating the
relationship between physical punishments and academic performance, (b)
exploring the relationship between the emotional reaction of students who are
punished and campus violence, and (c) comparing results from future studies of
x
corporal punishment to the data from this study to better understand the effects of
the law banning corporal punishment.

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Bans on Corporal Punishment in Schools
Corporal punishment refers to the intentional use of physical pain as a
method of changing behavior. It includes a wide scope of disciplinary measures,
including hitting, slapping, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, choking, holding
painful body postures, exercising excessively, or denying access to lavatories
(Bauer, Dubanoski, & Yamanchi, 1990). The vast majority of nations banned or
limited the use of corporal punishment schools Article 19 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), ratified by 191 nations, requires
protecting children “from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,
neglect or negligent treatment, [and] maltreatment or exploitation” (pp. 124–126).
In 1968 the Taiwan Ministry of Education officially prohibited the use of
Corporal punishment in Taiwanese schools, the focus of this study, but educational
authorities rarely enforced or officially acknowledged it as an issue. However,
through annual surveys of students since 1999, the Humanistic Education
Foundation (HEF), a non-profit organization committed to improving the quality of
education in Taiwan, reported widespread use of corporal punishment on students.
2
On December 12, 2006, the Taiwan Legislative Yuan passed the Education
Basic Law Article 8 and Article 15, becoming the 109
th
country to legally prohibit
corporal punishment in schools. The Taiwanese Ministry of Education officials
reiterated that schoolteachers and education administrators at the 22 municipal and
county governments must comply with laws abolishing the practice of corporal
punishment in their schools. Faculty members or schools violating the laws were
referred to the Control Yuan, Taiwan’s highest legal watchdog agency, for
disciplinary actions.
Continuation of Corporal Punishment Despite Bans
Despite the rhetoric of public officials, corporal punishment studies
conducted after the legal ban found that this practice continued. According to the
June 2009 education survey results from the Humanistic Education Foundation
(HEF, 2009) of 250 middle schools and 1,550 students on the main island of
Taiwan, 88% of the schools still practiced corporal punishment on students. Of the
student respondents, 45% were victims of corporal punishment (a substantial
increase from 31% in 2008), 7.2% were punished more than ten times within the
previous school year, and 5.5% were punished so many times that they lost count.
The punishments were meted out in many different ways. Eighty-three percent of
schools forced students to run laps in the sports field or jump many times from a
squatting position; 71% of schools disciplined students by paddling their palms or
behinds; other forms of corporal punishments included squatting, kneeling, or
3
holding heavy objects, which accounted for 62% of the punishments; in
approximately 25% of schools, teachers order students to strike themselves or
others; 20% of teachers slapped their students in the face. In addition to the widely
reported HEF results, many sensational examples of corporal punishment of
students by teachers continued to appear in the news, resulting in outrage and
outcries by the public (China Post, 2009). The debate was active among the public
and educators, with newspapers, magazines, and web sites continuing to publish
articles each year regarding the pros and cons of educators using corporal
punishment on students. According to the search index of Taiwanese media articles
at the Taiwan National Institute of Educational Resources and Research, there were
34 newspaper or periodical articles related to corporal punishment of students in
2009, and 75 articles in 2010 (Taiwan National Institute of Educational Resource
and Research, 2011).
History and Justification of Corporal Punishment
Use of Corporal Punishment in Different Cultures and in Schools
Given the international and cross-cultural nature of this study and of a
researcher in the United States using Taiwanese data, it would be helpful to touch
on the use of corporal punishment in education by different cultures in the world.
Throughout European history, a relationship has existed between education
and religion: Education has been closely linked to the clergy and religion (Orme,
2006). For centuries, priests and nuns were the most highly educated Europeans;
4
thus, education in Europe was based upon religious doctrine. During the Middle
Ages, Christianity served as the state religion throughout Europe, and the peoples
in Western Europe regarded the church as the ultimate authority (Holding, 2005).
For centuries, religious teachings, which endorsed the use of corporal punishment,
served as societal norms for child rearing and for formally educating children, and
teacher commonly corporal punishment on students (Orme, 2006).
According to Parker-Jenkins (2002), in Victoria society, the notion of
original sin resulted in parents and teachers teaching children to love and obey
God, a prerequisite for atoning for their sins, cleansing their souls, and receiving
absolution—which required total submission to God. This resulted in physical
chastisement being condoned by parents and teachers being viewed as having the
ideal role of leading children out of sin. Though it was believed that only God
could award absolution and punishment, instead of banning corporal punishment,
the church endorsed its use, believing that pain could force persons to abandon
personal pleasures, lead them to reject evil thoughts, and promote introspection.
The clergy taught that chastity was a demonstration of the love for God, a notion
that led to self-denial and dedication to religious practices (Walbridge, 2004).
Corporal punishment was commonly used in ancient China for teaching
children or instilling discipline. Shan Tzu Ching (Ch'en, 1968), an ancient Chinese
book of philosophy, included notions such as the stick leading to respectful
children, a beating builds character, greater love requires harsher punishment, and
5
an unpolished gem is not valuable. Not all ancient Chinese, however, approved of
corporal punishment.
Confucius, regarded as the paragon of Chinese education and as the master
teacher and sage, did not endorse the use of corporal punishment. Instead, he
advocated benevolence and compassion (Riegel, 2011). Confucius, credited with
teaching more than 3,000 students in his time, sought to teach all students without
discrimination and to instruct students based upon their individual abilities. He
regarded benevolence as central to his teachings and as the pinnacle of self-
cultivation, a notion that refers to loving others, obeying parents, acting honestly,
and demonstrating loyally. According to Hwang (1997), Confucius taught earnestly
and provided a safe, comfortable learning environment.
Following the death of Confucius, his students, particularly Mencius and
Emperor Wu-ti during the Han Dynasty, continued his teachings. Wu-ti strictly
applied Confucian ideals concerning character development and ruled the nation
peacefully (Shun, 2010). Mencius was a famous Chinese sage who lived in the 4
th

century B.C.E., focused his teaching on performing good deeds. He believed that
humans were inherently kind and compassionate and that education stimulated the
inner traits of morality. He did not believe that the drastic use of external influences
could steer a person in the right direction or guarantee a person would improve.
Although not directly opposing corporal punishment as a form of education,
Mencius concluded, “There should be no ill will and admonishment between father
6
and son; otherwise they will drift apart; drifting apart is not a good thing” (Zalta,
2010). He regarded the parent-child relationship more important than any other
bond. Although supporting the idea of a superior-subordinate relationship (e.g.,
ruler-subject, parent-child), he believed that superiors who failed (or refused) to
treat subordinates with magnanimity and kindness forfeited the right to receive
obedience and respect from them.
Although the teachings of the ancient Chinese philosophies are mixed
regarding the use of corporal punishment with students, many still assumed that
“spare the rod and spoil the child” is a traditional Chinese tenet of education and
discipline (Lin, 1992; Tang, 2006).
Corporal punishment was practiced in the courts and schools of ancient
Egypt, Greece, and Rome; it was used most frequently in prisons to punish
prisoners for violating prison rules, to punish members of the armed forces for
violating military regulations, and to discipline or punish students in schools.
Schools across the world administered corporal punishment to correct misbehavior,
punish disobedience, and insubordination (Wilson, 2001).
Attitudes toward corporal punishment have changed worldwide. Corporal
punishment as a legal punitive measure for unlawful behavior ended in the majority
of European countries before 1900 and in all European schools by 1990 (Moeller,
1998). Huang (1997) completed a global study on corporal punishment that
included 168 countries. Fifteen nations or cities had adopted a clear definition of
7
corporal punishment, including Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore. Fourteen countries, including
India, Indonesia, and Korea, lacking a clear definition of corporal punishment, had
not banned its use or disapproved of its application. Twenty countries, including
Brazil, Italy, and China, supposedly oppose corporal punishment, but had not
clearly defined their positions and resulting regulations. The status of corporal
punishment in Muslim countries is mixed. Corporal punishment has been banned as
a means of disciplining children in schools in the majority of nations. Exceptions
are Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Qatar, Sudan, and Tunisia (Global Initiative to
End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2009)
Taiwanese school principals and teachers have been widely known to use
corporal punishment. Taiwan Headlines (2000) interviewed Hsing Hsiao-ping,
principal of an elementary school in Taiwan. He admitted that corporal punishment
occurred in every school throughout Taiwan, although not in every class.
Additional examples of using corporal punishment were reported by Taiwan
Headlines (2000). First, the principal of a middle school in Changhwa County in
Taiwan struck a third grade student child with a bamboo stick and expelled him
from school after the student arrived at school “messily” dressed. Second, two
primary teachers in Kaohsiung County were sentenced to 30 days in prison and
suspended from teaching for two years for the excessive use of corporal
punishment. Third, a primary teacher in Taipei primary was sued by parents
8
because punishment given by the teacher injured their child’s knees. The child was
ordered to kneel in class twice a week for three semesters. In that case, the teacher
was fined NT$440,000 for the mental stress inflicted.
In the United States, corporal punishment has been used since Colonial
times for disciplining children and adolescents (Hyman, 1990). Only since 1985
has the public condemned and protested the use of corporal punishment in schools
(Gaffney 1997; Hyman Stefkovich, & Taich, 2002). The use of corporal
punishment in the United States is based upon its use in Great Britain and France,
the only European nations that legally allow it (Holm, 2005). According to Benthall
(1991), who regarded the corporal punishment of students as child abuse, the
prevalence of corporal punishment in British schools is linked to an assumed
historical association with the British ruling class and its relationship to the lower
classes, a socio-political structure that Benthall believed needed further
investigation. Chianu (2000) reported cases of severe corporal punishment
administered under the guise of instilling discipline. In countries in which corporal
punishment is legal, governments can authorize the legal system to identify
incidences of child abuse and differentiate it from instilling discipline (Global
Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2010). The difference
between these two notions, however, is often vague and subject to individual
interpretation.
9
Justification of Corporal Punishment on Children and Students
Okihara (1986) reported the use of three types of corporal punishment in
terms of context and justification: English-American, Mainland, and Socialistic.
The church doctrine of cleansing the soul of sin by physical whipping, caning, or
spanking, strongly influenced the English-American type of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment was found in France, Germany, and other European countries.
Sweden was the only country that formally banned corporal punishment in schools;
it was later also banned in families (Roberts, 2000). Sweden hoped to leverage the
law banning corporal punishment of children and establish respect for all children
in schools.
The second type of corporal punishment was named Mainland because it
has continued in former colonies of mainland European countries in South America
and Central America, areas within which Roman Catholicism dominates societies.
Many countries within these areas have continued the practice of corporal
punishment in schools, although its use is decreasing as it is replaced by principles
of human rights (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
2009). No law prevents the use of corporal punishment in schools in Argentina,
Bolivia, Cuba, and Guatemala. Corporal punishment is lawful in Chile, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua, and Uruguay. Corporal punishment has been banned in schools in
Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and
Puerto Rico.
10
Socialistic principles underlie the third type of corporal punishment (Lin,
1992) which is prevalent in socialist countries in Eastern Europe, as well as in
Cuba, Libya, Mainland China, and Russia. The ban on corporal punishment in
these countries has been not based on maintaining and respecting citizen rights but
because corporal punishment runs contrary to the socialist doctrine of education.
Socialists believe that discipline plays a key role for establishing the ideal society
and that discipline results from self-discovery; it is not forced upon the individual.
Because corporal punishment is perceived as an external force, its use has been
banned (Lin, 1992).
The academic debate is largely divided into those who argue that corporal
punishment in some circumstances is effective and sometimes necessary to
discipline children (Baumrind, 1996; Larzelere, 1993) and those who assert that
there is very little benefit and rather a substantial risk of harm from using corporal
punishment on children (Gershoff, 2002; Lytton, 1997; McCord, 1997; Straus,
2001).
Meltz (2002) concluded that corporal punishment was not an effective
means for disciplining children—and doing so resulted in increasing the likelihood
that children would become less successful academically. She also linked corporal
punishment to earning less income as adults, enduring unhappier marriages, and
living unhappier lives than children who did not receive corporal punishment. The
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health of the American
11
Academy of Pediatrics (1998), identifying the use of corporal punishment as
controversial, stated that corporal punishment included physical pain administered
to another person for undesirable behavior.
Although significant concerns have been raised about the negative effects of
physical punishment and the potential for escalation into abuse, a form of physical
punishment—spanking—remains one of the strategies used most commonly to
reduce undesired behaviors. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics,
90% of American families reported having used spanking as a means of discipline.
Their described spankings include the striking of a child on the buttocks or arms
with an open hand or object to modify behavior without inflicting a physical injury.
Other means of discipline cited were “pulling a child’s hair, jerking a child by the
arm, shaking a child, and physical punishment delivered in anger with intent to
cause pain.” The Academy rejected all of the aforementioned practices as
acceptable, arguing that they threatened the health and well-being of children
(American Academy of Pediatrics, 1998). The persons authorized to administer
corporal punishment in school are usually principals (Center for Effective
Discipline, 2005). Hyman and Wise (1979) stated that teachers and psychologists
advocated preventing the need for corporal punishment by creating more interesting
schools. However, when they reported the results of a survey completed by more
than 1 million elementary school teachers, almost 80% of respondents endorsed the
administration of corporal punishment by teachers. However, again from the
12
American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), there is an official Policy Statement that
recommends banning all corporal punishment of students in the United States
because corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and
school

achievement and that it may contribute to disruptive and violent

student
behavior.
The United States remains one of the few industrialized nations that allows
corporal punishment in public schools. Given the large number of students
punished every year, the United States serves as a useful source of data on large
scale corporal punishment of students by teachers. Twenty-seven U.S. states and
the District of Columbia banned corporal punishment in schools (Andero, 2002;
Center for Effective Discipline, 2005; Hinchey; 2003): Alaska, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Twenty-three states have not yet
outlawed this practice. During the 2000 academic year, 342,038 of more than 46
million students enrolled in U.S. public schools received corporal punishment, a
figure that represented a 7% decrease from 1998. However, there were still 223,190
students nationwide in the United States that received corporal punishment at least
once in the 2006-2007 school year, according to data from the “Civil Rights Data
Collection 2006” (US Department of Education, 2006). Of those punished, 78%
13
were boys and 21% were girls. While corporal punishment is legal in 21 states, it is
used more heavily in some states than others. Texas has the highest number of
students subjected to corporal punishment, 49,197. Mississippi has 7.5% of
schoolchildren paddled at least once. Hyman (1990) reported that in more than 200
U.S. cities, including 30 or more large cities, local school districts banned corporal
punishment. Research found that physical punishment is more common in
kindergarten through grade 8 than in high schools, more common in rural than in
urban schools, more common among males than females, and more common
among working-class children than among middle-class or upper class children.
The lowest incidence of corporal punishment occurs in states and school districts
that have outlawed it use (Roy, 2001).
Legality of Corporal Punishment of Students
Given the relatively recent change in legal status of corporal punishment of
student by teachers in Taiwan (Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, 2006), it is pertinent to
review the legal status of this elsewhere in the world to allow better understanding
on the legal aspects of corporal punishment of students. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a seminal decision regarding the use of corporal punishment
(Ingraham v. Wright). Several students in middle schools and their parents filed a
class action in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1981–1988. This
lawsuit alleged that school administrators in Dade County, Florida, used excessive
corporal punishment, thereby violating a student’s rights to maintain body integrity.
14
The court ruled that disciplinary punishment was excessive and disproportionate to
the related offenses. The United States Supreme Court, however, held that the
provision of cruel and usual provision in the Eighth Amendment did not apply to
corporal punishment used in schools to maintain student discipline. The Court
agreed that the case included aspects of liberty, but the justices ruled that the
administration of corporal punishment did not deny due process or require notice of
a hearing before its administration. The Court maintained that the openness of
public schools, the supervision of schools within communities, and the legal
limitation on corporal punishment obviated the need for the constitutional
protections sought by the petitioners in this case.
Legal systems in countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and the
United States have general guidelines that define acceptable corporal punishment:
(a) the motive must be the correction of errant behavior instead of retaliation; (b)
the intensity of corporal punishment must correspond to the student’s age, physical
condition, gender, and emotional state; and (c) only appropriate tools may be used.
In addition, the following conditions limit the use of administering punishment: (a)
students must receive a warning as a first resort; (b) teachers should try other
means of discipline before resorting to corporal punishment; (c) a suitable third
party must be present during the administration of punishment; and (d) a post-
punishment report must be submitted (Chin, 1989). School officials who deviate
from these policies could be subject to legal action.
15
These same guidelines are very similar to those for the educational system
in Taiwan. As noted earlier, corporal punishment in K-12 was prohibited by the
Ministry of Education starting in 1947. In 1949, a directive from the Ministry of
Education stipulated that the person administering the punishment and the school
principal were subject to punitive measures if they were guilty of administering
corporal punishment to a student. The nation of Taiwan as a whole, however,
tacitly endorses corporal punishment, and corporal punishment remains a prevalent
practice by teachers, and parents (China Post, 2004; Humanistic Educational
Foundation, 2004; Taiwan Headlines, 2000). Worldwide, corporal punishment in
schools has declined, and an increasing number of states in the United States have
supported its elimination (Human Rights Watch, 2008). The Humanistic
Educational Foundation believes that educational authorities in Taiwan could learn
from corporal punishment practices in countries that have changed their attitudes
and have adopted efforts to eliminate this form of punishment (Humanistic
Educational Foundation, 2005). Finally, on December 12, 2006, corporal
punishment of students by teachers officially became illegal.
The Problem
Corporal punishment of students by teachers was banned in Taiwan. The
Ministry of Education prohibited the practice by teachers in 1968, and the practice
was declared by the Taiwanese legislature to be illegal in December 2006.
However, the practice was still prevalent according to several surveys of students
16
and parents (HEF 2005, HEF 2009). Incidents were often well publicized by the
press and always sparked public outcry and impassioned discussions (China Post
2009). The use of corporal punishment by teachers has always been a divisive
topic, with many supporting the practice because it is supposed to improve
students’ behavior but with many believing corporal punishment damages children.
Aims of This Study
Although the subject was highly controversial and visible, no study to date
in Taiwan objectively and quantitatively examined the relationship between
corporal punishment of students in Taiwanese schools and the variables of student
gender, school level, school location, types of corporal punishment, student
academic performance, and the students’ emotional reaction to the punishments.
This study analyzed archived data collected by the HEF Taiwan from 1,311
students in 2004 (HEF, 2005). Descriptive statistics were used to report results
regarding the selected variables of each relevant survey item.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The objective of this study was to examine the corporal punishment of
grade 1–9 students by teachers in Taiwan in the following areas:

