STUDENTS’ DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD THE TEACHER IN THE TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESS OF STATE ISLAMIC JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN MADURA

Achmad Muhlis
Institut Agama Islam Negeri Madura
ach_muhlis@yahoo.co.id

Muhammad Holis
MTsN 3 Pamekasan
muhammadholis@gmail.com

Saliha Sebgag
Departement of Letters and Arabic Language, 
University Mohamed Khider of Biskra, Algeria
saliha.sebgag@univ-biskra.dz

Moh. Wardi
Institut Dirosat Islamiyah Al-Amien Prenduan Sumenep
mohwardi84@gmail.com

Muhammad Anas Maarif
Institut Pesantren KH. Abdul Chalim Pacet Mojokerto
anasdt16@gmail.com

Abstract: This article describes the destructive behavior as the immoral behavior which violating the social life norms and values did by the students to their teacher. This study is aimed at analyzing the models, the factors affecting and the alternative solution on the students’ destructive behavior toward the teacher in the teaching and learning process of Islamic Junior High School in Madura. The method used in this study is a qualitative research; the data was gained to describe the existing reality. The result of the study showed that there are verbal, physical and mental forms of destructive behavior model. The factors affecting the students’ destructive behavior toward their teacher are the higher social status of the students than the teacher, the students’ thought that they think they have a higher intelligent and knowledge than their teacher. The alternative solutions on the students’ destructive behavior toward their teacher are in the form of giving coaching/ guidance, good example, parents’ involvement in “home visit” program and also by giving ‘educational punishment’ to students.  

Keywords: Destructive behavior, teaching and learning

Abstrak: Artikel ini mendeskripsikan perilaku destruktif sebagai tindakan amoral yang melanggar Norma dan tatanan nilai kehidupan sosial masyarakat yang dilakukan oleh murid kepada gurunya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang model, faktor penyebabnya, serta solusi alternatif perilaku destruktif murid terhadap guru dalam pembelajaran pada Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri di Madura. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah qualitative research, data yang dikumpulkannya berusaha menggambarkan realitas aslinya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa model perilaku destruktif berupa verbal, perilaku destruktif fisik, dan perilaku destruktif mental. Faktor penyebab perilaku destruktif murid terhadap guru dalam pembelajaran pada Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri di Madura karena status sosial murid lebih tinggi dari gurunya, Murid merasa memiliki kecerdasan dan pengetahuan yang lebih dari gurunya, Cara mengatasi perilaku destruktif murid terhadap guru Pembinaan, Keteladanan dan Keterlibatan Orang tua “Home Visit”, dan pemberian sanksi edukasi pada siswa.

Kata Kunci: Prilaku Destruktif, Pembelajaran.

INTRODUCTION 
Destructive beavior is an immoral behavior which violates the norms caused by the emotional factors of the students themselves, such as the the feeling of unconfident or hatred to be restraint. It makes this destructive behaviour as the trigger or the early symptoms to take revenge in purpose of showing their identity and existence. The destructive behaviour is identical with rough, rejecting, resisting the order, even denying what is not suitable with their wish. 
Nowadays, the destructive behavior happened in SMAN 1 Torjun Sampang Madura, in the late 1st February 2018, there is a persecution done by a student to his teacher which caused the death of the teacher. This behavior had been done at the school when the teaching and learning was in progress, this was only because the teacher reminded the students to do the task given but he still ignored the teacher. The teacher reminded again and again and this made the students angry and did the destructive action to the teacher to show his existence in the classroom.
As we know that the student’s immoral behavior is an inappropriate behavior of a student to the teacher, moreover it happened inside the classroom when the teaching learning process is in progress. Here, Elida prayitno, the student on the case, should have good moral and ethical as the developmental requirement to be mature. A successful adult must have good attitude in line with the good norms, it also needs the parents’ and the teachers’ guide as the example.
The second interesting case happened in May 3rd 2018. Torturing done by the student to his teacher which also caused the the death of the teacher happened in one of the pesantren in Pamekasan. This happened because the student felt offended to the teachers’ warning on him when he broke the pesantren’s rule. The third destructive behavior happened to show the student’s existence in the teaching learning process. It was happened in SMKN Pakong. The student at that time brought his smart phone to the classroom, the teacher recognized it. Then, the teacher took and brought the smart phone to the teacher’s room. Suddenly, the student went home directly without permission to the teacher and told his parent about it and the parents directly went to school to take the smart phone. They did it roughly while having their sickle on hand. 
It is already proper for teacher to warn the students in the teaching and learning process if they did not obey the rule in the classroom, it is the way to show the norms they have already had and agreed. The values from the environment will really influence their behavior to other people in society, especially to teacher in the classroom. Here, Mohammad Ali and Mohammad Asrori stated that values, ethics and good morals are the references for adult to reach the mature personality in their daily life interaction.
The fact is that there is destructive behavior usually done by the students to their teacher in reality. Based on the result of observation, it happened in all Islamic school in Madura (MTsN 1 Sumenep, MTsN 2 Sumenep, MTsN 3 Sumenep, MTsN 1 Pamekasan, MTsN 2 Pamekasan, MTsN 3 Pamekasan, MTsN 4 Pamekasan, MTsn 1 Sampang, MTsN 2 Sampang and MTsN 1 Bangkalan). The destructive behaviors show in sleeping at the classroom, talking aloud while the teaching process runs, not participating in the discussion, not doing the assignment, not making notes, not making the homework, arguing the teacher, disobeying, sitting on other’s chair, etc.
One of the reasons why this destructive behavior happen is because the adult cultural and interaction pattern shift which influence the social condition of the students in Madura. Actually, Madurese honor the morality, politeness, ethics, moral both for teacher and the parents so high. Even Madurese have their own philosophy Bhuppa-Bhabbu', Ghuru Rato (Ayah, Ibu, Guru, Raja) in respecting others which have already known as Madurese jargon.
Here, Weber classified the social behavior dealing with the teaching and learning process into four categories that these categories are able to influence social structure system in society. The first is instrumental rationality. It is a social behavior did by an individual that is based on their conscious consideration and choice. It also deals with the purpose of the behavior and the existence of the tool to reach it.
The second is value based rationality. It shows that the existing tools only become conscious consideration and calculation, while the relationship between its purposes and individual values are absolute. The third is traditional behavior. This type shows that individual behavior comes from the habit/ practices from the ancestors without any careful reflection and planning. Forth, affective behavior, this behavior dominated by the unconscious planning and superficial reflection of feeling or emotion.    
Supporting Weber theory, in line with what has been developed by George Homan about exchange theory, it can be categorized into three propositions: first, if someone’s behavior is based on specific stimuli to get reward, so it most likely that the behavior having connection to the same stimuli and situation will be done and reoccur. Correlating to destructive behavior, when we let it happens, it will happen all the time, again and again and it will develop to other phenomenon at school. So it need to be anticipated by the government, public figure, parents and also teachers to make the students obey the rule and guide students to a meaningful and educated activity.
The second proposition of George Homan is the more people get reward from what they have done, the less the value they would get for the next deed. If this destructive behavior is called as breaking social ethic and religious disorder, it means that all parties should give the same moral punishment “Social Punishment” to the doer of destructive behavior at school, moreover when the deed happened when the process of teaching and learning is running.
The third proposition of George Horman is the more someone feels aggrieved in his relationship with others, the bigger opportunity he will get to increase his emotions. In the interaction between teacher and student in classroom, it is not a process where there is automatic stimulus given and directly get the response. It is a thinking process with specific competence on the side of the teacher and students.
The most interesting thing from this research is that the destructive behavior done by the students to their teacher are so various and complex. The problems what are the forms of students’ destructive behavior in the teaching and learning process of State Islamic Junior High School (Madrasah Tsanawiyah) in Madura. What are the factors affecting the students’ destructive behavior in the teaching learning process of State Islamic Juinor High School (Madrasah Tsanawiyah) in Madura. How are the solutions dealing with the students’ destructive behavior in the teaching learning process of State Islamic Junior high School (Madrasah Tsanawiyah) in Madura. These points are the focuses of this article.

