According to Purkey and Straham (2005), the appendages and consequences of making claims, refining or abandoning some forms of discipline, and explaining the rationale for accepting considerations for inclusion enable the implementing teachers and supervisors to shape knowledge and seek relevant and valid theory. This will explain the power of newly adopted disciplinary processes. As a result, these collaborative activities, it is assumed that all participants have a common understanding of the theories thus facilitating continuous improvement of the quality of teaching and learning.
This is based on the fact that this group had taken an Educational Psychology course at an earlier stage.
The Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) encouraged teachers to adopt and apply non-violent, constructive, and positive disciplinary approaches, such as withdrawal of privileges, behavioural modification, time-out for misbehaving learners, and preventative, corrective, and supportive disciplinary methods (Department of Education, 2001; Squelch, 2000). The new regime mandates teachers to use discipline proactively in teaching learners to accept authority, adhere to school rules, exercise self-control, and respect others (Ngwenya, 2007).
Charles (2012) indicates that the proactive disciplinary management approach has the potential to create order and ensure harmonious relations and activities for both teachers and learners. This change in approach to school discipline also has the potential to sustain a safe and secure environment in schools. The previous statement rests on the premise that learners, who grow up in such environments, on average do well academically, behave courteously, exhibit kindness to others and thrive as a result (Maslow, 1970).
School discipline has the primary aim to all role players to contribute collegially in developing self-discipline and creating environments for innovative learning, not simply for compliance itself (Nelson, 2002).
Quite clearly, learners and role players at schools collectively need to reach a point where they can look beyond ‘what is’ and become innovative to create a total teaching environment.
Nelson (2002) stated that there are some positive discipline approaches available for use by teachers. Examples include the preventative, supportive, and corrective reinforcements and progressive discipline character development. In this regard, Nelson recommended that schools must develop their own innovative disciplinary codes of conduct to satisfy their specific needs. Therefore, learners must participate in an interactive process to develop their character strengths and virtues with self-discipline. Figure 2 illustrates the positive discipline approaches as a basis for the theoretical framework for the study. It depicts that the use of Positive discipline in schools depends on the misbehavior of students. Khumalo (2010) recommended that discipline is always needed to maintain order while different activities in the school continues. The way students handle themselves in the school premises will cause teachers to develop and implement strategies that bring harmony and maintain order within the school (Nelson, 2002). As students conduct themselves they need to be supported as they navigate towards psychological maturity (Erickson, 1974).