1. The statistical relationships between the frequency and nature of corporal
punishments and demographic variables such as school level (elementary
versus middle), student gender, and school location (city versus county)
17
2. The statistical relationship between the students’ academic performance and
whether they were punished and how often they were punished.
3. Do the students punished for academic performance reasons have more
negative emotional reactions than students punished for other reasons?

This study was important, for few research studies directly surveyed the
students who received corporal punishment. Identifying and understanding
relationships among the selected factors addressed in this study may provide useful
insights about the extent and effect of corporal punishment to provide a foundation
for developing strategies to mitigate its use. Identifying the relationships between
the use of corporal punishment and each variable would hopefully lead to a basis
for developing equitable policies and practices regarding strategies for coping with
students’ misbehaviors and for creating safer school environments. The findings of
this study may help support educators to address the needs of students and teachers
more effectively, such as changes in educational practices to encourage and explore
the use of more humane methods for maintaining orderly classrooms. This
objective analysis and report would hopefully lead to the acknowledgment of the
prevailing corporal punishments of students in schools by teachers, and perhaps
lead to appropriate intervention measures that create less violent classroom
management and student discipline tactics, ultimately resulting in a less threatening
learning environment for the students and the teachers.
18
Research Questions
The study seeks to address the following research questions (RQ):

1. To what extent does the frequency or nature of corporal punishments
differ by school level, student gender, and school location?
2. To what degree does academic performance determine why and how
often a student is punished?
3. To what extent do students have negative emotional reactions to being
punished because of academic performance?

The Humanistic Education Foundation: Studies and Agendas
Archived data analyzed in this study were based upon a prior study
designed and conducted by the Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF), which
also administered the survey and collected the data in Taiwan. HEF is a non-profit
organization in Taiwan dedicated to identifying problems in contemporary
education, promoting alternative educational ideas, and working toward achieving
social and political reform within the context of the purpose and practices of
education (HEF, 2010). HEF strives to minimize the use of corporal punishment by
educating the public via a monthly magazine, a complaint hotline, a resource center
that includes a website, digital discussion boards, a wide range of educational
books, audiocassettes, and videocassettes; by sponsoring conferences; and by
lobbying so that the Ministry of Education addresses the use of corporal
19
punishment and influences the nation’s teacher education programs. HEF maintains
that corporal punishment adversely affects student learning as well as the
emotional, intellectual, and social well-being of students. HEF argues that schools
should provide all students with knowledge and opportunity to achieve and schools
need to ensure that appropriate conditions exist in all classrooms. HEF expects that
ending the use of corporal punishment to result in improved student performance,
increased attendance, better student attitudes, and improved health.
Limitations
All data collected by HEF were self-reported by students, and many were
young students from elementary schools. Their recollection of the use of corporal
punishment or the accuracy of their recollections could be suspect.
A marked transition occurs in Taiwan schools for students whenever
students enter grade 7. Higher-achieving seventh graders enroll in college prep
schools. Lower-achieving students often attend schools prepare students to
complete vocational programs. A large number of higher-achieving students
transfer to the same middle school. Lower-achieving students transfer to a much
wider range of schools; that is, higher-achieving students enroll in many of the
same middle schools, but lower-achieving students scatter to different schools as
seventh graders. It is unclear whether this transition and distribution of lower-
achieving students affected the analysis of the data and the findings of this
dissertation.
20
The HEF data were collected annually, so each set of data was cross-
sectional. There was no attempt or desire from HEF to specifically identify and
correlate results from the same students and schools in order to conduct a
longitudinal study. In fact, starting in 2007, HEF only surveyed middle school
students.
The data precluded information contributed from teachers or administrators.
The complete survey instrument administered by HEF consisted of 42 questions.
This dissertation will analyze survey items related only to corporal punishment.
Delimitations
All text and data related to this research were written in Chinese. The author
of this dissertation, fluent in Chinese, translated the original HEF text and related
information into English; nevertheless, the translation may express slightly
different, although unintended, meanings from the HEF text.
The sample in the HEF study consisted of 1,311 students. Data were
collected from students in 62 middle schools and 159 primary schools in Taiwan
during 2004. Beyond the data listed in this study, HEF provided relatively little
information regarding their school selection rationale and process.
The archived data used in this study were related to the use of corporal
punishment in Taiwan during a seven-month period (September 2003–June 2004).
Assumptions
This study was based upon the following assumptions:
21
• Student responses to all survey items were based upon reliable
recollections regarding the use of corporal punishment.
• Data collected from respondents were accurately entered into the HEF
database
• Survey items were unbiased.
• Administration of the survey was consistent to the best of the ability of
the HEF volunteers.

Definition of Terms
Corporal punishment (CP): The intentional application of physical pain as a
method of changing behavior. It includes a wide variety of methods such as
hitting, slapping, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, choking, using
various objects (wooden paddles, belts, sticks, pins, or others), assuming
painful body postures, using excessive exercise drills, or denying the use of
lavatory facilities (Bauer, Dubanoski, & Yamanchi, 1990). However, in this
study, corporal punishment also includes making the students hit each other
and performing menial labor.

Physical punishment: This is synonymous with corporal punishment.

Elementary school: A school in Taiwan consisting of grades 1–6. In addition to
English, art, music, and social studies, students study algebra, geometry,
basic biology, physics, and chemistry (Ministry of Education, 2010).
22

Middle school: A school in Taiwan consisting of grades 7–9 and the final years of
compulsory school attendance. The key goal of a middle school is preparing
students to pass the national high school entrance examination, which is
administered at the end of grade 9 (Ministry of Education, 2010).

City schools: Schools within the cities of Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung.

County schools: Schools within the counties of Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung
but outside of the cities of Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung.

Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview
of the use of corporal punishment, presents the problem, and introduces the study.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature regarding corporal punishment and related topics
and presents a brief historical summary of the use of corporal punishment by
teachers on students. Chapter 3 describes the research design, including the
instrumentation, sample, data collection, and data analysis methods. Chapter 4
presents the findings and an analysis of the data to each research question. Chapter
5 summarizes the study and its findings, presents conclusions, and offers
recommendations.
23

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature on corporal punishment in relation to the
school level, student gender, and school location. It is followed by a review of the
literature on students being punished for their academic performance and students’
emotional reactions to being physically punished by teachers.
Understanding the frequency of punishment and the demographic attributes
of the students such as gender, grade, and location (city versus county) allows
educators to better pinpoint where the punishments are most prevalent. This allows
administrators, policies makers, and teacher educators to design more effective
measures to minimize punishment to stay compliance to the law and to avoid costly
litigation brought by parents of the students punished. This chapter reviews many
studies that associates corporal punishment of students to attributes of the schools
and of the students to better understand which of the attributes indicators for the
punishments.
Since many students in Taiwan think that they are punished because of their
academic performance, which is different from reasons given by teachers for
physically punishing students, it is important to examine whether students are
24
indeed punished for their academic performance. This chapter reviews existing
literature that include academic performance as one of the reasons for teachers to
physically punish students, and also literature that describes how students
emotionally react to being physically punished.
Research on Corporal Punishment in Taiwan Schools
Research in Taiwan schools focused principally on examining student
attitude and perceptions toward corporal punishment in terms of their position
towards the practice, and not as a direct reaction to being punished. Chen, Hung,
and Chen (1980) surveyed 1,073 teachers, 1,111 parents, and 4,582 students to
investigate attitudes toward corporal punishment in students from 20 schools. The
majority of teachers, parents, and students in this study (91% of teachers, 85% of
parents, and 84% of students) recorded support for using corporal punishment as
long as the persons punished were not seriously hurt. Relatively few sample
members (5% of teachers, 3% of parents, and 7% of students) endorsed banning
corporal punishment. Findings revealed that many teachers (43%), parents (71%),
and students (70%) endorsed persuasion as the best method for correcting a
student’s misbehavior, but teachers scored lowest for supporting persuasion. The
percent of teachers (24%) who endorsed depriving students of their rights was the
highest while parents recorded scores of 10% and students scored 7%. In a survey
of 1,923 parents by Lin and Wang (1995), 72% of parents regarded banning
corporal punishment as unreasonable.
25
This is a large gap between the teachers and students in regard to why they
think corporation punishment was administered. Chen et al. (1980) found that at
least 41% of the students surveyed believed that corporal punishment was
administered because of their negative attitude toward learning. The majority of
teachers, however, disagreed; 85% of teachers stated that corporal punishment was
administered to correct student misconduct. To determine the rationale for
administering corporal punishment on children in a society which considered it
acceptable, Lin (1992) surveyed 276 students and 87 high school teachers.
Teachers identified several conditions to justify administering corporal punishment
to students: (1) violating the rights of other students (e.g., disrupting classroom
order, disturbing the peace, bullying classmates), (2) acting immorally such as
lying or stealing, (3) failing to complete assignments or lacking satisfactory
academic achievement, (4) expressing contempt for seniors (e.g., insulting,
retorting), and (5) disobeying regulations (e.g., tardiness, absence from class,
improper dress). Students reported that unsatisfactory academic performance
accounted for the corporal punishment they received (e. g., poor academic
performance, submitting assignments late).
Corporal Punishment and Student Demographics
Mainland China and Korea
Kim, Kim, and Park (2000) compared incidences of violence by parents, by
peers, and by teachers in China and Korea, seeking to identify risk factors related to
26
violence. In China, Kim surveyed students in grades 4–6, 238 children in Shanghai,
and 245 children in Yanji. More than 50% of the teachers in China admitted
administering corporal punishment. Among all punishments in China that Kim
identified, 28% were labeled minor and 4% were labeled serious. In Korea, 62% of
the teachers surveyed reported administering corporal punishment. Among the
punishments in Korea that Kim identified, 9% were labeled minor, and 44% were
labeled serious. Koreans administered corporal punishment for more serious
offenses; the Chinese punished more minor infractions, even though Chinese law
forbids corporal punishment. Korea, however, still permits corporal punishment in
schools. The administration of corporal punishment differed between teachers in
rural and urban areas: More punitive corporal punishment was administered in
urban areas, but more serious incidences of violence occurred in rural areas. Males
committed more serious acts of violent corporal punishment than females.
Israel
Many studies investigated school violence and the mistreatment of students
in relation to the age and gender of students. Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, and
Khoury-Kassabri (2002) found that the mistreatment of students in Israel differed
depending on student gender. Among students in grades 7–11, male students
reported receiving four times as many kicking or punching (7.3%) from staff
members than female students received from staff members (1.8%). Males (13.3%)
also reported that staff members grabbed or shoved them more than three times as
27
frequently as they grabbed or shoved female students (3.7%). Children in grades 4–
6 were twice as likely as high school students to report incidences of pinching
(9.9%) or slapping (4.9%) by school staff members. By examining the results from
two studies by Benbenishty, Zeira, & Astor (2002) and Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor,
& Khoury-Kassabri (2002), younger school children from 4
th
to 6
th
grade were
found to be subjected to more incidents of physical abuse by teachers than students
in 7
th
to 11
th
grade.
United States
Strauss and Stewart (1999) examined the relationship between corporal
punishment administered in the United States by parents and the age of the
children. Findings indicated that the rate of corporal punishment increased during
infancy until aged 2 years, remained stable for children aged 3–5 years, and
decreased steadily from aged 5–17 years.
Gregory (1995) and Shaw and Braden (1990) investigated ethnicity and
gender in seeking to determine whether schools were administering disproportional
punishment based upon gender, race, or other factors. Gregory (1995) analyzed
data from a 1994 U.S. Office for Civil Rights study, which included 286,539 cases
of physical discipline that affected more than 25 million children. The results
indicated that males accounted for 82% of the incidences of corporal punishment.
Ethnicity, race, and gender were examined, but not student age or grade placement.
Shaw and Braden (1990) found a statistically significant, although weak,
28
correlation (.19, p = > .01) between gender and corporal punishment. An
insignificant correlation (.10, p = > .05) was found between the frequency of
administering corporal punishment and race. Results of these studies clearly
indicated that female students received corporal punishment less frequently.
The Florida State Department of Education completed a large-scale analysis
of school discipline in 1995. The primary data source was a random sample of
43,397 students in grades 6–12 in Florida public schools during the 1992–1993
school year. The results confirmed findings from previous studies: Males received
more corporal punishment than females (78% and 22%, respectively). This study
did report results based upon grade level (see Table 1) and data indicated that older
students received less corporal punishment than younger students, a finding similar
to the two studies by Benbenishty et al. (2002). There have been annual reports by
the State on Florida on corporal punishment, but none of them break down the
number of punishments base on student grade level and the more recent report only
base on ethnicity and no longer include data on gender and grade level (Florida
Department of Education, 2010).