RESEARCH METHOD
The method used in this research was qualitative research. because the data is collected qualitatively which meant the data gained was not in the form of interval, ordinal or discrete number and it also describe the real fact happens in the society. The kind of research used is explorative research which analyzes the data descriptively with the kind of case study.
The data collection instruments in this research were non-participant observation, depth interview and documentation. The technique used in this research was unstructured interview (muqabalah ghair al-muqannanah) which was done without interview guide. The interviewees were chosen by using purposive sampling technique. Qualitative research has nothing to do with sampling, the amount of sample even the sampling method. It is more as informants than snowball sampling. 
The interviewees were the headmaster, teachers, students and people directly connected with the students’ destructive behavior to the teacher in the teaching learning process, while the data collected were the forms and the solutions of the students’ destructive behavior to the teacher in the teaching learning process of State Islamic Junior High School (Madrasah Tsanawiyah) in Madura. 
Data analysis on qualitative analysis data cannot be linearly done but it must use interactive analysis. In this research, the interactive analysis model used was cyclical interactive analysis model due to the research focus to be discussed which required something to be functioned before another unit be built. Therefore, structural prerequisite means that a structure needs to be there before a unit be built.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Definition of Destructive
According to Rogers in T Pratisto, destructive is a behavior or attitude that can interfere with the learning process. They are often rude, irresponsible and often violate school rules. These various behaviors often make the teacher angry, annoyed, and unable to deliver the lesson well.
Various children's behaviors that can be grouped into destructive behavior include: Continuously calling the teacher and talking out of turn, talking alone when the teacher explains the subject matter, Motor anxiety (hyperactivity, wandering from the seat and irritating others, swinging constantly on the chair), an unnaturally loud voice, too often off-duty behavior, not paying attention, unable to concentrate properly. The aforementioned behavior is often encountered in classrooms and if it cannot be overcome, the learning activity process cannot take place properly so that learning objectives may not be maximally achieved.
Destructive behavior is an act of violating norms caused by various emotional factors that bind and pent up in students. Thus destructive behavior can be interpreted as a symptom of a desire for revenge or wanting to show and prove one's identity and existence in learning.

Factors that cause destructive behavior
A person's destructive behavior is nothing but a form of deviant behavior that is present in an instant. The development experienced since childhood also provides color in shaping a person's personality, including children's delinquency. From the aspect of mental science, actions that disturb the peace and interests of others are seen as manifestations of mental disorders or as a result of mental pressures that cannot be properly expressed. Or in other words that "delinquency" is an expression of tension, anxiety and anxiety or mental stress (frustration).
Sometimes the crime that a person commits is not because he or she lacks materiality, but is a manifestation of dissatisfaction, disappointment or depression, feeling less attention. Apart from the expression of a restless heart, it is also possible for his actions to seek attention or retribution for unpleasant actions and treatment.
Several factors cause destructive behavior, including: Lack of inculcation of religious values ​​in the family, lack of parental understanding of education, irregular time filling, instability of social, political and economic conditions, moral and mental decline of adults, many films and books that are not well read.

