This chapter reviews literature related to school discipline among students. It discusses factors that contribute to indiscipline, such as peer influence, family issues, and boring lessons. Statistical data from the Ministry of Education from 2007-2012 is presented, showing the number and percentage of disciplinary cases involving various offenses in primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. The chapter also reviews theories on discipline, including the need for internal motivation versus external control. A conceptual framework is presented outlining factors that affect discipline, ways to improve it, and motivations to overcome issues.

1. Chapter Two
Research Review
2.0 Introduction
This chapter describes a research study by the scientific views to see the extent of the problem among the
young discipline. This research is important in order to support concerns about the causes of indiscipline
among students. This chapter were discuss about the review of related literature , the review by the effect
of school discipline and theoretical framework .
2.1 Review of related literature
Since lately, school disciplinary problems rampant in schools. Every day percentage discipline
problems getting increase recorded show with a variety of factors. If it is not controlled, discipline
problems will contribute social problems in our country. Among rob, kidnap, rob, rape, murder and so on.
Various factors that cause discipline problems in schools. For example, the students' own problems,
financial problems, family sessions and lessons at school are boring, a lot of school work and peer
influence. Pupils are national assets . If it is not formed from scratch then ruined the future generation.
Statistical information on school discipline has been showed the problems by following each a state. The
statistical information students discipline 2012 referred by Ministry of Education .
11

2. BIL.
JENIS
KESALAHAN
TINGKAH LAKU
JENAYAH
SEKOLAH
RENDAH
SEKOLAH
MENENGAH
JUMLAH
MURID
TERLIBAT
%
% Drp.
ENROL
NASNL.BIL.
MURID
TERLIBAT
%
BIL.
MURID
TRLIBAT
%
1 Berunsur Jenayah 5971 20.70 8350 10.66 14321 13.36 0.27
2 Berunsur Kelucahan 1064 3.69 2714 3.46 3778 3.52 0.07
3 Kekemasan Diri 3082 10.69 10844 13.84 13926 12.99 0.26
4
Tidak Pentingkan
Masa
2225 7.71 8178 10.44 10403 9.71 0.20
5 Kurang Sopan 3794 13.15 11613 14.82 15407 14.37 0.29
6 Laku Musnah 1717 5.95 1913 2.44 3630 3.39 0.07
7 Ponteng Sekolah 5935 20.58 11408 14.56 17343 16.18 0.33
8 Kenakalan 2114 7.33 7812 9.97 9926 9.26 0.19
9 Buli 2005 6.95 2154 2.75 4159 3.88 0.08
10 Rokok 936 3.25 13362 17.05 14298 13.34 0.27
JUMLAH 28843 100 78348 100 107191 100 2.03
26.91 % 73.09 %
Table 1 .1 : The recorded statistics of students discipline Lower Secondary and High Secondary
school 2012 by Minister of Education Malaysia
12

3. 2011 2012
Bil NEGERI Bil. Murid
Terlibat
%
(enrolm Negeri)
Bil. Murid
Terlibat
%
(enrolm Negeri
1 PERLIS 759 1.48 747 1.55
2 KEDAH 7179 1.66 10054 2.47
3 PULAU
PINANG
6189 2.25 3777 1.44
4 PERAK 12863 2.74 11752 2.14
5 SELANGOR 11854 1.27 18188 1.98
6 WP. KUALA
LUMPUR
9193 3.70 6058 2.51
7 NEGERI
SEMBILAN
5109 2.44 4339 2.09
8 MELAKA 4093 2.49 5356 3.39
9 JOHOR 11689 1.80 12219 1.97
10 PAHANG 8687 3.06 4133 1.52
11 TERENGGANU 7630 3.21 3859 1.59
12 KELANTAN 5369 1.40 2669 0.75
13 SABAH 11234 2.25 12088 2.52
14 SARAWAK 7479 1.50 11412 2.37
15 WP LABUAN 683 4.53 475 3.28
16 WP
PUTRAJAYA
208 1.26 65 0.41
13