29
Table 1. Incidence of Corporal Punishment by Grade

Grade Number of students punished
6 2,907
7 3,194
8 2,852
9 1,613
10 1,137
11 804
12 664
Total 13,171

Note. From Florida School Discipline Study: 1994 Juvenile Justice Reform Act., A
Report to the Florida Legislature, 1995. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED384981

Corporal punishment administered to students in Florida resulted from three
principal sources: (a) minor misconduct (22%), (b) aggressive behavior (43%), and
(c) disrespect of authority (29%) (Florida School Discipline Study: 1994, 1995).
The remaining 16% of occurrences of corporal punishment resulted from a wide
range of factors, including the lack of academic performance, which ranked second
highest, although this study did not address substandard academic achievement
factor as a reason for administering of corporal punishment.
Zimbabwe
Leach and Machakanja (2000) examined gender-specific corporal
punishment, investigating the abuse of female students in four junior secondary
schools in Zimbabwe. Three schools were co-educational; only females attended
the fourth school. Among 89 females interviewed from the three co-educational
schools, 85 (96%) females reported receiving a physical beating by a teacher;
30
among 59 male students interviewed, 57 (97%) reported receiving a physical
beating by a teacher. Overall, females throughout Zimbabwe received more
punishment than males because society regards females as having a lower
socioeconomic status. According to Leach, females learn to act obediently and
passively. Family and societal structures favor boys, so girls receive blamed and
punishment more frequently than boys. Despite the government directive that
prohibits caning girls, Leach (2000) found that both females and males receive
corporal punishment. Leach did not examine the incidence of corporal punishment
based upon grade levels, although his sample included students residing in rural
and urban areas.
Egypt
Youssef, Attia, and Kamel (1998) studied the association between corporal
punishment and student age and gender in middle schools and high schools in
seven educational zones in Alexandria, Egypt. Although the Egyptian government
outlawed the use of corporal punishment in the nation’s schools, out of 2,401
students, 1,581 (66%) in this study reported receiving corporal punishment. Among
the punished students, 67% were males, 60.4% attended middle schools, and 39.6%
attended high schools. These results were consistent with findings in other studies
where male students are punished more than female students, and older students are
punished less than younger students.
31
Surveys of Taiwanese Students Regarding Corporal Punishment
A master’s thesis at the National Chung Cheng University, Department and
Graduate Institute of Criminology (Shiao, 2008) partially focused on the variables
addressed by this dissertation. The study focused on 5
th
and 6
th
grade students in
Chiayi County, a rural area in the south of Taiwan. The study included 19 schools
with 1,108 resulting surveys. The most prevalent reason for the students being
punished was misbehaving (59%), followed by academic performance (22.4%).
The most common form of corporal punishment was a direct strike by the teacher
(48.7%), but the least desirable type of punishment was putting heavy weight stress
on the body such as squatting. The study found that 79% of the students were
physically punished, but 77% of them would not impart corporal punishment if
they should become a teacher. A counterintuitive result from this study was that
statistically significant relation between a student’s support of human rights and the
student’s support of the use of corporal punishment. This study did not include
other important demographic factors such as rural versus urban school locations or
gender, and the student grade levels were limited. There was no attempt to examine
the correlation between corporal punishment and academic performance, though it
did have a large sample size of over 2,000 students.
A corporal punishment study in Taiwan involving 775 primary school
students in higher grade levels was conducted (Chang, 2007) looking at the
relationship between the students’ awareness of Zero Corporal Punishment policy
32
and learning attitudes in Tainan County. The study found a positive correlation
between the students’ Zero Corporal Punishment awareness and learning attitudes,
and the correlation was stronger for girls than boys. The students in larger schools
had the highest Zero Corporal Punishment awareness, followed by small schools,
while students of medium sized schools had the lowest awareness. Although this
was a fairly large survey directed at students on corporal punishment, it did not
address the relationships between demographics factors and punishment frequency,
the student’s reasons for being punished, or the students’ emotional reaction to
being punished.
Another similar study on the Zero Corporal Punishment policy awareness
was conducted with high school students in Taipei city (Lui, 2008). A sample of
1,560 general educational and vocational students from both public schools and
private schools in Taipei City participated in it. The results indicated that an
atmosphere of zero corporal punishment was perceived by more than 80% of senior
high school students. The awareness of zero corporal punishment was higher with
female students than with male students, higher for vocational senior high school
students than general educational students, and lower in 11
th
grade students than
other grade students. More than 72% of the students experienced positive
disciplinary measures (versus punitive measure) by teachers, but female senior high
school students experienced it more than male students. However, 52% students
still reported some teachers using coercive disciplinary measures: detention, verbal
33
insults, and physical punishment. The results also showed that the awareness of
zero corporal punishment for senior high school students and their opinions toward
teachers’ positive disciplinary actions were positively correlated. The perception of
zero corporal punishment for senior high school students was a valid predictor for
the opinions of recent teachers’ positive disciplinary actions. Although this was a
fairly large survey directed at students on corporal punishment, it did not address
the relationship between demographic factors and punishment frequency since it
was conducted only in the largest urban area in Taiwan. The students’ reasons for
being punished and the students’ emotional reaction to being punished were also
not examined.
There was one study on 1,006 5
th
and 6
th
grade students’ perception of
corporal punishment in Kaohsiung County (Chang, 2007). The conclusion of this
study was that the respondents were identified with the types and effects of
corporal punishment and acceptable disciplinary approaches. The majority of the
respondents regarded verbal warning, verbal demand by the teachers for finishing
unfinished homework, and more take-home assignments as effective ways of
discipline. This study was another perception and awareness one that did not
directly correlate demographics factors with punishment frequency, the students’
reasons for being punished, and the students’ emotional reaction to being punished.
However, it did show that students did not prefer corporal punishment as a way for
teachers to discipline students.
34
Academic Performance and Corporal Punishment
According to the 2008 Human Rights Watch report, the main use of
corporal punishment in US schools was for minor infractions, such as having a shirt
untucked, being tardy (late to class or to school), or talking in class or in the
hallway, eating or drinking in class, sleeping in class, walking on the wrong side of
the hallway, running in the hallway, talking back to a teacher, not turning in
homework, not having a belt in violation of the dress code, and going to the
restroom without permission. Some students were subjected to corporal punishment
for more serious infractions such as fighting, setting off firecrackers in school, and
getting drunk on a field trip. An exception not related to behavioral reasons was a
school in Texas where coaches paddled student athletes for bad grades.
In the United Nations Secretary-General’s worldwide Study on Violence
against Children, physical punishment in schools was noted as one factor that
contributed to absenteeism, dropping out, and lack of motivation for academic
achievement (Pinheiro, 2006).
Corporal punishment can leave students disengaged in school, less likely to
succeed, and more likely to drop out. A Save the Children survey in 2005 of
children in South Asia found that regular beatings resulted in a loss of interest in
studies and a drop in academic performance.
A study outside of Taiwan mentioned children being physically punished
for their academic performance (Alyahria & Goodman, 2008) related to
35
involvement of teachers. However, the children were punished by their care-givers
based on school performance results supplied by the children’s teachers, and there
was no direct physical punishment of the students by their teachers.
An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) testimony at a hearing before
the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities in 2010 claimed several correlations between corporal punishment of
student and their academic performance, but the relationships are tenuous at best,
and there was no direct casualty mentioned. A statistical study of public education
in Alabama found a correlation linking corporal punishment in schools to drop-out
rates. The study was by Sandra de Hotman (1997), titled “Dissertation: A
Comparison of School Systems in Alabama Using Corporal Punishment and Not
Using Corporal Punishment on Selected Demographic Variables.” An unpublished
document on file with Human Rights Watch, it found a statistically significant
correlation between districts that use corporal punishment and higher dropout rates.
There was a study on the correlation between academic performance and
corporal punishment in the United States (Sheffield-Coley, 2009). The purpose of
this study was to determine differences in student gender and ethnicity/race in the
use of corporal punishment, office discipline referrals, in-school suspensions, and
out-of-school suspensions on middle school students' achievement
(English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) in a Georgia
school district. Data were analyzed using Pearson r correlation to determine
36
whether an inverse relationship existed among the variables. For corporal
punishment, the hypothesis was supported for different subjects in different
semesters in relation to gender and ethnicity. Overall, a significant correlation was
found between corporal punishment and ethnicity/race but not for gender. This
study showed some correlation between corporal punishment and academic
performance, but the correlation varied by subject area and by semester, and thus
was inconclusive. There was also no indication that students were physically
punished for their lack of academic performance.
Emotional Reaction of Students to Corporal Punishment
United States
Students interviewed in the 2008 Human Rights Watch report spoke of the
psychological degradation caused by the punishment. Sean D., an 18-year-old boy,
from the Mississippi Delta said, “You could get a paddling for almost anything. I
hated it. It was used as a way to degrade, embarrass students”
Dr. Shirley, the former member of the school board in Jackson, Mississippi,
a district that abolished corporal punishment, noted that students reacted violently
to being physically punished. Her opinion was that being physically punished in
front of peers was humiliating and made students very angry. Both students and
teachers interviewed saw links between corporal punishment and bullying or peer
aggression. Both students and teachers attested to being violent or observing
37
violence between students as a result of the students being physically punished
(Human Rights Watch, 2008).
Taiwan
Based on a large set of data gathered by the government, a study on
students’ violence against teachers in Taiwanese schools (Chen & Astor, 2009)
reported that 30.1% of Taiwanese students reported being involved in at least one
aggressive act against their school teachers. A majority of perpetrators reported
they were involved in violence against teachers because of a teacher’s unreasonable
requirements (55.7%), teacher’s unfair treatment (48.6%), and disagreement with
teachers (41.6%), being punished (23.2%), and being provoked by teachers
(11.5%). These findings suggested the majority of student violence against teachers
tended to be impulsive or emotional reactions to some perceived provocation,
frustration, or unfair treatments. Based on this study, it seemed to behoove
Taiwanese teachers, for their own safety from violent student behavior, to improve
teacher/student relationships by refraining from corporal punishment.
Mainland China
A study on corporal punishment of students in the school setting was
conducted in Mainland China (Liang, 2009) where 528 students from a college and
a technical secondary school in Hebei province were surveyed by an anonymous,
self-administered questionnaire. Some 57.6% of students reported having been
corporally punished at least one time with one of four forms of corporal
38
punishment by teachers before the age of 16. Males had a significantly higher
overall incident rate than females (66.4% vs. 46.6%). There was no statistically
significant association between a history of childhood corporal punishment and the
three other demographic indicators, which included residence region (rural and
non-rural area), parental education level, or single or multiple children family.
Compared with their peers who had not experienced childhood corporal
punishment by teachers, the students who had two or more forms of corporal
punishments by teachers showed significantly higher rates of obsessiveness,
depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. They also had
higher rates in sadness, drunkenness, physical fighting, and smoking. Although
China and Taiwan are ethnically, linguistically and culturally similar, there are few
significant differences in their political and economic systems in recent history, so
was inappropriate to directly apply the findings of this study to Taiwanese students.
Africa
The goal of a study in Africa by O’Neil (2009) was to qualitatively examine
students’ experience with and reaction to corporal punishment in their school
settings while in a historically violence-prone neighborhood. A total of 117
students from 5 schools (2 primary, 1 primary/secondary, 2 secondary) in the same
small town participated in the study interviews. The interview transcripts were then
coded and thematically analyzed. The results indicated that the students widely
experienced corporal punishments, with 14 out of 15 groups commenting on its
39
practice in their schools. Examples of the reasons for the punishments were
absenteeism and not doing homework, so it seemed that students were punished for
undesirable behavior, though not doing homework could also be related to
academic performance. The students were asked about their reaction to the
punishments, and some students ranked corporal punishment highest as things they
would like to change about school. Other students mentioned staying away from
school for fear of corporal punishment. Others were afraid to speak up in class for
fear of getting hit by their teacher if they said something wrong. This study
provided some insight into students’ reaction to being physically punished, but
since it was a qualitative study, there was no attempt to quantify any of the results.
India
There was a study on corporal punishment and the emotional affect on
adolescent students in India (Raikhy, 2009). Its purpose was to document corporal
punishment among adolescent students and their resulting anxiety via the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) instrument. A sample of 200 adolescents aged 12–
16 years were selected from various government-run senior secondary schools in
Ludhiana, Punjab. The study indicated that 81% of the students experienced
corporal punishment at school, and 9.50% were severely punished. Boys
experienced a higher degree of severe punishment and injuries compared to girls. A
positive statistical correlation was found between corporal punishment and anxiety
among the students. This study did not include elementary schools, the sample size
40
was relatively small, but the use of the STAI instrument could be considered for
future studies in Taiwan since there was a Chinese version of the instrument
available.

Chapter Summary
Listed below in Table 2 is a summary of the reviewed studies that are
applicable to the variables studied in this report.

41
Table 2. Literature Review Summary

Variable Author (year)
Gender Florida School Discipline Study (1995)
Benbenishty, Zeira, and Astor, (2002)
Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, and Khoury-Kassabri,
(2002)
Leach and Machakanja (2000)
Youssef, Attia, and Kamel (1998)
U.S. Department of Education (2006)

School Level Florida School Discipline Study (1995)
Benbenishty, Zeira, and Astor, (2002)
Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, and Khoury-Kassabri,
(2002)
Youssef, Attia, and Kamel (1998)

School Location Kim, Kim, and Park (2000)

Corporal Punishment and Academic
Performance
O’Neil, Killian, and Hough (2009)
Sheffield-Coley (2009)
Shiao (2008)
Chen, Lu, Hung, and Chen (1980)
Lin (1992)

Emotional Reaction to Physical Punishment Liang (2009)
Human Rights Watch (2008)
42

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the research methodology used in this study,
including a description of the sample and archived data analyzed. This study used
data collected by the Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF) in Taiwan during
2004 to examine the corporal punishments that teachers applied to students in
Taiwan schools. HEF is a grassroots advocacy organization committed to achieving
several educational goals, including the elimination of school violence and the
corporal punishment of students by teachers. Beginning in 1999, the foundation
conducted several surveys of students on a variety of subjects such as corporal
punishment, the amount of homework, time spent at school daily (HEF, 2010).
Restatement of the Problem
Corporal punishment of students by teachers is banned in Taiwan. The
Ministry of Education has prohibited the practice by teachers since 1947, and the
practice became officially illegal in December 2006.
However, the practice is still very prevalent according to surveys of
students and parents. Incidents are often well publicized by the press and always
spark public outcry and impassioned discussions. The topic is very divisive and
43
controversial. Many support the practice because it is supposed to improve student
behavior, while others believe corporal punishment is damaging to children.
Most of the students are physically punished by their teachers for
disciplinary reasons. However, a more contentious and uncommon reason, as
compared to why teachers physically punish students around the world, is that
students in Taiwan claim that they are punished for their unsatisfactory academic
performance. This claim is denied by the majority of the teachers in corporal
punishment surveys, so it is interesting to try to further examine this phenomenon.
In addition, since students worldwide are so rarely punished specifically for their
academic performance, very little is known about the effects of this practice.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to provide a scientific study on the corporal punishment
of students to quantitatively analyze and clarify the extent and effect of the
controversial practice in Taiwan. Instead of anecdotal accounts of corporal
punishment periodically appearing in the press, this study reported on corporal
punishment of Grades 1-9 students by teachers in Taiwan in the following areas:

1. The statistical relationship between the frequency of corporal
punishment and the students’ school level, gender, and the location
of the school districts.
2. The statistical relationship between corporal punishment and the
academic performance of the students.
44
3. The emotional reaction of the students punished for their academic
performance.

Research Questions
The study posed the following research questions:

1. To what extent does the frequency or nature of corporal
punishments differ by school level, student gender, and school
location?
2. To what degree does academic performance determine why and how
often a student is punished?
3. To what extent do students have negative emotional reactions to
being punished because of academic performance?