Social Action and Community Social Structure
In this case, Weber classifies social actions that occur in learning into four parts that can affect the social system and structure of society, including students in Madura. Among others are; first, instrumental rationality. Here the social action that is carried out by a person is based on considerations and conscious choices related to the purpose of the action and the availability of the tools used to achieve it.
Second, value-oriented rationality. The rational nature of this type of action is that the means that exist are only conscious deliberation and calculation, while the aims are already in relation to the absolute values ​​of the individual.
Third, traditional action. In this type of action, a person displays certain behaviors due to habits that have been devised from the ancestors, without conscious reflection or planning. Fourth, affective action. This type of action is dominated by feelings or emotions without intellectual reflection or conscious planning.
Thus, what Weber said, in line with the theory of exchange developed by George Homan, can be broadly returned to the following three propositions: First, If behavior or events that have passed in the context of certain stimuli and situations are rewarded, it is likely that behavior or events that have a relationship between the same stimulus and situation will occur or be carried out. That means the phenomenon of this destructive behavior will occur continuously without stopping and continuously, if there is the neglect of certain parties who have the obligation, authority and authority to discipline and direct this student or a small group of people into a more meaningful, dignified activity, and educating, by prioritizing interactions that are ethical, moral and have values. If the government, community leaders, parents, or teachers ignore it, the destructive behavior of these students will occur continuously without stopping and without end and will continue to develop in other phenomena in schools and madrasah.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Students’ Verbal Destructive Behavior to Teacher in the Teaching Learning Process. 
According to Rogers in Pratisto that destructive is an interfering behavior or behavior in the teaching learning process. They often act impolitely, irresponsible and often break the rules. Those behaviors often make the teacher angry, annoyed and cannot teach well.
There are kinds of students’ behavior that can categorized into destructive behavior such as calling the teacher all the time, talking out of the context, talking by themselves in the classroom while the teacher is explaining, showing exaggerated motoric enxiety (hyperactive, annoying, walking in the classroom all the time, and swinging on the chair), having over-loud voice at the classroom, often doing something out of the assignment given, paying no attention and even having no concentration on the subject. 
Those behaviors often happen in the classroom and if it cannot be handled well, it can ruin the teaching and learning process so that the purpose of the teaching cannot be gained smoothly. Destructive attitude or behavior is an attitude which violates norms caused by many and various emotions on the students. Therefore, destructive behavior can be said as an early symptom of having revenge on the teacher or showing individual identity in teaching and learning process. 
The form of this verbal destructive behavior can be seen in the spoken or written destructive form to the teacher. This behavior shows that the students thought the teacher is an ordinary human with no use or even having lower social level than them.  Therefore, the students tend to underestimate and saying rude word to them. This behavior was done by the students to the teacher to show their dislike to the teacher.  
This destructive behavior happens to Farid Rofiq, an Arabic teacher from one of State Islamic Junior High School in Madura. He often recorded his student says and act improperly which belongs to destructive, such as “korang ajer (God damn it)”, “tak beres (insane)”, “Pate’ (dog)”. Besides, there are many students show impolite behavior, disrespectful to their teacher.
They underestimate the existence of the teacher. In fact, the students with destructive behavior are the students who come from low intellectual level but still they think they are the best and smartest among others. Many students speak with high voice to their teacher, such as “huuuuuu”, “tidak!”, “du apah (unimportant)”, “ma’ labedeh beih be’en pak (you’re having your own business)”, je’ wat magawat (don’t be so strict)” and others.
Even more, the students strike the teacher’s personal matter out of his/ her capacity as a teacher. Sometime, they even make fun of the teacher’s physical appearance. For instance, there is a teacher who is not so high for about 140cm in height, they call him “se penttet datang (the dwarf is coming)”, they even challenge him a fight.
The students’ destructive behavior toward their teacher often found by a teacher Ibu Syamsiyah, S.Pd., a Math teacher of MTsN in Madura. They use spoken or written rude words. Such as “du de’emma’ah pak (It’s impossible, sir?)”, “je’ be’en ta’ bengal (You would never be brave, Sir)” and others. These expressions show that the teacher does not have capability in teaching and they do not have bravery in facing them, the students.
This destructive behavior was also obviously done by the students in front of their teacher. It happened to Mr. Lutfi, S.Pd, a sport teacher of MTsN in Madura. He was threatened by his student because he warned one of his students who broke the rule. The student said “awas”, e kabele’ah ka eppa (keep alert, sir. I’ll report you to my fataher)”, “eambe’eh e lorong (I’ll wait for you on the way home)”, “majuh mon atorakah e loar (come outside to fight!)” and others.
In the process of teaching and learning in the classroom Mr. Ali Hisyam, S.Sos.I, a counselor teacher heard a student stated “I’m lazy to go to school, Sir”. Spontenously, Mr. Ali said “if you are lazy to be at the school, it’s better for you to go home earlier.” The joke stated by Mr. Ali was taken into granted by the student and he went home directly. It was so because the student is so naughty and often late to come to school, so he was so brave to take the risk and he went home directly.
Another happening experienced by Mrs. Robiatul Adawiyah, a counselor teacher in MTsN in Madura. She stated that to solve the students’ destructive behavior she did the following things; sending their parent letter to come to school, doing home visit to meet the parents but these efforts are in vain because the parents work outside the town. In another occasion, she asked for the parents’ information by asking them “Where did your parent go? Why did not they come to school for the invitation? And why did not we meet anyone at your house?” Spontaneously, they are shouting and hit the table in front of their teacher.
Based on the above description, it shows that the form of students’ verbal destructive behavior toward their teacher are in spoken or written way. It happens because the students’ background knowledge which does not understand and do the essence of ethic and akhlaq.  The potency of destructive behavior in State Islamic Junior High School (MTsN) in Madura is still in high level of happening, it needs all stakeholders of education to think for the solution of this problem.