4. Table 1.2 : The recorded statistics of students discipline by each State from 2011 from 2012 by
Minister of Education Malaysia
BIL. TAHUN JUMLAH % PURATA
1 2007 1834 0.08%
1584
(0.06%)
2 2008 1848 0.08%
3 2009 1534 0.06%
4 2010 1348 0.05%
5 2011 1131 0.05%
6 2012 1811 0.07%
Table 1.3 : The recorded statistics of students discipline in Disposable School from 2007 until 2012
by Minister of Education Malaysia
14

5. BIL. TAHUN JUMLAH % PURATA
1
2007 9587 0.40%
7863
(0.33%)
2
2008 8515 0.36%
3
2009 9080 0.38%
4
2010 8246 0.35%
5
2011 5007 0.26%
6
2012 6746 0.28%
Table 1.4 : The recorded statistics of students discipline in Suspension from School from 2007
until 2012 by Minister of Education Malaysia
15

6. BIL. TAHUN JUMLAH % PURATA
1
2007 31252 1.33%
26,691
(1.11%)
2
2008 31645 1.34%
3
2009 32964 1.40%
4
2010 27646 1.17%
5 2011 20452 0.87%
6 2012 16189 0.67%
Table 1.5 : The recorded statistics of students discipline in Caned from 2007 until 2012 by
Minister of Education Malaysia
16

7. According to Chambers (1983) , external control based to order and fear while discipline is
internal . However the Internal discipline comes from the individual because they understand the need for
it .The review has been supported by Johnson (1994) that the four orientations of school discipline were
reached . There are traditional , liberal progressive , socially critical and laissez faire .
Apart from that , Cantana (1991) believed that classroom management , planning and organizing
academic work effectiveness may controlling student’s behavior . Based on a ‘traditional orientation to
school discipline , the oriented more like communication and learning as unidirectional . The teacher’s
responsible to teach and control students to respect teachers .This theory has been supported by Johnson
(1994) .
According to Charles (2002) discipline has been described as maintain without teacher
intervention by students become self-disciplined and the behavioral students . Teachers should be
understand that students discipline happened by different historical backgrounds , religious beliefs and
living patterns (Gollnick & Chinn , 2002 , p.5 ) .
Apart from that , the students comes to school have different ethnic , and identities based of
valued socioeconomic status , ethnic , gender , language and others . In the other research , in African
tribal classrooms , that students’ misbehavior be attributable to confusion where conflicting in often the
situation . The sentences mentioned by Al Hassan (1992) .
17

8. According to Irwin & Nucei , 2004 , as a teacher , there should be understanding students culture
. However , teachers may determine ethnically sensitive and intervention strategies in the classroom .The
other overview that Ayensua-Mensah (1984) said in large family be able happened among students . This
is because their parents do not provide a book , school uniforms , and school fees . Apart from that ,
Mutalib (1986) said that a big family out of found suffering financial hardship and sociological aspects of
irregular .
2.2 Review of related by factors students discipline
Factor Statement by review
1. Peer Group Some students has been influenced by a friend .
They do not come to school by a friend who did not
attend classes . The opinion was supported by
Manja Mohd Ludin (1991) and Jaafar Abdul Rahim
(1977)
2. Parents According to Mutalib (1986) , family size have
relationship with student attendance at school . A
big family out of found suffering financial hardship
and sociological aspects of irregular
3. Teacher The interesting of Teaching and Learning make a
students interest to learn / study well . This is
because student will not bored to learn . This
research has been supported by Atan (1980) . The
characteristic of Teaching and Learning make a
student affected .
18

9. 2.3 Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 : The Conceptual Framework
In this study, the factors , the ways to improve and the motivations to overcome have related to
school discipline among students SMK Sultan Sallahudin Abdul Aziz Shah , Shah Alam . There
are many factor affected school discipline . In this frame were find the ways to improve school
discipline more better . The ways to improve school discipline can decrease total number of
discipline . To support the ways to improve school discipline , the motivations was included to
overcome school discipline . In this study , the motivation may help a students especially
problem students at least may change the attitude of students . By three variable above were to
determine either the factor , the ways and the motivation were be effected to reduce the
discipline student or not .
19
The factors
School Discipline
The ways to improve
The motivations to overcome