Research Design
Approach for This Study
The approach for this study was to perform a quantitative and cross-
sectional survey on students in Taiwan who were recipients of corporal
punishments by teachers. The sample should be an accurate proportional
representation of the Taiwanese student population. A well designed cross-
sectional survey questionnaire would be very helpful in determining the
relationship between the corporal punishments and the variables being studied
(Babbie, 1990).
45
Data Collection
To analyze the relationship between the frequency of corporal punishment
administered to students and their gender, grade, types of corporal punishment,
school location, academic performance, and emotional reaction, this study found
out via newspaper articles the annual surveys on the subject conducted by the HEF
in Taiwan. The data used in this study were collected by HEF in Taiwan during
2004 (HEF, 2005; for the original survey, see Appendix: HEF 2004 Corporal
Punishment Questionnaire). Data collected by HEF prior to 2004 were not included
in this study because the questionnaires administered during 1999–2000 and during
2001–2002 were not made available from HEF. Also, many questions in the
previous surveys were designed principally for use in qualitative studies. Although
the foundation revised several questions in its 2003 questionnaire to make it more
reliable, 2003 data were collected only in Taipei and included many missing
values, a common problem that existed in the data from the 1999–2003 surveys. To
ensure improvement in the quality and breadth of the data that the foundation
collected in 2004, HEF substantively revised the questionnaire to eliminate flaws in
its previous questionnaires. Data collected from the sample in the 2004 study
represented a broader geographical area and larger number of grades (both
elementary and middle schools). After 2005, HEF shifted its focus to only
surveying middle schools, and also broadened the surveys to focus on many other
46
educational topics besides corporal punishment. Thus the 2004 survey represented
the most appropriate source of data for this study.
Limitations
Because archived data were analyzed in this study, several limitations
affected their analysis. Definitions adopted for use in this study may differ from the
meanings intended by the original researchers. Definitions sometimes change,
which could result in misinterpreting survey responses, resulting in erroneous
conclusions. The interpretation of archived data could be affected by the bias of the
researchers who analyzed the data.
Perhaps the most serious limitation associated with the use of archived data
was that they represented an approximation of the types of data that a researcher
might collect firsthand for testing of the researcher’s hypotheses. In addition, a gap
may exist between the purposes for which the primary data were gathered and the
purpose of the researcher who later conducted an analysis of the data. A secondary
analysis is sometimes complicated because the researcher lacks specific data or
information related to the original study. In this study, only limited information was
available regarding sample selection and data collection, important information for
determining sources of bias and errors and threats to internal and external validity.
IRB
The authored submitted an application to the IRB, but since the study
involves secondary data, there are no IRB issues involved.
47
Sampling Method
The entire sample of the original survey consisted of 1,311, and this entire
sample is used in this study. The students were from elementary schools and
middle schools in Taiwan. Respondents were students in grades 1–9 in city and
county areas from northern, central, and southern regions in Taiwan.
Following procedures developed by the Taiwan National Development Plan
of the Taiwan Central Government, HEF conducted the study in three geographical
regions: north, central, and south. Each region varied in its culture, politics,
economic status, and natural environment. Within each of these three regions, HEF
selected one metropolitan and one county area. This division created a matrix that
included three urban and three largely rural areas in three geographic regions.
Sixty-two middle schools and 162 elementary schools were randomly selected to
try to provide a broad geographic representation. Six students were selected from
each school. Of the chosen students, approximately 98% agreed to participate.

Sample Characteristics
A total of 1,311 students participated in the research study with 17 who did
not respond (Table 3, Study Participants by Gender and School Type).

48
Table 3. Study Participants by Gender and School Type

Gender Number Percentage
Males 665 50.7%
Females 629 48.0%
Non-respondents 17 1.3%
Total students 1311 100%

School type No. of students selected to
participate in study*
Middle schools 62 27.7% 372
Elementary schools 162 72.3% 972
Total 224 100% 1344

* Six students were selected from each school.

This sample comprised of elementary and middle school students from
grade 1 to grade 9 and age ranging from 6 to 15. Students from 62 middle schools
and 159 elementary school students were surveyed for this study (Table 3). A total
of 29 (46.8%) middle schools and 68 (42.8%) elementary schools were selected
from Northern Taiwan.
As shown in Table 4, 15 middle schools and 38 elementary schools were
selected from county areas, and 14 middle schools and 30 elementary schools were
selected from major metropolitan areas. In Central Taiwan, 20 (32.3%) middle
schools and 50 (25.6%) elementary schools were selected. Among them, 5 middle
schools and 12 elementary schools were from metropolitan areas, and 10 middle
school and 32 elementary schools were from county areas. For Southern Taiwan, 8
(13%) middle schools and 17 (10.7%) elementary schools were from metropolitan
areas, and 10 middle schools and 30 elementary schools were from county areas.
49

Table 4. Sample Characteristics: School Locations

School location Middle schools Elementary schools
Taipei City 14 30
Taipei County 15 38
Taichung City 5 12
Taichung County 10 32
Koahsiung City 8 17
Koahsiung County 10 30
Total 62 159

Study Instrument
HEF 2004 Survey
The 2004 survey was the fifth iteration of the survey on the topic of
corporal punishment by HEF (see Appendix: HEF 2004 Corporal Punishment
Questionnaire), and HEF had made the effort to improve on the survey every year.
The survey starts with a Basic Student Profile section on demographics consisting
of four questions pertaining to student gender, grade level, school level, and school
location.
Survey Questions
The next section (Table 5) consists of 12 survey questions (SQs) regarding
corporal punishment situations or events in school that the students witnessed.
Students were asked (SQ 1), “Which types of punishment have you seen teachers
administer this year?” The first choice is “None.” and if the student selects this
50
answer, the surveyor would jump to SQ 10. If the student had indeed witnessed
teachers punishing students, they choose all that apply from 12 items related to
different types of punishment; e.g., “I saw teachers asking students to strike other
students as punishment,” “I saw teachers directly hitting students,” and “I saw
teachers depriving students’ basic needs (eating, drinking, resting). The last choice
was an open-ended question for the student to provide a description.
The next question examined the implements that teachers used for applying
punishment (SQ 2). Students were asked, “Which tools that teachers used when
they punished students have you seen since last semester?” This question included
seven possible responses and students were to choose all those that applied; e.g.,
“Did teachers use their hand to aggressively punish students?” and “Did you see
teachers using rulers to punish students?”
The third question is open-ended to discover the use of unusually punitive
tools or methods that teachers applied (SQ 3). Students were asked, “What are the
strangest or most unusual implements that teachers employed when punishing
students?” Students wrote brief descriptions of their observations.
The fourth question consisted of three items relating to the students’
perception of teachers administrating corporal punishment. Students were asked
(SQ 4), “During this school year, how many of your teachers used corporal
punishment? Responses were recorded using a scale of: 1 = all of them, 2 = more
than half, 3 = less than half and 4 = none.
51
Table 5. Survey Questions

No. Survey Questions
1 For this school year, what types of punishments have you observed at school? (Choose all
that apply)
2 What implements have you seen that were most frequently used by teachers to punish the
students? (Choose all that apply from )
3 Among the punishments you have seen, what are the most bizarre ones? (e.g. “Japanese
sandwich” - making the students bend to touch the ground to form a triangle with the
body, etc.). Explain briefly:
4 In this school year, how many of your teachers have physically punished students? (Only
choose 1 answer)
5 Did the school administrator or teacher obtain the approval in writing from your parent or
guardian before physically punishing you? (Only choose 1 answer – yes or no)
6 For this school year, how often have you been physically punished? (Only choose 1
answer)
7 Why do you think you were punished? (Choose all that apply)
8 Describe y our feeling when physically punished by the teacher. (Choose all that apply)
9 Describe your feeling when witnessing other students being physically punished by the
teacher. (Choose all that apply)
10 Would you punish students physically if you become a teacher some day? (Only choose 1
answer)
11 How do you think your grades are in school? (Only choose 1 answer)
12 Do you know that corporal punishment of students is against the rules? (Only choose 1
answer)

Note. See appendix for additional details. From “Questionnaire and Study,” Humanistic Education
Foundation, 2005. Retrieved March 16, 2005 from http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000335.html
52
For SQ 5, the students were asked, “Did the school administrator or teacher
obtain the approval in writing from your parent or guardian before physically
punishing you?” The choice was a yes or no answer.
SQ 6 asked, “During this school year, how often have you been punished?”
Responses were recorded using a scale of 1 = never, 2 = 1–5 times, 3 = 6–10 times,
and 4 = more than 10 times.
SQ 7 consisted of six items related to reasons why students believed that
teachers punished them. Students chose from answers such as “I was punished by
teachers due to poor academic performance” and “I was punished by teachers due
to behavioral problems.” The final answer in this question allowed students to
describe additional reasons for receiving corporal punishment.
SQ 8 examined the students’ emotional reaction to punishment. Students
were asked to express their feelings about receiving punishment, for example, “I
feel scared, shamed, and guilty” and “I feel angry and vindictive.”
The eighth question examined the affect on students who witnessed teachers
administering punishment (SQ 9) to other students. Students were asked, “When
you see other students punished by teachers, how did you feel?” The reliability of
scores for this item was 0.79. A final open-ended answer allowed students to
describe their feelings and thoughts.
The next question (SQ 10) examined the potential for transmitting the
teacher’s behavior of administering corporal punishment to students. Students were
53
asked that if they were to become teachers whether they would use corporal
punishment. The answer was yes or no.
SQ 11 asked students to rate their own academic performance as 1 = good,
2 = average, or 3 = bad.
The next question (SQ 12) investigated whether students understood the
legitimacy of a teacher physically punishing students in Taiwan. Students were
asked, “Do you know that it is not allowed for teachers to physically punish
students?” The answer choices were yes or no.
Data Analysis
Statistical Analysis
SPSS for Windows (Version 13) was used to analyze the HEF data, test null
hypotheses, and prepare tables and figures for displaying the findings. Descriptive
statistics were used to present frequencies, means, standard deviations, and
standard errors of measurement for each survey item, survey section, and group. A
chi-square test was used to test the statistical significant between the variables.
Variables
Variables for Research Question 1. The School Level variable was used as
the independent variable and the Number of Times Punished variable was used as
the dependent variable. This analysis examined the relationship between frequency
of corporal punishment of the students in elementary schools (grades 1–6) and
students in middle schools (grades 7–9). The School Level variable was used as the
54
independent variable, and the Corporal Punishment by Direct Physical Contact
variable was used as the dependent variable to test the statistical significance
between the two variables. The School Level variable was used as the independent
variable and the Corporal Punishment by Strenuous Postures or Activities variable
was used as the dependent variable to test the statistical significance between the
two variables.
The Gender variable was used as the independent variable and the Number
of Times Punished variable was used as the dependent variable to examine how the
gender of the students affects how frequently they were punished. The Gender
variable was used as the independent variable and the Corporal Punishment by
Direct Physical Contact variable was used as the dependent variable to test the
statistical significance between the two variables. The Gender variable was used as
the independent variable and the Corporal Punishment by Strenuous Postures or
Activities variable was used as the dependent variable to test the statistical
significance between the two variables.
The School Location variable was used as the independent variable and the
Number of Times Punished variable was used as the dependent variable to examine
how the gender of the students affects how frequently they were punished. The
School Location variable was used as the independent variable and the Corporal
Punishment by Direct Physical Contact variable was used as the dependent variable
to test the statistical significance between the two variables. The School Location
55
variable was used as the independent variable and the Corporal Punishment by
Strenuous Postures or Activities variable was used as the dependent variable to test
the statistical significance between the two variables.
Variables for Research Question 2. The Academic Performance as Reason
for Punishment and Academic Performance variables were used to test the
statistical significance between the two variables. This would examine whether
students who thought they were being punished for their academic performance
were indeed punished for that reason. The Number of Times Punished and
Academic Performance variables were used to test the statistical significance
between the two variables. This would examine whether students with poorer
academic performance were punished more frequently.
Variables for Research Question 3. A chi-square test was run between the
Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment variable and each of the
individual emotional reaction variables listed below. This would examine which of
the emotional reactions had a statistical significance to students who were
physically punished for their academic performance.
1. Scared, Ashamed, Self-pity
2. Angry and Vindictive
3. Deserved to Be Punished
56
4. Victim of Teacher’s Frustration
5. Teacher’s Action is Inappropriate

Chapter Summary
The HEF survey on corporal punishment of students in Taiwan was found
by the author to be the most readily available and unbiased source of data that fit
the goals and objectives of this study. These secondary data from a structured
survey were the fifth iteration designed and conducted by the HEF; both the survey
and the data collection method were improved over time. The sample size and
geographic distribution was representative of the student population in Taiwan.
SPSS was used to perform the chi-square analysis of the variables being
studied to address all the research questions.
57

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to perform a quantitative study on the
corporal punishment data gathered by the Humanistic Educational Foundation
(HEF, 2005) in Taiwan. This analysis, in comparison to the anecdotal presentation
of the data by HEF in annual press releases, provides further insight into and
understanding of the relationship between the punishments and student
demographics, student academic performance, and emotional reaction of the
students.
This study sought to answer the following research questions (RQ):
1. To what extent does the frequency or nature of corporal punishments
differ by school level, student gender, and school location?
2. To what degree does academic performance determine why and how
often a student is punished?
3. To what extent do students have negative emotional reactions to being
punished because of academic performance?
Chapter 4 is organized into three sections. The first section describes the
characteristics of the participants, the second section describes treatment of the data
58
by the author, and the third section presents the findings and analysis results that
answer the research questions.
Participant Characteristics
The survey targeted three major Taiwan municipalities and the
corresponding areas in the counties in which the municipalities were located. The
three major cities are Taipei, Taichung, and Koahsiung. Taipei is the capital of
Taiwan and is located in the north. Taichung is the largest city in central Taiwan,
and Koahsiung is the largest city in the south of Taiwan. The surrounding areas to
these cities are Taipei County, Taichung County, and Koahsiung County. The
numbers of schools surveyed and the number of resulting surveys gathered are
listed in Tables 6, 7, and 8. The original plan of the HEF was to interview
approximately 20% of all the elementary and middle schools in the target
geographies and up to six students from each school. This meant targeting 162
elementary schools and 62 middle schools, resulting in a total of 1344 students. The
end results included only 159 instead of 162 elementary schools because it was
difficult to interview students unobtrusively at three of the schools because these
schools were so small. The total number of students interviewed was 1,311 instead
of the original target of 1344.
Out of the 1,311 students, 1,202 (72%) students were from elementary
schools, and 363 (28%) students were from middle schools. In elementary schools,
137 (11%) students were in 1
st
grade, 154 (12%) were in 2
nd
grade, 152 (12%) were
59
in 3
rd
grade, 164 (13%) were in 4
th
grade, 184 (14%) were in 5
th
grade, and 155
(12%) were in 6
th
grade. In middle school, 123 (9%) students were in 7
th
grade, 128
(10%) were in 8
th
grade, and 112 (9%) were in 9
th
grade. There were many more
elementary school student participants than middle school participants due to the
large number of elementary schools in the survey geographies. Among middle
school participants, they are very evenly distributed among the three grades,
namely 123, 128, and 112 students.

Table 6. Surveyed School Locations and School Level

School location Middle schools Elementary schools
Taipei City 14 30
Taipei County 15 38
Taichung City 5 12
Taichung County 10 32
Koahsiung City 8 17
Koahsiung County 10 30
Total 62 159

Table 7. Valid Surveys by School Locations

School location Number of valid surveys Percentage (rounded)
Taipei City 303 23%
Taipei County 264 20%
Taichung City 210 16%
Taichung County 138 11%
Koahsiung City 238 18%
Koahsiung County 158 12%
Total 1311 100%

60
Table 8. Valid Surveys by Grades

Grade Valid surveys Percentage (rounded)
1st Grade 137 11%
2nd Grade 154 12%
3rd Grade 152 12%
4th Grade 164 13%
5th Grade 184 14%
6th Grade 155 12%
7th Grade 123 9%
8th Grade 128 10%
9th Grade 112 9%
Total 1309
Missing 2 <1%
Total 1311 100%

As shown in Table 9, there were 17 surveys with no gender information.
For the surveys with the gender information, 50.7% were male.
Table 9. Valid Surveys by Gender

Gender Number of students Percentage
Male 665 50.7%
Female 629 48.0%
Did not answer 17 1.3%
Total 1311 100%

Treatment of Data
The numerical data were provided by the HEF in a spreadsheet, and the
spreadsheet data were imported into SPSS for Windows (Version 13). The heading
of the spreadsheet columns became variables after being imported into SPSS. Both
the column headings and the survey were written in Chinese, and they were
61
translated into English by the author. There was an error in the original spreadsheet
data where some of the middle school students were incorrectly classified under
grades 1, 2, and 3, thus appearing as elementary school students when the data were
analyzed based on grade level instead of school level. These incorrectly coded
entries were manually correctly in SPSS.
Responses from Survey Question 1 that were not related to corporal
punishment were not included in any of the analyses. The excluded responses are
described here to provide context. There were 125 (9.5%) students who reported
that they witnessed teachers verbally insult or humiliate students in public. There
were 293 (22.4%) students who reported that they had seen teachers swear at or
verbally abuse students. There were 859 (65.6%) students who reported that
teachers increased students’ homework as a way of punishment. There were 113
(10.2%) students who reported teachers penalizing students via a fine. There were
213 (16.3%) students who witnessed teachers using isolation as punishment, such
as not allowing students to socially interact with other students, have students stand
alone in a secluded area, etc. There were 544 (41.5%) students who reported
witnessing the use of activity prohibition as punishment, and these punishments
included not allowing students to participate in school activities and detention.
There were other questions in the original HEF survey (see Appendix) that
were related to corporal punishment but not directly related to the research
62
questions for this study, so they were excluded from analysis. These excluded
survey questions are as follows:
• What implements have you seen that were most frequently used by
teachers to punish the students?
• Among the punishments you have seen, what are the most bizarre ones?
• Did the school administration or teacher obtain the approval in writing
from your parent or guardian before physically punishing you?
• Describe your feeling when witnessing other students being physically
punished by the teacher.
• Would you punish students physically if you become a teacher
someday?
• Do you know that corporal punishment of students is against the rules?