Students’ Physical Destructive Behavior toward Teacher in Teaching Learning Process. 
Destructive behaviour done students to their teacher was not only done in the form of spoken and written way to harm the teacher psikisly, but physically it was done to harm the teachers’ physical safety. It seems that teachers with knowledge and ”tittle” on their name are not having enought qualification for teaching, they need to have self-defense skill to overcome the students’ destructive behaviour which sometime it is also supported by the parents. 
The teacher’s role is to teach and transfer knowledge to their students. But the fact someties contrary, sometime we found that there is a fight because the students are angry at what the teacher did to them. Althought it is for the students’ sake. They do not realize that it is for their sake later in life, they fight with destructive behaviour which harm thier teacher’s physical aspect.
As an examplary case, there is a teacher in one of MTsN in Madura who got physical harrashment of being beaten and slapped over by the student. It is stated that one day there is a student who was given punishment because he broke the rule in the school, after that, the student and his parents directly come to school and beat the teacher without confirming the student’s behaviour to the school. The beating and slapping is the form of revenge to the teacher’s punishmnet to student at school.
First, it happened to Mr. Mabrur and Mr. Chatib and this also happened to Mr. Lutfi. He also physically threated so badly because of giving his student punishment for breaking the rule. The student decided to go home and told his parent about the punishment he got, and directly the parents went to school to beat the teacher. 
Secondly, it happened to Mrs. Uswatun Hasanah, S.Pd, an English teacher of MTsN in Madura. The story was so pity and dramatic, one of her students was following her on the way home from school. She thought positively that the student would do nothing at first. In fact, the student reproached her by imitating the way she walks. Mrs. Uswatun got information from other students that the naughty student was following her behind therefore, Mrs.Uswatun gave him punishment. The case is continuing further, the parents of the naughty student came to school, met and reproved her as if she was not their child’s teacher. As a woman, Mrs. Uswatun just tried to be patient and silence.
Beside physical harrashment, teachers of MTsN in Madura also experienced behavior that shows the students’ dislike to teacher. As it happened to Mr. Ali Hisyam, S.Sos.I, a counselor teacher of MTsN in Madura. “They often refused me to shake hand, maybe they still feel angry at the punishment I gave them as the counselor teacher,” he said. He is responsible for giving guidance, warning for students who break the rule at school, break the norms and ethic that has been agreed and applied in Madrasah. Mr. Ali Hisyam tried to be patient, although some students did not want to shake hand with him.  He was not offended and always tried to give guidance to make the students have a better attitude and they can be useful for religion and nation.
The students’ bad attitude toward their teacher to show their dislike also happened to Mr. Mohammad Holis, an Arabic teacher of MTsN in Madura. There were students who liked to make noise at the classroom, chatting with his friends, making jokes noisily, not doing the assignment, etc. Here, Mr. Holis gave them punishment to stand in front of their friends until the end of the class. As a result, when he met the students outside the class, they turned their face away and they did not want to face him directly. These destructive behaviors did not lessen Mr. Holis’ spirit to teach and develop the Arabic subject’s teaching quality to better. He believes that later in life they will realize that this destructive behavior is also bad not only for themselves but for others also. He keeps trying to make the students better both academically and mentally.

Students’ Mental Destructive Behavior toward the Teacher in Teaching Learning Process. 
The third destructive form is mental destructive. Not all students have a high motivation in the process of teaching and learning. A low motivated student seems to have destructive behavior toward his/ her teacher at the teaching learning process. The teachers’ purpose is only making the students the material well. In this case, there are many mental destructive behavior done by the students which lead to bad behavior to their teacher, such as first, the students like to grumble for something they did not like. This is often happened in Mr. Abd. Haq’s class, he is an Arabic teacher of MTsN in Madura.  He found his student grumbled for a task he assigned for them. They think it was too much. Mr. Abd. Haq had already offered the task for the student first, but no one responding or rejecting. When the task is given to them do be done, most of the students grumbled, may be at first they were afraid to reject the task.  Actually he often said “come on, who think this task is too hard” every time he gave task but the students were in silence. In another word, they only grumbled after the teacher.
Secondly, the students show sour face. This also happened to Mr. Abd. Haq. The problem was similar; it was about the assignment which the students think too hard for them. They were disappointed because the assignment given was not proper with their want. The Arabic teacher felt that this problem was usual thing and did not need to be questioned anymore. 
Third, there is a student who does not want to come if the teacher is calling. At first, the teacher thought that it was because the student was shame. After some investigation it was known that he did it because he felt guilty and he felt that he broke the rule. It happened many times. While to get the advantage and barokah of the knowledge, we need to be obedient to teachers.
Fourth, the students felt traumatic feeling after getting the punishment. Mohammad saleh, one of teachers in MTsN in Madura found traumatic students after getting punishment from the teacher. One day, when Mohammad Saleh taught his class, he saw a student was daydreaming. He asked the student whether he understood the material or not,  the student kept silent even seemed to be afraid. After asking the rest of the students at that class, they explained that the student was traumatic for getting punishment of not understanding the material being explained in the previous meeting.
Fifth, the students like to laugh at the teaching learning process. Laughing at the classroom are usual thing for students when they see, feel something funny. But something become odd if there is a student is laughing when there is nothing funny. It was happened in Abu Bakar’s class. Suddenly, some students laughed at the classroom, whereas there is no other funny object to be laughed at. He was confused at that time because he felt he was being laughed at by his own students in his own classroom when teaching.
Sixth, the students get used to tell their parents to ask for help/ defend when they have punishment from their teacher. There two kinds of parents here, the one is the parents realize and know that their child do fault and even thank for the teacher’s guide but another kinds have the contrary behavior. They gave the teacher reasons for the mistake their child have done, even some parents used rude words to teachers who gave punishment to their child. Although they actually know that the purpose of giving them punishment is for the sake of the students themselves.

Factors Affecting the Students’ Destructive Behavior toward the Teacher in teaching Learning Process. 
There are various factors affecting the students’ bad behaviour breaking the normsthat has been agreed and applied in the school for many years. There are two factors affecting the students’ destructive behavior toward the teacher in the teaching learning process, they are internal and external factor.
Internal factors affecting the students’ destructive behavior toward the teacher in teaching are, first the social status of the students is higher than their teacher. In Madura, social status becomes the economic the modality for showing power in social life. The level of social status in Madura is influenced by the family’s economic level. There are pre prosperous family, presporous family, respected family (such as family from the headman of the village, kyai,dukun, or government officers) and “Bajingan” level who have the bravery in doing carok. There many students who have higher social status than their teacher in MTsN in Madura. It should be understood that economically, the majority of teachers in Madura are weak so it makes their position sometimes weakened by the students. Therefore, it often happens in Madura where the students with higher family background level or having more prosperous economic level tend to be arrogant in having relation with the teacher.
Based on Weber theory, when we relate this social behaviour with teaching learning context influencing the sosial structure system in society is categorized into instrumental rationality destructive behaviour, students did some resistance because they have enough social modality. Even more than that, there are students who have full support to give resistance if they are given punishment from the teacher, although the punishment id for the students’ sake. Economical social status of the parents influenced the students’ personality very much in terms of their way to socialize, behave in the society, the dressing style, the way to speak which tend to underestimate teacher as if the teacher does not have anything to be compared with because of their weak economic status. The students think that they can do everything with economic power.
Secondly, the students think that they have higher knowledge and intelligent than their teacher. When the students are smarter and cleverer than the teacher, they tend to underestimate their teacher for being smarter. This kind of student does not realize that the competency he has mainly comes from the help of teacher. The student even resistance, by rejecting or arguing what the teacher said. But because they are still young and actually they want to take attention from people around, they are trying to show themselves off their friends even by underestimating the teacher who has already given them knowledge. Based on Weber’s theory, when we relate this social behavior with teaching learning context  that can influence the society’s social structure and its system, this would belongs to value-based rationality destructive behavior. The students did destructive behavior for getting personal value which is absolute. They want to be categorized into the best, the smartest so that sometimes they did not bring any stationary such as books, pencil, eraser with them to school. Although they know that it was breaking the rule.
Third, the students want to show their existence. If in the second factor the students did the destructive behavior because they have higher knowledge and intelligent than their teacher, it is contrary with the third factor. The students do not have enough knowledge to show their existence in front of their friends. Based on Weber’s theory, when we relate this social behavior with teaching learning context that can influence the society’s social structure and its system, it is categorized into the students’ affective destructive behavior which only based on feeling or emotion without intellectual reflection or conscious planning in behaving. This behavior can be in the form of lazy, disturbing other people, breaking the rules, not wearing shocks, having no haircut, using no tie, etc. It does not mean that they do not know that if they break the rule, they would get punishment. Students cannot control their emotion, they like to have joke but they are easily to be angry or “temperament”. They have unstable and unpredictable emotion, cannot control the emotion so that they tend to be contrary with the teacher although they know that they would get punishment.
The fourth is the family’s influence. The students of MTsN in Madura come from various background of family, both their social economic level and parents’ education background. There are some students who come from the temperamental family such as students from Sampang, Bangkalan and Pamekasan regency. They realize that the consequence of violating the school regulation is adding the violating score which can lead to failing a grade, but still they violate the rule, they are so brave of not being obey to teacher and the rule at schoool. Based on Weber’s theory when we relate this social behavior with the teaching learning context that can influence the society’ social structure and system belongs to the students affective destructive behavior which is based only on feeling or emotion without intellectual reflection or conscious planning in behaving toward teacher. The students cannot control their emotion, likes to have joke but easily to be angry or temperament. This kind of students have unstable and unpredictable emotion, cannot control the emotion so that they tend to be contrary and against the teacher. 