Findings and Analysis
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “To what extent does the frequency or nature of
corporal punishments differ by school level, student gender, and school location?”
Frequency of Corporal Punishment Based on School Level
Per Table 10, a total of 1209 (92.2%) valid responses out of the total of
1,311 survey responses were used for this analysis. Per Table 11, there are
63
substantial differences between the frequencies of punishment in elementary
schools versus middle schools. In middle school, a smaller percentage (19%) of
student was not punished, compared to 28.1% of elementary school students. There
is a higher percentage among elementary schools students who were punished
fewer than 5 times (50.8%) compared to middle school students (33.6%). However,
there are more middle schools students (17.8%) punished 5–10 times than
elementary school students (10.6%). For students punished more than 10 times, it
was 29.6% among middle school students, compared to only 10.6% among
elementary school students. There is a statistically significant relationship, χ
2
(3, N
= 1,209) = 90.21, p < .001, between school level and number of times the students
were punished.

Table 10. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished by School Level

Surveys for Number of Times
Punished by School Level
Valid Missing Total
Number 1209 102 1311
Percent 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%

64
Table 11. School Level and Number of Times Punished

Times Punished
School Level
Not
punished
Fewer than
5 times
5 to 10
times
More than
10 times
Total

% within School Level 28.1% 50.8% 10.6% 10.6% 100.0% Elementary
n = 861 % within Times Punished

78.6% 78.9% 59.5% 46.9% 71.2%
% within School Level 19.0% 33.6% 17.8% 29.6% 100.0% Middle
n = 348 % within Times Punished

21.4% 21.1% 40.5% 53.1% 28.8%
% within School Level 25.5% 45.8% 12.7% 16.0% 100.0% Total
N = 1209
% within Times Punished

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

As to the types of corporal punishments (as shown in Table 12), the two
most common types are direct striking of the students by the teachers and students
having to assume a physically strenuous posture (such as a half-squat) or activity
(such as running laps on the athlete field). The main focus of this study was on
these two types since they have caused the most bodily harm to students, and thus
are the most controversial and have received the most focus and exposure by the
HEF and the news media.

65
Table 12. Types of Corporal Punishment

Types of corporal punishment
Number of
Students
Affected
%
Direct physical contact of student by teacher (slapping, striking, etc.)

947 72.3
Students told by teacher to strike each other

163 12.4
Students having to assume physically exhausting postures or activities
(half-squatting, running laps, etc.)

888 67.9
Menial labor (cleaning bathrooms, sweeping floors, etc.)

386 29.5
Denial of biological activities (use of bathroom, lunch, etc.)

117 8.9

As shown in Table 13, there was a significant relationship between school
level and punishments via Direct Physical Contact. A higher percentage of middle
students were directly struck (80.5%) compared to the 69% in elementary school.
There was a significant relationship between school level and frequency of direct
striking with: χ
2
(2, N = 1,310) = 17.53, p < .001 (see Table 13).

66
Table 13. School Level and Corporal Punishment by Direct Physical Contact

Direct Physical Contact
School Level No Yes Total

% within School Level 31.0% 69.0% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 79.9% 68.2% 71.5%
% of Total 22.1% 49.3% 71.5%
Elementary
n = 936

% within School Level 19.5% 80.5% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 20.1% 31.8% 28.5%
% of Total 5.6% 23.0% 28.5%
Middle
n = 374

% within School Level 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
Total
N = 1310

As shown in Table 14, for corporal punishments via exhaustive bodily
postures or physical activities, middle schools also administered more with 75.3%
versus 65% in elementary schools. This relationship was also statistically
significant: χ
2
(2, N = 1,307) = 13.99, p < .001.

67
Table 14. School Level and Corporal Punishment by Strenuous Postures or
Activities

Strenuous Postures or Activities
School Level
No Yes Total

% within School Level 35.0% 65.0% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 78.0% 68.4% 71.5%
% of Total 25.0% 46.4% 71.5%
Elementary
n = 934

% within School Level 24.7% 75.3% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 22.0% 31.6% 28.5%
% of Total 7.0% 21.5% 28.5%
Middle
n = 373

% within School Level 32.1% 67.9% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 32.1% 67.9% 100.0%
Total
N = 1307

Gender and Number of Times Punished
This analysis answers the question of whether gender played a role in how
often a student was punished. As shown in Table 15, a total of 1,201 (99.3%) valid
responses were used. Table 16 shows that among female students, a higher
percentage was not punished at all (30.9%) compared to 20.2% among male
students. For students punished fewer than 5 times, the percentages were more
similar, with 47.7% for female students and 44.1% for male students. Similarly, for
students punished between 5–10 times, the percentages were similar, with 12.2%
for female students and 12.9% for male students. However, for students punished
more than 10 times, the percentage among female students were 8.9% compared to
22.8% for male students. As a result, there was a statistically significant
68
relationship between gender and the number of times a student was punished (χ
2
(3,
N = 1,201) = 50.47, p < .001.)

Table 15. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished by Gender

Surveys for Number of Times
Punished by Gender
Valid Missing Total
Number 1201 8 1209
Percent 99.3% 0.7% 100.0%

Table 16. Number of Times Punished and Gender

Gender
Number of Times Punished
Male Female Total

None (n = 305) % within Gender
20.2% 30.9% 25.4%
Fewer than 5 (n = 552) % within Gender
44.1% 47.9% 46.0%
5 to 10 (n = 151) % within Gender
12.9% 12.2% 12.6%
More than 10 (n = 193) % within Gender
22.8% 8.9% 16.1%

Total (N = 1201) % within Gender
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 17 shows the results regarding direct physical contact and gender, and
Table 18 shows the results of strenuous postures and activities and gender. There
are no statistically significant relationships for these types of punishment and
gender. Both male and female students were as likely to be punished by either types
of punishment.

69
Table 17. Number of Times Punished With Direct Physical Contact by Gender

Direct Physical Contact
Gender
No Yes Total

% within Gender 27.5% 72.5% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 51.8% 51.2% 51.4%
% of Total 14.1% 37.2% 51.4%
Male
n = 665

% within Gender 27.0% 73.0% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 48.2% 48.8% 48.6%
% of Total 13.1% 35.5% 48.6%
Female
n = 629

% within Gender 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%
Total
N = 1294

Table 18. Number of Times Punished With Strenuous Postures or Activities by
Gender

Strenuous Postures or Activities
Gender
No Yes Total

% within Gender 34.1% 65.9% 100.0%
% within Bodily Positions That Lead to Fatigue 55.3% 49.5% 51.4%
% of Total 17.5% 33.8% 51.4%
Male
n = 663

% within Gender 29.1% 70.9% 100.0%
% within Bodily Positions That Lead to Fatigue 44.7% 50.5% 48.6%
% of Total 14.2% 34.5% 48.6%
Female
n = 628

% within Gender 31.7% 68.3% 100.0%
% within Bodily Positions That Lead to Fatigue 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 31.7% 68.3% 100.0%
Total
N = 1291

70
School Location and Number of Times Punished
The school districts in Taiwan are divided into those that are in a major city
and those that are in the county (area surrounding a major city). This analysis
examined whether school location played a role in how frequently students are
physically punished. The school location variables were recoded into a new
variable of School Location, with 0 = city school districts and 1 = county school
districts. As shown in Table 19, a total of 1,209 valid responses were used in the
analysis.
For the number of times the students were punished, there were only minor
differences among city versus county school as shown in Table 20. For students not
punished in City schools, the percentage was 27%, and it was 24.4% in county
schools. For students punished fewer than 5 times among City schools, the
percentage was 45.9%, almost identical to the 45.8% among county schools. For
students punished 5–10 times in city schools, the percentage was 13.2% and it was
12.3% in county schools. For students punished more than 10 times in City schools,
the percentage was 14%, and it was 17.5% among county schools. There is not a
statistically significant relationship between School Location (city versus county)
and the frequency of physical punishment, with χ
2
(3, N = 1,209) = 3.30, p < .005.

71
Table 19. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished and School Location

Surveys for Number of Times
Punished by School Location
Valid Missing Total
Number 1209 0 1209
Percent 100.0% 0% 100.0%

Table 20. Number of Times Punished and School Location

School District Location
Number of Times Punished
City County Total

None (n = 308) % within Rural District
27.0% 24.4% 25.5%
Fewer than 5 (n = 554) % within Rural District
45.9% 45.8% 45.8%
5 to 10 (n = 153) % within Rural District
13.2% 12.3% 12.7%
More than 10 (n = 194) % within Rural District
14.0% 17.5% 16.0%

Total (N = 1209) % within Rural District
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

As shown in Table 21, students in city school districts reported more
punishments by direct physical contact of 77.8% compared to those in county
schools with 64.9%. There is a statistically significant relationship of χ
2
(2, N =
1,310) = 26.32, p < .001.

72
Table 21. Direct Physical Contact and School Location

Direct Physical Contact
City versus County School Locations
No Yes Total

% within City versus County School Locations 22.2% 77.8% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 46.0% 61.7% 57.3%
% of Total 12.7% 44.6% 57.3%
City
n = 751

% within City versus County School Locations 35.1% 64.9% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 54.0% 38.3% 42.7%
% of Total 15.0% 27.7% 42.7%
County
n = 559

% within City versus County School Locations 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
Total
N = 1310

Table 22 shows the results of using strenuous bodily postures or exhaustive
physical activities as student corporal punishments by city and county schools.
There was no statistically significant relationship with χ
2
(1, N = 1,307) = 5.99, p <
.005.

73
Table 22. Strenuous Postures or Activities and School Location

Strenuous Postures or Activities
City versus County School Locations
No Yes Total

% within Urban versus Rural School Locations 29.3% 70.7% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 52.5% 59.7% 57.4%
% of Total 16.8% 40.6% 57.4%
City
n = 750

% within Urban versus Rural School Locations 35.7% 64.3% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 47.5% 40.3% 42.6%
% of Total 15.2% 27.4% 42.6%
County
n = 557

% within Urban versus Rural School Locations 32.1% 67.9% 100.0%
% within Strenuous Postures or Activities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 32.1% 67.9% 100.0%
Total
N = 1307

Since there is a statistically significant relationship with the use of direct
physical contact and city and county schools, it would be interesting to further
analyze the school locations by specific cities and counties. As shown in Table 23,
the number of punishment by direct physical contact in Taipei City was 229, the
highest among all school locations. Taipei County had the lowest percentage of
46.8%, compared to the Within Region average being 72.3%. The two southern
locations, Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County, had the highest percentages of
84.5% and 83.5%.

74
Table 23. Direct Physical Contact and School Location by Individual City and
County

Direct Physical Contact
School Location
No Yes Total

% within Location 24.4% 75.6% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 20.4% 24.2% 23.1%
% of Total 5.6% 17.5% 23.1%
Taipei City
n = 303

% within Location 53.2% 46.8% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 38.6% 13.0% 20.1%
% of Total 10.7% 9.4% 20.1%
Taipei
County
n = 263

% within Location 26.7% 73.3% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 15.4% 16.3% 16.0%
% of Total 4.3% 11.8% 16.0%
Taichung
City
n = 210

% within Location 21.7% 78.3% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 8.3% 11.4% 10.5%
% of Total 2.3% 8.2% 10.5%
Taichung
County
n = 138

% within Location 15.5% 84.5% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 10.2% 21.2% 18.2%
% of Total 2.8% 15.3% 18.2%
Kaohsiung
City
n = 238

% within Location 16.5% 83.5% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 7.2% 13.9% 12.1%
% of Total 2.0% 10.1% 12.1%
Kaohsiung
County
n =158

% within Location 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
% within Direct Physical Contact 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%
Total
N = 1310

Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
The percentage of middle school students punished was higher than
elementary school students. In addition, more middle school students were
punished more times than elementary school students, specifically for those
punished 5–10 times and more than 10 times. These findings are different from
75
other studies that associate age of the students to violent treatment by school staff
(Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002) where younger students
tend to be physically abused by teachers and staff more often.
Male students are punished more often than female students, and this
finding is in agreement with other studies (Youssef, 1998; Benbenishty, Zeira,
Astor, & Khoury-Kassabri, 2002) concerning student gender and their mistreatment
by teachers and staff.
There is no statistical significance in the frequency of corporal punishments
of students in city versus county school districts, although some specific cities and
counties performed more direct physical contact punishments than others. There are
virtually no existing studies on school location and corporal punishment, so this
finding neither confirms nor refutes any existing understanding on the subject.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “To what degree does academic performance
determine why and how often a student is punished?”
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance
In SPSS, the Academic Performance variable was used as the independent
variable and the Number of Times Punished variable was used as the dependent
variable. This analysis examined the relationship between frequency of corporal
punishment of the students and their self-reported academic performance. The
Number of Times Punished variable was categorized into None, Fewer than 5,
76
5-10, and More Than 10. The self-reported academic performance of the students
was ‘Good,” “Average,” and “Bad.”
As shown in Table 24, 30.4% of the students were not punished at all, while
69.6% of the students were punished. Most of the students (42.8%) were punished
fewer than 5 times. However, more students (15%) were punished more than 10
times than those who were punished 5–10 times (11.8%).

Table 24. Number of Times the Students Were Punished

Number of Times Punished Number of Responses Percentage
Never 393 30.4%
Fewer than 5 554 42.8%
5–10 153 11.8% 69.6%
More than 10 times 194 15.0%
}

Did not respond 7 0.1%
Total 1294 100%

As shown in Table 25, the majority of the students (63.2%) reported their
academic performance as “Average,” 25.6% reported their academic performance
as “Good” (25.6%), while the least number (11.3%) reported their academic
performance as “Bad.”

77
Table 25. Self-reported Academic Performance of the Students

Self-reported Academic Performance Number of Responses Percentage
Good 331 25.6%
Average 818 63.2%
Bad 146 11.3%
Did not respond 6 0.1%
Total 1295 100%

As shown in Table 26, there are 10 surveys that did not contain the survey
answers that correlated Number of Times Punished and Academic Performance, so
a total of 1,199 surveys were used for this analysis.

Table 26. Sample Size for Number of Times Punished and Academic
Performance

Surveys for Number of Times Punished
and Academic Performance
Valid Missing Total
Number 1199 10 1209
Percent 99.2% 0.8% 100.0%

There is a statistically significant relationship between the number of times
a student is punished and the student’s academic performance, with χ
2
(6, N =
1,199) = 80.21, p < .001. The students with worse academic performance were
punished more often. As shown in Table 27, for the students with self-reported
academic performance of “Bad,” 13.3% were not punished at all while more than
twice (32.9%) of those with “Good” academic performance were not punished. For
students punished less than 5 times, those who reported “Good” academic
78
performance (48.7%) and “Average” academic performance (47.6%) were
punished more often than those who reported “Bad” academic performance
(29.9%). For those punished 5–10 times, almost twice (18.7%) reported “Bad”
academic performance than those who reported “Good” academic performance
(10.2%). For those punished more than 10 times, only 8.2% reported “Good”
academic performance while 38.1% reported “Bad” academic performance.

Table 27. Number of Times Punished and Academic Performance

How Do You Think Your Grades Are in
School?