The external factors affecting the students’ destructive behavior toward their teacher in the teaching learning process are, the first is the influence of information and technology development.  It cannot be denied that the students have already united with information technology. Its existence influences the students’ way of thinking and attitude very much. There are many negative attitudes that the students did come from the influence of information technology development. Nowadays sophisticated information technology seems to be a knife with two sides. One side gives positive impact because we can use it to get learning sources including communication role, but another side can give negative impact because it can be used for accessing instant way of thinking and narrowing  the students emotional quotient which form them to be an individualist. This is the reason why we urgently require characteristic building in madrasah to be developed continuously. Hedonic culture which is identical to facility and luxurious good owning by adults such as cars, motorcycle, blackberry, exaggerated using of facebook, twitter and texting is already spread over.  Madura, as like other big cities, cannot run from this development. Boyband/Girlband become a new pandemic for the youngsters in Madura.  Our society now is getting the boyband/girlband fever. Many people suddenly become boyband/girlband because of this addictive. Motor gang, being intoxicated, brawling among students and many other examples are related to nowadays youngster’s morality.
The second is western way of life. Nowadays, the students’ style and way of life are so much different compared to the old time where the students live with simple and shortage life. Western style is attacking students in Madura, including in education part of MTsN in Madura. The effect is marvelous, there is students in madrasah who said and behaved unethical to their teacher because the influence of  television, YouTube, Whatsapp text, BMM, instagram , telegram, etc which spread all over Madura to attack the students’ brain. “Valentine’s day”, which is identical with pink and having time with their couple, leads the youngsters to free sex. Nowadays adult’ perception about dating is so brave which they think they would be like ancient when they do not having date. They are so proud of having many and different girlfriend/ boyfriend at many times. If they think they think they are suitable with their couple, they just break them out. The haircut and dressing in sexy manner. Alay which is abbreviated from “anak layangan” is the exaggerated youngster’s life in terms of dressing, sayings and behavior. These youngsters often wear strange dressing such as light color dress with exaggerated accessories.  Their behaviors are also exaggerating. They have odd way of speaking and it is different with other people in their society. They also made strange gestures while speaking or doing something.
The third is the effect of drugs and alcoholic drink. Lately, Madura has become the destination for drug spread in the form of “sabu- sabu” and also alcoholic drink. The spread is not only among teenagers and adults, but also the students from junior high school. The more often the children consume drugs and alcoholic drink, it would effect on the thinking stability moreover on the way to make a decision which leads to behavior. Behavior without stable thinking process would create unstable behavior. In the context of Madura, the drug abuse becomes the crucial problem, social crime which leads to physical harassment. It was the story behind the emergence of Kampung Narkoba in Bangkalan, troubled zone for drugs in the northern coast of Sampang to the building of Lapas Narkotika in Pamekasan and the spread of drugs in Sumenep’s archipelago. This is supporting a statement that drug abuse is really worrying, showing that drug abuse is social crime, and it belongs to the crime that cannot be tolerated and contrary with our ideology and norms because it can give a systemic effect on other crimes.  Besides, the consumption of book material and film also give change for students to express the hidden feeling besides stimulating the students to follow and imitate it in their daily activities. Finally, they are imitating and exemplifying heroes who are not having good morals containing in their reading material and films.
The fourth is the overload learning burden. Sometimes, the students are forced to learn much things at a time. Teachers often give the students many home works and assignments without giving any correction on it which make the students’ disbelief to teacher and it implies on the bad behavior toward the teacher. Here the students may felt depressed and they would do something odd. Moreover, it also happen when the teacher correct the students’ work without giving any appreciation on it. They should appreciate the students’ work and the treat them fair.
The fifth is the teacher uses rude word to students. It is occasionally happen when the teacher saying something rude to students. There is also kind of teacher who likes to say something rude, whether they realize it or not, those rude words would make bad image of them in front of their students. This also be a trigger for students to do destructive behavior to them and they would reply the teacher with rude words also. In another word, the destructive behavior done by the students is because they are imitating what their teacher did. Teacher became the one who is in charge in the classroom so that it makes him did what he wishes, like to run the show by himself, do what he likes to do and disregard what the students’ want even when it is not in sufficient time and place. This gives the students to take revenge and it was already protested by the teachers in this madrasah because it does not match the Madurese’ culture which are friendly, polite and tough.
The sixth is the exaggerated punishment. There are some teachers who gave punishment to their students as the way they are willing to (giving poin which is not suitable with their violation). The teacher is also a human being who can accidentally do fault and sin, they think that students are doing hard violation while actually they are not. It means that professional attitude of a teacher is also needed to solve the problems happen to students.

The Problem Solving for the Students’ Destructive Behavior toward the Teacher in the Teaching Learning Process
As an islamic institution, one of its roles is for building the students’ characteristics, MTsn in Madura would never make the destructive behaviour goes on. MTsN in Madura took  solutive steps to end thoses destructive behaviours, through giving punishment which is based on the existing rules. From various forms of destructive behaviours happened in MTsN in Madura as mentioned in the previous chapter, made the administrator of MTsN in Madura should create some efforts to repress the students’ destructive behaviour toward their teacher. The students may do the same destructive behaviour with different effort because the personal conditions of students are also different.  While the efforts are giving guidance, exemplary and the parents’ involvement in ”home visit”. The administrator of madrasah applied various ways in solving the destructive behaviour happens in MTsN in Madura, one of them are giving guidance and training the students in doing positive activities in school’s environment especially something related to the spiritual development. 
Based on Weber’s exchange theory which is developed by George Homan, stated that changing someone’s personality can be done by making them involved into a habituation activity which are more meaningful, dignified, and educated. As a relevant implementation of this theory, first, the vice headmaster of students’ sector in one of MTsN in Madura made the agenda to wait the students every morning in the front door of the school.  The vice headmaster watched the students’ coming every morning to know that they are discipline in time and dressing. The students would feel that they are being watched and controlled by the teacher so that they are motivated to obey the rules at the school such as the obligation to come five minutes before the class starts, tidy in dressing such as wearing shocks, belt, shoes, and complete uniform as stated in the school’s rule. The purpose of it is for monitoring, and giving the students good example not to come late to school and dress tidily as stated in the school’s rule. Besides that, the teachers and vice headmaster check the students’ attribute such as shoes, shocks, and other attributes. 
Every morning, MTsN in Madura hold Dhuha prayer together, recite Al-Qur’an, read Asma’ul Husna. These efforts are trying to engage the students into a better religious relation with God. It is hoped that the students’ relations will form a better behavior which is based on religious teachings including not harming others. Besides religious coaching, the headmaster also give guidance program in the classroom which was done by specific personnel, such as counselor and religious teacher who can give great effect on the students. The couch in the classroom was taken from teachers who have prestige in front of the students so that the students feel disinclined and they can receive what the teacher said. The material or the coaching content talks much about the essence of togetherness, harmony and violence prevention. One of it is talking about how to build good relation between teacher and students in obedient, polite and sincere manner. Those manners must be there in the teaching learning process to gain beneficial and barokah of knowledge. From this effort it is hoped to minimize the destructive behavior.  
	Destructive behavior in Madura can be done by using school and society’s structural potency to minimize the potency of destructive behavior. Structural aspects in an institution are all elements in the school (from the headmaster, teachers and students) related to destructive problem. The headmaster and teachers are responsible to create a good relationship between parents and society to establish corporation in the purpose of prevention and building a communication system so that it can identify the outside potency that can support the destructive behavior. The administrators of MTsN in Madura do personal approach to create emotional relation with the outsiders who have big role in family. If there is a violence done by a student, the school will send a letter to parents to come to school, but if this effort is in vain, so the institution will do the home visit program. 
The second way is giving educated punishment. Punishment is the consequence of doing destructive behavior done by the students to the teacher. By giving them punishment suitable with the existing mechanism, it is hoped that it can minimize the students’ destructive behavior’s quantity toward their teacher. Punishment is the way to give the students lesson that the destructive behavior is a bad behavior and it needs to be given a worth punishment.  The problem emerges nowadays is that the teacher should not do the destructive behavior to the students because the students are under the protection of child protection laws, while actually the students are not allowed to do destructive behavior to teacher because they are noble characters for doing noble duties. 
	MTs is an Islamic education institution with Islamic education principle view and teachings. In islam perspective, the relationship between teacher and students should be built on the base of obedient, politeness, sincere manner and dedication. These are the basic values that need to be understood and implemented by the students, as well as the parents so that there would be no destructive behavior which can fail the teaching learning process. When the destructive behavior happens, one way to solve it is by giving the doer punishment to make them chary. As Mrs. Noor Indah stated that when the students violated the school’s regulation like skipping the class, smoking at the school’s area, going home earlier from school, so the ppunishment given would be in the form of reciting Yasin, praying and other thing in the yard of the school.
The punishment must be given at every valance happens, so it really gives the students lesson and they would not do it anymore. Every student is unique for having their own characteristic and background. There are some students who are obedient and they do not do violation anymore when they had already got punishment. In contrary, there are also some students who got several punishments but it does not stop him to do violation. For the latter students, the punishment should be given continuously to give him lesson not to do violation anymore. This is in line with with George Homan stated that the more often punishment you got from other people, the less value of the next behavior would stay. In another words, we can hinder the development of destructive behavior by giving the doer punishment.
The sufficient punishment for the above theory is by asking them to recite surah Yasin in the school yard in front of the teachers and other students. Asking them to recite Al-Qur’an is not only giving an educated punishment but it may also make them shy to do it again for it is a moral value. When they are already shy, they would not try to repeat their destructive behavior again. 
Dealing with destructive behavior, education institutions including MTsN in Madura at least have a clear and open mechanism so that the outsiders relating with the problem will also identify it. We cannot handle the destructive behavior partially; it must be comprehensive and integrated with other aspects. Counseling service must be fully supported by the institution leader (the headmaster) both in the form of the regulation product in terms of legal decision on the regulation and other moral support. This support and cooperation are the integral part that completes each other in reaching the purpose of solving the students’ destructive behavior problems. The regulation or mechanism in giving the students punishment would be signs for the parents in supporting school to make their children stop violating the school’s regulation. 
The institution, including MTsN in Madura, success can be seen from the students’ behavior, especially on the relationship between the student and teacher, interaction between the students and the parent, interaction between the student and the social environment and the interaction between the student and natural environment. If it is good it means that the educational institution can be categorized as successful in running the teaching learning process. 
The society’s full trust and interest to enroll their children to the madrasah with “Madrasah lebih baik, lebih baik madrasah” icon, would never neglect the parents’ satisfaction on the service quality given by MTsN which gives services to their children. Education service quality plays a strategic role in the future. The service quality correlates significantly to the users’ satisfaction. When the service quality meets the parents’ expectation, they would be satisfied. On the other hand, when the service quality does not meet the parents’ expectation, they would not be satisfied either.
There are two main factors which influence the service quality, they are the expected service and the perceived service. Therefore, the service quality can be measured by comparing the expected service with the perceived serviced gained by the users. When the expected service meets the perceived one, the quality categorized as good and satisfying. If the perceived service goes beyond the expected service, the service quality considered ideal. In contrary, when the perceived service is lower that what is being expected, so the service quality belongs to bad or unsatisfying. Therefore the ideal and the bad service quality depend on the capability of the administrator of MTsN in Madura to fulfill the parents’ expectation. 