Number of Times Punished
Good Average Bad Total

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 32.9% 24.3% 13.4% 25.3%
None
n = 303

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 48.7% 47.6% 29.9% 45.9%
Fewer than 5
n = 550

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 10.2% 12.6% 18.7% 12.7%
5 to 10
n = 152

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 8.2% 15.5% 38.1% 16.2%
More than 10
n = 194

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
N = 1199

Reason for Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance
In other studies (Lin, 1992), teachers denied physically punishing students
for academic performance reasons. However, in the same study, students identified
79
academic performance as one of the main reasons for them to be physically
punished. The purpose of the following analysis is to determine if there is a
statistically significant relationship between students who thought they were
punished for academic performance and their academic performance.
As show in Table 28, the students chose from five reasons for which they
were physically punished by their teachers. The most common reason at 49.5% was
breaking of a rule at school, and the second most common reason at 35.4% was
academic performance. There was no further information in the survey results to
further describe the reasons behind the group punishment (20.8%). Those punished
for altercations with other students (15.1%) could probably also fit under the rule
violation category.

Table 28. Reasons for the Students’ Punishments

Reasons
Number of
responses
Percentage
Violation of school rules (disrupting class, inappropriate attire, etc.)
648 49.5%
Unsatisfactory academic performance (poor test scores, not turn in
homework, etc.)
463 35.4%
Punished as part of a group
272 20.8%
Quarrelling or fighting with other students
198 15.1%
Insolent and rude behavior toward teacher
96 7.3%

There is a statistically significant relationship between why a student was
punished and the student’s academic performance with χ
2
(2, N = 1,293) = 38.24, p
80
< .001. As shown in Table 29, for the 330 students with good academic
performance, only 87 (26.4%) thought they were ever punished for their academic
performance, thus 243 (73.6%) did not think they were punished for academic
performance reasons. Among the 818 students with average academic performance,
293 (35.8%) thought they were punished for academic performance while 525
(64.2%) did not think they were punished for academic performance. In both
groups, much fewer students were punished for academic reasons (26.4% and
35.8%) than those who were punished for academic performance (73.6% and
64.2%). However, this is reversed for the 145 students with bad academic
performance where more than half of them (55.9%) thought they were punished for
academic performance.

81
Table 29. Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment and Academic
Performance

How Do You Think Your Grades Are
in School?

Punished for Poor Academic Performance
Good Average Bad Total

% within
Punished for Poor academic performance
29.2% 63.1% 7.7% 100.0%

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School?
73.6% 64.2% 44.1% 64.3%

% of Total 18.8% 40.6% 4.9% 64.3%
Not Punished for
Academic
Performance
n = 832

% within
Punished for Poor academic performance
18.9% 63.6% 17.6% 100.0%

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School?
26.4% 35.8% 55.9% 35.7%

% of Total 6.7% 22.7% 6.3% 35.7%
Punished for
Academic
Performance
n = 461

% within
Punished for Poor academic performance
25.5% 63.3% 11.2% 100.0%

% within
How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total
n = 1293
% of Total 25.5% 63.3% 11.2% 100.0%

Summary of Finding for Research Question 2
Academic performance is an indicator of the number of times a student was
physically punished by a teacher. The worst the academic performance, the more
frequently the student was punished.
Based on self-reported reasons for their physical punishments, there is a
statistically significant relationship between the students’ academic performance
82
and their academic performance being the reason for their physical punishments by
teachers. This disputes the claim by teachers in prior studies that physical
punishments were only used for disciplinary reasons.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “To what extent do students have negative
emotional reactions to being punished because of academic performance?”
The most blatant and sensationalized cases of severe corporal punishments
of the students always focused on the physical effect of the punishments. There
have not been any studies conducted on the emotional effect of the physical
punishment. This is especially interesting for those students punished for academic
performance reasons to see if the punishments have resulted in behavioral changes
that would improve academic performance.

Emotional Reaction to Being Physically Punished
This study analyzed the five choices given to the students to describe their
emotional reaction to being physically punished. The students were to choose all
those that applied. The choices were as follows.
6. Scared, ashamed, self-pity
7. Angry and vindictive
8. Deserved to be punished
9. Victim of teacher’s frustration
83
10. Teacher’s action is inappropriate
11. Don’t know.
Choices #1 and #2 are definitely negative reactions, with choice #1 more
inwardly directly and choice #2 more outwardly directed. Choice #3 is acceptance
and approval of the punishment. Choice # 4 has no strong emotions associated with
it, unlike #1 and #2, so it could be considered reluctant acceptance of one’s fate.
Choice #5 is a description and assessment of the teacher’s behavior, not quite an
emotional reaction.
Table 30 shows that 44% of the students punished for academic
performance felt scared, ashamed, or self-pity, as compared to only 20.8% of those
punished for different reasons, with χ
2
(1, N = 1,307 ) = 78.82, p < .001.

Table 30. Felt Scared, Ashamed, and Self-pity From Being Punished

Scared, Ashamed, Self-pity

Punished for Poor Academic Performance No Yes

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 79.2% 20.8%
% within Scared, Ashamed, Self-pity 72.2% 46.3%
% of Total 51.2% 13.5%
No
n = 845

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 55.8% 44.2%
% within Scared, Ashamed, Self-pity 27.8% 53.7%
% of Total 19.7% 15.6%
Yes
n = 462

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 70.9% 29.1%
% within Scared, Ashamed, Self-pity 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 70.9% 29.1%
Total
N = 1307

84

Among those punished for academic performance, shown in Table 31,
34.8% felt angry and vindictive while only 12.1% of those punished for other
reasons felt the same way. There is a statistically significant relationship between
being punished for academic performance and being angry and vindictive with
χ
2
(1, N = 1,307) = 96.41, p < .001.

Table 31. Felt Angry and Vindictive From Being Punished

Angry and Vindictive
Punished for Poor Academic Performance
No Yes

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 87.9% 12.1%
% within Angry and Vindictive 71.2% 38.8%
% of Total 56.8% 7.8%
No
n = 845

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 65.2% 34.8%
% within Angry and Vindictive 28.8% 61.2%
% of Total 23.0% 12.3%
Yes
n = 462

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 79.9% 20.1%
% within Angry and Vindictive 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 79.9% 20.1%
Total
N = 1307

As shown by Table 32, a higher percentage of students (44.7%) felt that
they deserved to be punished for academic performance compared to those (25.9%)
punished for other reasons, and the statistical significance is χ
2
(1, N = 1,307 ) =
47.89, p < .001.
85

Table 32. Felt Deserving of Punishment

Deserved to Be Punished
Punished for Poor Academic Performance
No Yes

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 74.1% 25.9%
% within Deserved to Be Punished 70.9% 51.4%
% of Total 47.8% 16.8%
No
n = 844

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 55.3% 44.7%
% within Deserved to Be Punished 29.1% 48.6%
% of Total 19.6% 15.8%
Yes
n = 463

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 67.4% 32.6%
% within Deserved to Be Punished 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 67.4% 32.6%
Total
N = 1307

Per Table 33, only 7% of students not punished for academic performance
considered the teacher’s punishments as inappropriate action. For those punished
for academic performance, 25.9% thought the punishment administered by the
teacher was inappropriate. The statistical significance is χ
2
(1, N = 1,308) = 90.79, p
< .001.

86
Table 33. Punished for Poor Academic Performance and Considered
Teacher’s Action to be Inappropriate

Consider Punishment
Inappropriate Action by
Teacher

Punished for Poor Academic Performance
No Yes

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 93.0% 7.0%
% within Inappropriate Action 69.6% 33.0%
% of Total 60.1% 4.5%
No
n = 845

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 74.1% 25.9%
% within Inappropriate Action 30.4% 67.0%
% of Total 26.2% 9.2%
Yes
n = 463

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 86.3% 13.7%
% within Inappropriate Action 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 86.3% 13.7%
Total
N = 1308

Per Table 34, only 7.9% of students not punished for academic performance
considered themselves a fateful and untimely victim of the teacher venting his or
her frustration on the students. Among those punished for academic performance,
22.2 % thought they were unfortunate victims. The statistical significance is χ
2
(1, N
= 1,307) = 54.09, p < .001.

87
Table 34. Punished for Poor Academic Performance and Being the
Unfortunate Victim of Teacher’s Frustration

Unfortunate Victim
of Teachers' Venting
Frustration

Punished for Poor Academic Performance
No Yes

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 92.1% 7.9%
% within Unfortunate Victim of Teachers' Venting Frustration 68.3% 39.4%
% of Total 59.4% 5.1%
No
n = 844

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 77.8% 22.2%
% within Unfortunate Victim of Teachers' Venting Frustration 31.7% 60.6%
% of Total 27.5% 7.9%
Yes
n = 463

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 87.0% 13.0%
% within Unfortunate Victim of Teachers' Venting Frustration 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 87.0% 13.0%
Total
N = 1307

As shown in Table 35, students who did not know their emotional reaction
had the lowest percentage compared to all the other reactions from above. For those
not punished for academic performance, 5.9% did not know their reaction. For
those who were punished for academic performance, 10.4% did not know their
emotional reaction. There is no statistically significance relationship, with χ
2
(1, N =
1,308) = 8.54, p < .004

88
Table 35. Do Not Know Emotional Reaction

Do Not Know Emotional
Reaction

Punished for Poor Academic Performance
No Yes Total

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 94.1% 5.9% 100.0%
% within Do Not Know Emotional Reaction 65.7% 51.0% 64.6%
% of Total 60.8% 3.8% 64.6%
No
n = 845

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%
% within Do Not Know Emotional Reaction 34.3% 49.0% 35.4%
% of Total 31.7% 3.7% 35.4%
Yes
n =463

% within Punished for Poor Academic Performance 92.5% 7.5% 100.0%
% within Do Not Know Emotional Reaction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 92.5% 7.5% 100.0%
Total
N = 1308

Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Students who were physically punished for academic performance were
more emotionally negative about being punished. However, paradoxically, more of
them thought that they were deserving of the punishment compared to students
punished for other reasons.
Chapter Summary
Shown below in Table 36 is a summary of the different variables examined
in each research question and whether statistical significance was present.
89
Table 36. Summary of Statistical Significance for Variables Studied

RQ Variables Sig.

Research Question 1
School Level × Times Punished yes
School Level × Punishment by Direct Physical Contact yes
School Level × Punishment by Strenuous Postures or Activities no
Gender × Times Punished yes
Gender × Punishment by Direct Physical Contact no
Gender × Punishment by Strenuous Postures or Activities no
School Location × Times Punished no
School Location × Punishment by Direct Physical Contact yes
School Location × Punishment by Strenuous Postures or Activities no

Research Question 2
Academic Performance × Academic Performance as Reason for
Punishment
yes
Academic Performance × Times Punished yes

Research Question 3
Punished for Academic Performance × Deserved to be Punished yes
Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment × Scared, Ashamed, and
Self-pity
yes
Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment × Angry and Vindictive yes
Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment × Considered Teacher’s
Action to Be Inappropriate
yes
Academic Performance as Reason for Punishment × Being Unfortunate
Victim of Teacher’s Frustration
yes

Note. Sig. = statistically significant.
90

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background
Corporal punishment of students by teachers on school campuses has
always been a subject of intermittent discussion and debate among students,
teachers, parents, and various educational organizations in Taiwan (HEF, 2010,
China Times, 2009). A few times every year, a shocking case is publicized by the
press that ignites impassioned focus by many, but the uproar invariable dissipates
and no formal action is taken. Due to lobbying by some in Taiwan such as the
Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF), the Taiwanese government in December
2006 announced legislation that legally banned physical punishment of students.
(Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
Despite the sporadic and frenzied focus on the subject, there have been very
few published scientific studies that examined where and how the punishments
were occurring, whether certain students were more likely to be punished, and the
emotional reactions of students who were punished. The purpose of this study was
to provide a statistical and descriptive report of corporal punishment of students in
91
Taiwan based on data already gathered but not yet examined in detail. The results
of this study could be the foundation for future studies on the subject, for teacher
education in the areas of classroom management and student disciplinary actions,
and for school administrators for the purpose of legal compliance.
Research Questions
The study addressed the following research questions:

1. To what extent does the frequency or nature of corporal
punishments differ by school level, student gender, and school
location?
2. To what degree does academic performance determine why and how
often a student is punished?
3. To what extent do students have negative emotional reactions to
being punished because of academic performance?

Summary of Literature Review
A number of studies on corporal punishment of students were reviewed for
their focus on the variables studied in this dissertation. Many of the studies were
relevant to some of the variables, but none of the studies were relevant to all the
variables and/or the quantitative analysis approach of this study. The literature
review results were summarized in Table 2.

92
Summary of Methodology
This study was based on the data gathered by the corporal punishment
surveys conducted by the Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF) in Taiwan. This
data were the most comprehensive and readily available source of data appropriate
for the purpose of this study. Not all the survey questions and choices of answer
were applicable to this study, and they were not included in the data analysis. The
applicable data were examined using chi-square analysis using the SPSS statistical
software package.

Discussion of the Findings
Corporal Punishment and School Level
According to findings from this study, middle school students were more
likely to be punished compared to elementary school students. The difference was
most significant among those students who were punished more than 10 times. This
was different from other findings such as Benbenishty, Zeira, Astor, and Khoury-
Kassabri, (2002) where younger students were victimized more than older students.
This could probably be attributed to the heightened pressure on students to perform
academically in order to differentiate the students into different academic tracks
beyond middle school (Taiwan Ministry of Education, 2010). Since the academic
performance demands are higher, the punishments occurred more often since 35%
of the students were punished for academic performance.
93
Another reason for middle school students being punished more often could
be that the middle school students’ rule violations, aggressive behavior, and
disrespect of authority were more severe due to their more advanced age since 50%
of the students were punished for disrupting class, inappropriate attire, etc.
Middle school students were punished more than elementary school
students for both forms of punishment studied. This could be attributed to middle
school students being older, so perhaps the teachers consider the students more able
to withstand rigorous physical punishments.
According to the 2009 data from the Taiwan Ministry of Education,
elementary school students accounted for 31.45% and middle school students
accounted for 18.73% of all students in Taiwan. Therefore the ratio of elementary
to middle school students in Taiwan was 1.68 to 1. In this study, the ratio was
higher than the national ratio at 2.6 to 1 (946 students from elementary schools and
363 from middle schools). The higher ratio in this study was because of the attempt
to study the same number of schools in all the different geographies versus trying
to align the number of schools surveyed to the national statistics. Since the ratio in
this study was not the same as the national ratio, perhaps a case could be made that
more middle schools need to be included in the study in order to accurately
examine corporal punishment in the two different school levels.
According to Hyman and McDowell (1979), most physical punishment is
perpetrated from male staff to male students, so it would be informative to consider
94
the gender of the teachers in Taiwan schools. From the Taiwan Ministry of
Education data for 2009, female teachers accounted for 68.65% and 62.73% in
elementary schools and middle schools (Ministry of Education, 2010). Since there
are indeed more male teachers in middle schools in Taiwan, it could be a
contributing factor to middle school students being physically punished more often.
Corporal Punishment and Gender
Female students were found to be punished less frequently than male
students in this study. This finding was similar to other studies such as the Florida
School Discipline Study (1994). This difference in gender was especially
pronounced among students who were not punished at all and those who were
punished more than 10 times. Conversely, for students who were punished fewer
than five times and punished 5–10 times, gender did not play a statistically
significant role in their likelihood of being punished. Once a student was physically
punished, gender was statistically significant only among those who were punished
most often. This could be attributed to more boys having more disciplinary issues
than girls, thus some of them tended to be punished more often.
In terms of how the students were punished, either via direct physical
contact or being put into physically strenuous positions or activities, there was no
statistical difference between the genders. This finding was somewhat surprising
since many of the high profile cases (China Times, 2009, 2008) with the student
suffering severe physical injuries involved boys only. Perhaps gender played a role
95
in the severity of the punishments instead of playing a role in how the students
were punished. Since there were no survey questions specifically on the severity of
the punishments, this could not be addressed by the current study.
Corporal Punishment and School Location
In terms of frequency of physical punishments, there was no statistical
difference between the three major metropolises of Taipei City, Taichung City,
Kaohsiung City, and their corresponding county geographies. However, when it
came to the method of physical punishment, students in the cities were more likely
to be directly struck by their teachers compared to students in the counties. There is
no existing model to examine this relationship, and perhaps one approach is to
further examine the rate of school violence between the two types of geographies
based on data used by Chang and Astor (2009). The hypothesis could be that
geographies with more school violence would also have higher rates of corporal
punishment of students by teachers (Hyman & Wise, 1979).
The percentages of the use of direct physical contact as punishment for
Taichung City (73%) and County (78%) versus Kaohsiung City (85%) and County
(84%) were fairly similar. However, there was a major difference between Taipei
City and Taipei County of 76% to 47%. There seemed to be no distinctive
characteristics regarding the schools from Taipei County that were surveyed for
this study to account for this difference. As for schools in Taipei County in general,
the only attribute that stood out is that Taipei County had the highest number of
96
kindergarten, elementary, and middle schools in Taiwan (Ministry of Education,
2009). However, this distinction would not, at first glance, have a bearing on why
students were punished less frequently via direct contact by teachers.
According to the HEF survey, the schools in Koahsiung City and
Koahsiung County had the highest percentages (85% and 84%) of schools that
engaged in direct physical contact punishment of their students. Koahsiung City
and the County merged in December 2010 to become a single municipality.
Koahsiung City is the second largest city in Taiwan, and is located in the far south
of Taiwan while Taipei, the capital and largest city, is located in the far north.
Koahsiung City is considered the mirror opposite of Taipei in terms of politics,
with the Pan-Green Coalition in Koahsiung versus the Pan-Blue Coalition in
Taipei. This is a reflection of the difference in geopolitics and ethnicity between the
north and the south of Taiwan, with Koahsiung dominated by the native Taiwanese
while Taipei is dominated by those who came from the Chinese mainland due to
Mainland China becoming communist in 1949. Perhaps the more prevalent use of
direct physical contact as punishment in Koahsiung is influenced by ethnicity of the
population. A somewhat similar but different situation is where African-American
students are victims of corporal punishments more often than students of other
ethnicities (US Department of Education, 2006).
97
Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance
Among those students who self-reported their academic performance as
“Bad,” a significant portion of them were punished more often compared to those
students who self-reported “Good” or “Average” academic performance. Among
students who thought they were punished for the reason of poor academic
performance, there were statistically more students with “Bad” academic
performance and statistically fewer students with “Good” academic performance.
This could be a statistical counter-indicator of the claim by teachers (Lin, 1992)
that they did not physically punish students for academic performance reasons.
However, since the only measure of the students’ academic performance
was self-reported in this case, and the performance was categorized only as
“Good,” “Average,” and “Bad,” it may not accurately reflect the students’ actual
grades. In other studies of student self-reported grades or test scores, students have
the tendency to inflate their actually academic performance (Bahrick 1996, Cole
2010). This means there could have been more students with the self-reported grade
of “Bad”. The actual causality between academic performance and physical
punishment needs to be studied further via having access to more factual
information about the students’ academic performance.
98
Frequency of Corporal Punishment and Academic Performance as Reason for
Punishment
For those students who thought they were physically punished for their
academic performance, significantly more of them were punished more often (5 to
10 times and more than 10 times) than those students who did not think they were
punished for their academic performance.
The conclusion from this study is that elementary and middle school
students in Taiwan with self-reported academic performance of Poor were indeed
punished for their academic performance and that they were physically punished
more often than other students (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Negative Emotional Reactions to Being Punished Because of Academic
Performance
The actual emotional reactions of the students punished for their academic
performance were mixed. Statistically, they thought they deserved to be punished.
However, they also felt scared, ashamed, self-pity, along with being angry and
vindictive. This seems to indicate that the students agreed that academic
performance was a valid reason for physical punishments (Lin, 1992); however, the
students had stronger emotional reactions to this reason of being punished
compared to others. Perhaps as another indictor of the students’ ambivalence,
almost twice the number of students (10.4% to 5.9%) punished for their academic
performance did not know their emotional reaction.
99
There were two more emotional reaction answers on the survey. (a) the
students feeling that the teachers’ action was inappropriate, and (b) that they were
incidental victims of the teachers’ frustration. These two survey questions should
be considered assessments by the student of the punishments rather than the
students’ emotional reactions to being punished.
When the emotional reactions of the students were further examined based
on their academic performance, as shown in Table 37, a statistically significant
relationship was found between performance and the reaction of being angry and
vindictive, with χ
2
(2, N = 460) = 23.21, p < .001. Those students with poor
academic performance tended to feel more angry and vindictive than other students.
These are also the students who tend to be punished more often as indicated by
Research Question 2.

100
Table 37. Self-reported Academic Performance and Feeling Angry and
Vindictive From Being Punished

Reaction to Punishment:
Feeling Angry and
Vindictive

Self-reported Academic Performance
No Yes Total

% within How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 72.4% 27.6% 100.0%
% within Reaction to Punishment: Angry and Vindictive 21.1% 14.9% 18.9%
% of Total 13.7% 5.2% 18.9%
Good
n = 87
.
% within How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 69.2% 30.8% 100.0%
% within Reaction to Punishment: Angry and Vindictive 67.6% 55.9% 63.5%
% of Total 43.9% 19.6% 63.5%
Average
n = 292

% within How do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 42.0% 58.0% 100.0%
% within Reaction to Punishment: Angry and Vindictive 11.4% 29.2% 17.6%
% of Total 7.4% 10.2% 17.6%
Bad
n =81

% within How Do You Think Your Grades Are in School? 65.0% 35.0% 100.0%
% within Reaction to Punishment: Angry and Vindictive 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 65.0% 35.0% 100.0%
Total
N = 460

Recommendations for Future Studies
Since corporal punishment has become illegal, results from studies of
corporal punishments after the ban should be compared to the data from prior
studies to better understand the effect of the ban. Has the law increased or
decreased the frequency and nature of the punishments? How has the new law
affected different schools in different locations and school levels? Are
administrators motivated to actively monitor and report corporal punishments?
This HEF survey was directed only at students since the teachers would
probably not want to incriminate themselves by admitting to practicing physical
101
punishment of students. However, it would be useful to understand how the new
law has affected teachers’ perception and behavior in relation to corporal
punishment. It would be useful to understand this not only for practicing teachers,
but also those who are preparing to become teachers.
Further studies are needed to examine the relationship between the negative
emotional reactions of the students who are punished and campus violence. There
are existing data on Taiwan campus violence (Chen & Astor, 2009) called
“Prevention and Control of School Violence in Taiwan” sponsored by the National
Science Council: NSC 89-2420-H-006-001-QBS. If indeed, these data contain
school location information, it would be feasible to try to correlate the school
location information from the HEF surveys and the data on overall campus
violence and the violence of students toward teachers. A hypothesis could be that
the teachers’ physical punishments of the students contribute to overall campus
violence or to the students’ violence toward teachers.
Further studies are needed on the relationship between physical punishment
and academic performance. Since the students were punished for their academic
performance, and that they harbor angst and vindictiveness as a result, it would be
important to examine whether the punishments affected the students’ behavior
associated with their academic activities. According to Hyman and Wise (1979),
students who are physically punished exhibited negative behavioral traits that
would not be conducive to positive academic performance. Did the punishments
102
lead to improved academic performance as intended? Or did the punishments
negatively affect the students’ academic performance due to negative emotional
reactions toward being punished? Without the cooperation of school administrators,
it would be difficult to conduct a longitudinal study on the students and their
grades. However, future surveys could include questions that specifically inquire
into the students’ behavior change toward academic performance as a result of the
punishments.
Implications for Professional Practice
Since the announcement of the zero corporal punishment law in Taiwan in
December of 2006, subsequent Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF) middle-
school found that the practiced of corporal punishment in middle schools were on
the increase. The percentage of students who were physically punished increased
from 31% in 2008 to 45% in 2009, and corporal punishment was practiced in
71.6% of middle schools in 2008 and 88.4% in 2009 (HEF, 2009). There have been
a multitude of conjectures on the reasons for the increase. Some in the educational
community attributed the increase to the 2006 law wearing off over time (HEF,
2010). Many of the other discussions on the subject have focused on the policy
itself.
For any policy or regulation to be effective, the offense should be
unequivocally defined, the consequences clearly described, and enforcement
process and resources in place. Some in the press began to appraise the original
103
wording and content of the 2006 law, and opined that it was a mistake for the
legislative body to leave out both consequences for violation of the law and more
exacting definition of corporal punishment (Central News Agency, 2007). The
consequences were left out because it was deemed to be potentially harmful to
teachers’ and school administrators’ morale. The legislators did not want the law to
appear draconian when first introduced, and there was a provision that
consequences of the law would be added in the future, but this has yet to be
accomplished. The lack of a clear and concise definition of the law had also
prompted challenging defense by teachers and school administers who were
charged with practicing corporal punishment.
There need to be political support and political will to further tighten the
zero corporal punishment law in order for it to become more effective. However,
regardless of the issues with the law itself, if the Taiwan education community is
indeed committed to comply with the new law and minimize corporal punishments
of students, more compliance activities need to be performed by the Ministry of
Education and by school administrators, especially on middle schools, and schools
in Taipei City and Kaohsiung, as indicated by this study.
Another major aspect of the practice of corporal punishment is cultural in
nature. As long as the practice is deemed appropriate and acceptable by teachers,
students, and parents (Lin, 1992; Liu, 2008), putting laws and policies in place
would not be an effective measure in abolishing the practice. Some have argued
104
that the 2006 law was intentionally flawed because all those involved were still not
able to emotionally and culturally undo the practice (Chin, 2009; China Post 2009).
For a campaign that aims to further reduce the practice of corporal punishment to
be effective, it has to include addressing the historical culture of using corporal
punishment on children both at home and at school. A social and cultural
transformation need to occur along with the enforcement of laws and policies to
affect a change in the widespread practice of corporal punishment in Taiwan
schools.
Now that corporal punishment is illegal, teachers need to be better educated
and trained on classroom management and disciplining of students without the use
of corporal punishment as an option. As an example, in the case of Florida, the
decrease in corporal punishment was accompanied by the increase in the use of
suspensions for disciplining students (Florida Department of Education, 2010).
Teachers need to be more aware of students’ negative emotional reactions
and their resulting effect on academic performance and other behaviors. Perhaps
teachers could focus more on motivating and rewarding students toward better
academic performance instead of punishing students for unsatisfactory academic
performance. However, another objectionable practice by parents in Taiwan is the
public posting of academic ranking of the students. This was meant to be
motivational, but it also serves to humiliate and de-motivate students who are not
highly ranked (HEF, 2008).
105
Conclusion
The problem of corporal punishment of students in Taiwan has been
perceived as serious enough to have resulted in a new law to prohibit the practice.
However, the attention to the topic is mostly due to sensational reporting by the
media whenever an extraordinary case occurs, or due to the activity of niche
interest groups in education such as the Humanistic Education Foundation. The
attitude and measures toward the practice by the official educational community of
teachers and administers are mostly reactive, with corporal punishment seemingly
viewed as an inconvenience that has to be addressed until the current episode is
resolved and the public fervor dissipates.
Given the prevalence of the practice, broader recognition of the issues and
concerns of corporal punishment needs to be established amongst teachers,
administrators, parents, and students. With continual focus such as HEF surveys
and other studies such as this one, all the stakeholders would hopefully gain a better
understanding of the effects of corporal punishment and work towards a more
enjoyable and less hostile learning environment.
106

REFERENCES

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). Guidance for effective discipline.
Pediatrics, 101, 723–728.

Alyahria, A., & Goodman, R. (2008). Harsh corporal punishment of Yemeni
children: Occurrence, type and associations. Child Abuse & Neglect,
32(8),766–773.

Andero, A. A., & Stewart, A. (2002). Issue of corporal punishment: Re-examined.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 90–96.

Central News Agency (2006, December, 12). Zero Corporal Punishment Law.
Retrieved Jan 30, 2007 from
http://www.cna.com.tw/SearchNews/doDetail.aspx?id=200612120266

Chin, M. (2009) Zero Corporal Punishment Analysis. Trends in Education, 34, 3-8.
Retrieved Jan 30, 2009 from
http://book.sir.com.tw/mz/cnt/mzd_34/mzd_34_1.pdf

Cole, J., Gonyea, R. (2010). Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores:
Implications for Research. Res High Educ, (51):305–319

Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, American
Academy of Pediatrics (1998). Guidance for effective discipline. Pediatrics,
101(4),723–728. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;101/4/723

Committee on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Corporal
punishment in schools. Pediatrics, 106(2), 343. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011
from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/2/343

Babbie, Earl R. (1990). Survey research methods. (pp. 3–15) Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Pub. Co. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://books.google.com/books?id=1_lSEh6AAfYC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA3
10&dq=Babbie,+Earl+R.+%281990%29.+Survey+research+methods&sour
ce=bl&ots=N6CLMsCRn1&sig=Tv5h12rDw9e4FqL9y9nrthVslQ8&hl=en
&ei=tUFcTaDiHoK78gaxlai2Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu
m=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

107
Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (1996). ACCURACY AND DISTORTION IN
MEMORY FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADES. Psychological Science
(Wiley-Blackwell), 7(5), 265-271.

Bauer, G. B, Dubanoski, R., Yamanchi, L.A. (1991). Corporal punishment and the
schools. Education and Urban Society, 1(22), 285–299.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on children. Child
Development, 37(2), 887–907.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4),
405–414.

Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Astor, R. A. (2002). Children’s reports of emotional,
physical and sexual maltreatment by educational staff in Israel. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 26, 763–782.

Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2002).
Maltreatment of primary school students by educational staff in Israel.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1291–1309.

Benthall, J. (1991). Invisible wounds: Corporal punishment in British schools as a
form of ritual. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 377–388.

Center for Effective Discipline (2005). U.S.: Corporal punishment and paddling
statistics by state and race. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning

Chang, J. (2007). A Study on the Relationship between the Zero Corporal
Punishment Perception and Learning Attitudes of Elementary High Grades
Students. Unpublished master thesis, National Tainan University, Taipei,
Taiwan. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from http://140.133.6.46/ETD-db/ETD-
search-c/getfile?URN=etd-0620108-205512&filename=etd-0620108-
205512.pdf

Chang, S. (2008) – A Study on the Fifth and Sixth Graders’ Perception of Corporal
Punishment at Elementary School in Kaohsiung County. Unpublished
master thesis, National Tainan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved Jan
29, 2011 from http://140.133.6.46/ETD-db/ETD-search-c/getfile?URN=etd-
0130108-124322&filename=etd-0130108-124322.pdf

108
Chang, I. J., & Katsurada, E. (1997). Context of physical punishment: A cross
cultural comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
NCFR Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World, 59
th
,
Arlington, VA. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED417002

Ch'en Kenneth. (1968). Filial piety in Chinese buddhism. Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies, 28, 81–97

Chen, J., & Astor, R. A. (2009). Students’ reports on violence against teachers in
Taiwanese schools. Journal of School Violence, 8, 2–17.

Chen, L. H. (1989). Guo Zhong Xiao Yuan Xue Sheng Bao Xing Zhi Yan Jiu.
[School violence in Taiwanese junior high schools]. Unpublished master
thesis, National Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Chen, Y., Lu, C., Hung, Yu-yih, & Chen, L. (1980). A survey on the opinions
about corporal punishment by teachers, students and parents. Bulletin of
Educational Psychology, 13, 57–74.

Chianu, E. (2000). Two deaths, one blind eye, and one imprisonment: Child abuse
in the guise of corporal punishment in Nigerian schools. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 24, 1005–1009.

Chin, M. C. (1989). Analysis of United States corporal punishment policies based
on court decisions. Education Digest, 24(4), 36–45.

China Post, 2004 – (2004, June 20). Corporal Punishment – When Would They
Stop? Retrieved Jan 22, 2005 from:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2004/08/29/51951/Bicycle-
campaign.htm

China Post, 2009 – (2009, May 28). When Will We Stop Hitting Our Children?
Retrieved May 30, 2009 from:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2007/12/24/136168/Corporal-
punishment.htm

Dupper, David R. (2010) A new model of school discipline (pp. 25–35) New York:
Oxford University Press.