CONCLUSION
The forms of students’ destructive behavior toward the teacher in the teaching learning process in State Islamic Junior High School in Madura consists of verbal destructive behavior, physical detructive behavior, and mental destructive behavior.
The factors affecting the students’ destructive attitude toward their teacher in teaching learning process of State Islamic Junior High School in Madura are the internal factor, in the form of the higher social status of the students than the teacher, the desire to show their existence, and the family’s influence. While the external factor consists of technological information’s influence, the students’ life style, drug abuse, alcoholic impact. 
The solutions of the students’ destructive behavior toward their teacher in the teaching and learning process of State Islamic Junior High School in Madura are giving them couching/ guidance, exemplary, parents’ involvement in “home visit” program and giving them educating punishment. 

REFERENCES

Adawiyah, Robiatul. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Afandi, A. Khozin. Berpikir Teoritis Merancang Proposal. Surabaya: Pascasarjana IAIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, 2006.
Ali, Mohammad, and Mohammad Asrori. Psikologi Remaja Perkembangan Peserta Didik. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2010.
Arifin, Fawaid. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Ariyulinda, Nita. “PENANGANAN KEKERASAN TERHADAP ANAK MELALUI UU TENTANG SISTEM PENDIDIKAN NASIONAL DAN UU TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN ANAK.” Journal Rechtsvinding; Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 1, no. 1 (2013): 1–5.
Aziz, Abd. “Zawawi-Kasus-Budi-Tragedi-Kemanusiaan-Paling-Tragis-Video.” Antara Jatim, April 26, 2018.
Bakar, Abu. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Basrowi, and Sukidin. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Perspektif Mikro. Surabaya: Insan Cendekia, 2002.
Chatib, M. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Damanik, Dasma Alfriani. “KEKERASAN DALAM DUNIA PENDIDIKAN: TINJAUAN SOSIOLOGI PENDIDIKAN Violence In The World of Education (A Sociology of Education Review).” Jurnal Sosiologi Nusantara 5, no. 1 (2019): 77–90.
Diyah, Nur Cholifa Maulut, and Ali Imron. “KEKERASAN DALAM PENDIDIKAN ( Studi Fenomenologi Perilaku Kekerasan Di Panti Rehabilitasi Sosial Anak ).” Paradigma 4, no. 3 (2016): 1–12.
Fadil, Mohammad. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Fahruddin. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Fatimah, St. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Hadziq, Abdulloh. “Pendidikan Antikekerasan Berwawasan Lingkungan.” At-Tarbawi 3, no. 1 (2018): 55–71.
Haq, Abd. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Hasanah, Uswatun. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Hisyam, Ali. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Holis, Mohammad. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Ilyas, Mohammad. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Indah, Noor. “Interview.” Sampang, 2019.
Jatmiko, Datu. “PERAN STAKEHOLDER SEKOLAH DALAM MENGATASI BERBAGAI MACAM KEKERASAN DI KALANGAN SISWA.” Nusantara of Research 4, no. April (2017): 7–13.
Luthfi. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Muhlis, Achmad. “Komunikasi Verbal Dalam Pengembangan Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab Berbasis Media Bithaqah Al-Jaibiyah.” Jurnal Okara Bahasa Dan Sastra 2, no. November (2016).
———. “Urgency of Arabic Language to the Religious Style of Madurese Society.” In 1st International Conference on Islamic Studies Islam A Friendly Cultural Religion. Pamekasan, 2017.
Muis, Tamsil. “TINDAKAN KEKERASAN GURU TERHADAP SISWA DALAM INTERAKSI BELAJAR MENGAJAR (STUDI KASUS DI SMAN SURABAYA).” Jurnal Pendidikan 2, no. 1 (2017): 72–76.
Muis, Tamsil, Muhammad Syafiq, and Siti Ina Savira. “INTERAKSI BELAJAR MENGAJAR DARI PERSPEKTIF SISWA DI SMPN KOTA SURABAYA: SEBUAH SURVEY.” JURNAL PSIKOLOGI: TEORI & TERAPAN 1, no. 2 (2011): 63–74.
Nahuda, Gino Purnomo, Niniek Agus Widjojo, Febiana, Suswandari, Evita Adnan, Kanthi Lestari, M. Rezfah Omar, Haryati, and Yayah Edi Tarmidi. PENCEGAHAN KEKERASAN TERHADAP ANAK DI LINGKUNGAN PENDIDIKAN. PUSAT PELAYANAN TERPADU PEMBERDAYAAN PEREMPUAN DAN ANAK (P2TP2A) PROVINSI DKI JAKARTA, 2007.
Noer, Khaerul Umam. “Mencegah Tindak Kekerasan Pada Anak Di Lembaga Pendidikan.” SAWWA: Jurnal Studi Gender 14, no. 1 (2019): 47–66.
Nurmala, Leni Dwi. “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Tenaga Pendidik.” Gorontalo Law Review 1, no. 1 (2018): 67–76.
Padmiati, Etty. “Melindungi Anak Dari Kekerasan ProtectingChildren from Violence.” Media Informasi Penelitian Kesejahteraan Sosial 39, no. 1 (2015): 31–42.
Pratisto. Efektivitas Sikap Tanggap Guru Untuk Mengatasi Perilaku Destruktif Siswa Dalam Pembelajaran. Jakarta, 2013.
Prayitno, Elida. Psikologi Perkembangan Remaja. Padang: Angkasa Raya, 2006.
Rasyad, Kairun. “Interview.” Sumenep, 2019.
Ritzer, George. Sosiologi Ilmu Pengatahuan Berparadigma Ganda. Jakarta: PT. Raja Granginfo Persada, 2014.
Rofiq, Farid. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Saleh, Mohammad. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Santoso, Hari. Kebijakan Perpustakaan Dalam Menghadapi Perilaku Destruktif Pemakai Pada Perpustakaan Perguruan Tinggi. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang, 2008.
Subairi. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Sudikan, Seya Yuwana. Metode Penelitian Kebudayaan. Surabaya: Universitas Negeri Surabaya Press, 2001.
Sutjipto, B.W. Strategi Manajemen Kualitas Dalam Era Globalisasi. Malang: Usahawan, 2013.
Syamsiyah. “Interview.” Pamekasan, 2019.
Wardi, Moh. “Penerapan Nilai Pendidikan Agama Islam Dalam Perubahan Sosial Remaja.” TADRIS: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam 7, no. 1 Juni (2013).
Weber, Max. Etika Protestan Dan Spirit Kapitalisme. Edited by TW Utomo and Yusup Priya Sudiarja. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2006.
Wijayanti, Wenny, and Agustinus Djokowidodo. “Menakar Dampak Kekerasan Verbal Dalam Pembelajaran Oleh Guru Terhadap Peserta Didik Di SMP Se-Kota Madiun.” In Desiminasai Hasil Penelitian Dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Menuju Era Revolusi Industri 4.0 Dan New Society, 40–43, n.d.