109
Eggleton, T. (2001). Discipline in the schools. Guides–Non-classroom (055),
opinion papers (120). Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED451554

Florida Department of Education/ (2010). Trends in discipline and the decline in
the use of corporal punishment, 2008-09. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/word/discipline0809.doc

Florida School Discipline Study: 1994 Juvenile Justice Reform Act. (1995). A
Report to the Florida Legislature. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED384981

Gaffney, P. V. (1997, March). Arguments in opposition to the use of corporal
punishment: A comprehensive review of the literature. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference on Urban/Multicultural Education: Past, Present,
and Future. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED406054

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Parental corporal punishment and associated child
behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2010). Global
progress towards prohibiting all corporal punishment. Retrieved Jan 29,
2011 from:
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/GlobalProgress.pdf

Gregory, J. (1995). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the
use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of Negro
Education, 64, 454–462.

Hinchey, P. H. (2003). Corporal punishment: Legalities, realities, and implications.
The Clearing House, 76(3), 127–131.

Holm, L. (2005). Child-spanking as sexual abuse. Retrieved October 17, 2005,
from http://www.nospank.net/holm.htm

110
de Hotman, S. (1997). Dissertation: A Comparison of School Systems in Alabama
Using Corporal Punishment and Not Using Corporal Punishment on
Selected Demographic Variables. On file with Human Rights Watch. New
York.

Huang, C. C. (1997) Confucianism and human rights: A classical perspective of
Mencius (in Chinese). In S. Liu (ed.), Confucianism and the contemporary
world (pp. 33–55). Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Human Rights Watch. (2008). A violent education: Corporal punishment of
children in US public schools. Report. New York. Human Rights Watch.
Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0808_1.pdf

Human Rights Watch. (2010). corporal punishment in schools and its effect on
academic success. Report. Joint HRW/ACLU Statement. New York.
Human Rights Watch. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/04/14/corporal-punishment-schools-and-
its-effect-academic-success-joint-hrwaclu-statement#_ftn16

HEF. (2005). Questionnaire and study. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000394.html

HEF. (2005). Corporal Punishment Comments Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000335.html

HEF. (2009). Questionnaire and study. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000471.html

HEF. (2010). School Survey Results Press Release Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000475.html

Hwang, K. K. (1999). Filial piety and loyalty: Two types of social identification in
Confucianism. Asian - Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 163–183.

Hwang, K. K. (2001). Introducing human rights education in the Confucian society
of Taiwan: Its implications for ethical leadership in education. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 321–332.

Hyman, I. A. (1990). Reading, writing, and the hickory stick. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

111
Hyman, I. A., & McDowell, E. (1979). An overview. In I. E. Hyman & J. I. Wise
(Eds.), Corporal punishment in American education (pp. 3–22).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

Hyman, I. A., Stefkovich, J. A., & Taich, S. (2002). Paddling and pro-paddling
polemics: Refuting nineteenth century pedagogy. Journal of Law &
Education, 31, 74–84.

Hyman, I. A., and Wise, J. I. (1997). Corporal punishment in American education.
Temple University Philadelphia, PA (1979).

Imbrogno, A. (2000). Corporal punishment in America’s public schools and the
U.N. convention on the rights of the child: A case for nonratification.
Journal of Law & Education, 29, 125–147.

Kim, D. H., Kim, K. I., & Park, Y. C. (2000). Children’s experience of violence in
China and Korea: A transcultural study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1163–
1173.

Larzelere, R. E. (1993). Response to Oosterhuis: Empirically justified uses of
spanking: Toward a discriminating view of corporal punishment. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 21, 142–147.

Leach, F., & Machakanja, P. (2000). Preliminary investigation of the abuse of girls
in Zimbabwean junior secondary schools. Education Research Paper.
Knowledge & Research. Department for International Development, 94,
London, England.

Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, Basic Laws of Education (01741), Amendments: 8 &
15. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011, from
http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lghtml/lawstat/version2/01741/0174195121200.htm

Liang, Y. (2009). Parental corporal punishment and emotional maltreatment
(PCPEM) in childhood, mental health and risk behaviors among youth
students in Beijing and Hebei, China. Umeå International School of Public
Health, Umeå University, County Council of Västerbotten, Sweden.

Lin, W. Y. (1992). A Look at corporal punishment: Use, opinions and problems.
Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, (1) 53–77

112
Lin, W., & Wang, C. (1995). Chinese Parents’ conceptions of child-bearing
practice: Strict discipline or corporal punishment? Indigenous
Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 3, 2–92.

Liu, Ying-Mei. (2008). A study on the perception of zero corporal punishment and
the current situation of positive discipline on campus for senior high school
students in Taipei City. Unpunished master thesis. National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Lytton, H. (1997). Physical punishment is a problem, whether conduct disorder is
endogenous or not. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 211–214.

Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: Its causes and prevention within our
schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4),

McCord, J. (1997). On discipline. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 215–217.

Meltz, B. F. (2002, July 29). The consequences of spanking. Houston
Chronicle/Boston Globe. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.nospank.net/n-j31.htm

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2010). Current school system. Retrieved Jan 29,
2011 from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=153&CtNode=499&mp=1

Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2010). Education Statistics. Retrieved Jan 29,
2011 from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=10983&CtNode=816&mp=1

Moeller, C. (1998). The Pennsylvania alliance for democracy policy for
nonviolence. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.padnet.org/clararch.html

Okihara,Yutaka (1986).
231，97-104.

O’Neil, V., Killian, B., & Hough, A. (2009). The socio-historical context of in-
school corporal punishment in a KwaZulu-Natal setting. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 19(1), 123–126.

113
Orme, N. (2006). What did medieval schools do for us? History Today, 56(6), 10–
17. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.usc.edu/hww/results/external_link
_maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.4
4

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2002, March). Children’s rights and wrongs: Lessons from
Strasbourg on classroom management. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.

Peng, Huan Seng. (1998). The exploration of corporal punishment: Observation
from the western history of education. The Ideas and Methods of
Educational Reform, 70, 73–105.

Pinheiro, S. P. (2006). World report on violence against children. Geneva: UN
secretary-general’s study on violence against children (pp. 130–136).
Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports.html

Raikhy, C., & Kaur, S. (2010). Corporal punishment: Coping strategies adopted by
the adolescents. Studies on Home and Community Science, 4(1), 57-62. Retrieved
Jan 29, 2011 from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/S-HCS/HCS-04-0-
000-10-Web/HCS-04-1-000-2010-Abst-PDF/HCS-04-1-057-10-Raikhy-C/HCS-
04-1-057-10-Raikhy-C-Tt.pdf

Riegel, Jeffrey. (2011, Spring). Confucius. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Forthcoming Retrieved Jan 29 2011 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/confucius/

Roberts, J. (2000). Changing public attitudes towards corporal punishment: The
effects of statutory reform in Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1027–
1035.

Roy, L. (2001). Corporal punishment in American public schools and the rights of
the child. Journal of Law & Education, 30, 554–563.

Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. P. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of
corporal punishment. School of Psychology Review, 19, 378–383.

114
Sheffield-Coley, Nikki V. (2009). The relationship among the use of corporal
punishment, office discipline referrals, in-school suspensions, and out-of-
school suspensions on middle school students' achievement in a Georgia
school system. Capella University. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdlink?vinst=PROD&attempt=1
&fmt=6&startpage=-
1&ver=1&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1674096271&exp=01-29-
2016&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1296382641&clientId=5
239

Shiao, Tzu-yi. (2008). Jia yi xian guo xiao gao nian ji xue sheng Dui ren quan yu ti
fa tai du zhi yan jiu. [Study of Chiayi Elementary School Students’ Attitude
Towards Human Rights and Corporal Punishment.] Unpublished master
thesis, National Chungtsen University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Shun, Kwong Loi. (2010, Winter). Mencius. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
(First published Sat., Oct 16, 2004; substantive revision Tue., Dec 7, 2010).
Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/mencius/

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), Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/pqdweb?index=2&did=21437701
91&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=30
9&VName=PQD&TS=1296384019&clientId=5239&aid=1

Strauss, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents:
National data of prevalence chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to
child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 2(2), 55–70. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.springerlink.com.libproxy.usc.edu/content/n362m624x4q3q857/
fulltext.pdf

Taiwan Headlines (2000, April 12): Interview of Hsing Hsiao-ping, principal of an
elementary school in Taiwan.Retrieved Feb 2, 2005 from
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2000/04/12/2003477643

115
Taiwan National Institute of Educational Resources and Research. (2011).
Education in Taiwan Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://data.nioerar.edu.tw/search.xp.asp?pat=sr&def=searchresult&mp=1&s
earch_field=fullText&search_input=%E9%AB%94%E7%BD%B0&Source
DB=%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E8%BC%BF%E6%83%85%E5%89%A
A%E5%A0%B1&submit.x=21&submit.y=7

Tang, C. S. (2006). Corporal punishment and physical maltreatment against
children: A community study on Chinese parents in Hong Kong. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 30(8), 893–907. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.usc.edu/science?_ob=MImg&_imag
ekey=B6V7N-4KPP4BK-4-
7&_cdi=5847&_user=1181656&_pii=S0145213406001773&_origin=brow
se&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_sk=99969999
1&wchp=dGLbVzW-
zSkWb&md5=4c8bdf0b157df9eceb298023221deb3c&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Trevino, R. E. (2004). Against all odds: Lessons from parents of migrant high-
achievers. In C. Salinas & M. E. Fránquiz (Eds.), Scholars in the field: The
challenges of migrant education. AEL: Charleston, WV. Retrieved Jan 29,
2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServl
et?accno=ED481645

United Nations. (1990). United Nations convention on the rights of the
child. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://rehydrate.org/facts/convention_full.htm

U.S. Department of Education. Office for Civil Rights. (2006). Civil rights data
collection 2006. Retrieved Jan 29, 2011 from
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections_2006.aspx

Walbridge, J. (2004). Fasting as a religious practice. Retrieved October 16, 2005,
from http://www.safnet.com/bahai/docs/fasting.html

Wang, Z. W., & Lin, W. Y. (1994) The cultural origin of oral and corporal
punishment (da ma jiao yu tan yuan ). In Z. W. Wang and W. Y. Lin (Eds.),
The dilemma of educational reform (Jiao yu de kun jing yu gai ge de kun
jing), 77–130. Taipei, Taiwan: Guei-guan. (In Chinese).

116
Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School based prevention
of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 17, 247–272.

Winborn, J. D. (1992, November). A study of the effectiveness of a Saturday school
in reducing suspension, expulsion and corporal punishment. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Knoxville, TN.

Youssef, R. M., Attia, M. S., & Kamel, M. I. (1998). Children’s experiencing
violence. II: Prevalence and determinants of corporal punishment in
schools. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 975–985.

117

APPENDIX:
HEF 2004 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
___________________________________________________________________

2004 Corporal Punishment Questionnaire —
Elementary & Middle School Campuses
1

File Number of the Questionnaire: _______

Greetings, dear student:

We are from the Humanistic Education Foundation and we are studying
corporal punishment in schools. Please answer the following questions to the best
of your knowledge.
You do not have to reveal your name and we will keep your profile
confidential. Please take your time. Thank you!

Basic Student Profile

Region: Taipei City Taipei County Taichung City
Taichung County Kaohsiung City Kaoshiung County

Gender: Male Female

School: Elementary School Middle School

1
Source: “Questionnaire and Study,” Humanistic Education Foundation, 2005. Retrieved April 1,
2005 from: http://inter.hef.org.tw/panno/000394.html

118

Grade: 1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th
6
th
7
th
8
th
9
th

Questionnaire

1) For this school year, what types of punishments have you observed at
school? (Choose all that apply)

Never saw any (Go to Question 10)
Direct physical contact (e.g. hitting of the palm, slapping of the face,
hitting of the bottom, pinching to cause pain, etc.)
Making the students hit themselves or each other
Maintain a certain bodily position to cause painful fatigue (e.g.
standing for prolonged period, kneeling down, half squatting,
jumping, lifting heavy objects, running in the field, etc.)
Public humiliation (e.g. hanging a placard on the neck, shaving off
hair, drawing something on the face, standing in front of class, etc.)
Verbal abuse (e.g. say to students abusive words such as “rotten,”
“bitch,” “you are a disgrace,” “terrible child,” “go die” , “stupid pig,”
etc.)
Assigning excessive homework (e.g. writing repentant sentences,
copying text, memorizing text, etc.)
Assigning menial labor (e.g. cleaning the bathroom, etc.)
Monetary fine
Deprivation of physiological needs (e.g. not allowing eating or
drinking, not allowing restroom usage, not allowing recess or other
breaks, etc.)
Deprivation of certain entitled activities such as class recess, outside
classroom activities, school outings, and other extracurricular
activities.
Isolation (standing in a classroom corner or in the hallway,
disallowing conversation with other students, etc.)
Others _________________________________________

2) What implements have you seen that were most frequently used by
teachers to punish the students? (Choose all that apply)
the “loving palm” (Note: a plastic dece shaped like a hand for
physical punishment)
rubber rod
chair leg
119
tree branch or wooden rod
teacher’s hand
ruler
Others _________________________________________

3) Among the punishments you have seen, what are the most bizarre ones?
(e.g. “Japanese sandwich” - making the students bend to touch the ground
to form a triangle with the body, etc.)
Explain briefly: ______________________________________

4) In this school year, how many of your teachers have physically punished
students? (Only choose 1 answer)
All of them
Many of them (more than 50%)
Some of them (less than 50%)
None of them

5) Did the school administration or teacher obtain the approval in writing
from your parent or guardian before physically punishing you? (Only
choose 1 answer)
Yes
No
Do not know

6) For this school year, how often have you been physically punished? (Only
choose 1 answer)
Never (Go to Question 9)
Less than five times
Five to ten times
More than ten times

7) Why do you think you were punished? (Choose all that apply)
Bad grade in exam or homework assignments, not fulfilling the
expectation of the teachers, not making academic progress, failing to
finish homework assignments, etc.)
Misbehavior such as violating rules, talking in class, improperly
dressed, forgetting to bring class materials, etc.
Disrespectful of the teacher such as disobedience, arguing back when
reprimanded, etc.)
Fighting with other students, either verbally or physically
Collective punishment where everyone is punished by the teacher)
Others _________________________________________
120

8) Describe your feeling when physically punished by the teacher. (Choose
all that apply)
Scared, ashamed, self-pity
Angry, vindictive
Guilt and deserving of the punishment
“How can the teacher do this?” (Physical punishment is
inappropriate)
“The teacher must be out of his mind again.” (The student is an outlet
for the teacher’s frustration)
Do not know
Others _________________________________________

9) Describe your feeling when witnessing other students being physically
punished by the teacher. (Choose all that apply)
Sympathizing with those that are punished
Feeling fortunate about not being punished
Approving the punishment (the punishment is justified)
Annoyed, defiant “physical punishment of students is not appropriate
behavior for teachers”
Do not know (or never thought about it)
Others _________________________________________

10) Would you punish students physically if you become a teacher someday?
(Only choose 1 answer)
1. Yes
2. No
3. It depends
4. Do not know

11) How do you think your grades are in school? (Only choose 1 answer)
Good
Average
Poor

12) Do you know that corporal punishment of students is against the rules?
(Only choose 1 answer)
1. Yes
2. No

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In Taiwan, teachers’ use of corporal punishment on students is a prevalent practice. Even though The Ministry of Education first announced banning the practice 1947 and reiterated the ban several times through the years, it was rarely enforced. In December 2006, it was written into law and became officially illegal. Surveys by the Humanistic Education Foundation (HEF), a non-profit education advocacy organization, showed that a large percentage of students were victims of corporal punishment before 2006

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact and sustainability of programs, practices and norms on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Hawaiian language and culture in the middle level math class

PDF

Optimal applications of social and emotional learning paradigms for improvements in academic performance

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Wong, Pokil (author)

Core Title Corporal punishment of students by teachers in elementary and middle schools in Taiwan: the relationship with school level, gender, school location, academic performance, and emotional reactions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/28/2011

Defense Date 02/22/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic performance,Corporal punishment,elementary school,emotional reaction,gender,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,school location,Taiwan

Place Name Taiwan (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Astor, Ron Avi (committee chair), Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member)

Creator Email pokilwong@aol.com,wongpokil@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3706

Unique identifier UC1491718

Identifier etd-Wong-4425 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-444235 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3706 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Wong-4425.pdf

Dmrecord 444235

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wong, Pokil

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu