PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT

i
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
This chapter introduces the study, detailing the research problem and its context.

It outlines the study's objectives, defines its scope and limitations, explains its

significance, and provides definitions of key terms.

INTRODUCTION

Across generations and cultures, bullying was observed in many different places

and societies. It often occured when someone tried to gain power or control over another

person, especially among young people. Bullying could take several forms, including

physical aggression, verbal attacks, social exclusion, and cyberbullying through digital

platforms. This behavior was influenced by factors such as peer pressure, family

environment, and what students observed in school or online. Over time, bullying

evolved from happening mainly face-to-face to also occurring through social media and

messaging apps. This change made it more difficult for adults to notice and address

bullying. By understanding why bullying happened and how it changed, schools and

communities were able to develop better ways to prevent it.

Bullying was still a big problem in schools worldwide, causing serious emotional,

mental, and academic harm to victims. Students who experience bullying are more likely

to feel anxious, depressed, stressed, and have low self-esteem. Al-Notour et al. (2024)

point out that bullying not only hurts individual students but also disrupts the whole

school environment. These harmful effects can lower students' grades and cause long-

lasting behavior and social problems.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
In the Philippines, recognizing bullying as a major issue led to the creation of the

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (Republic Act 10627) and the implementation of the Child

Protection Policy (DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012). Even with these measures in place,

schools across the country still struggled to stop bullying effectively. The Department of

Education (DepEd) reported more than 30,000 cases of bullying in Philippine schools

from 2016 to 2020, showing that the problem was still ongoing (DepEd, 2021).

At La Salette of Ramon, Inc., located in Ramon, Isabela, students has experienced

verbal, physical, and online bullying, with many reports confirming these incidents. The

school had implemented anti-bullying programs following DepEd guidelines, but it's not

clear how well these programs worked or how much students knew about them. This

situation underscored the need for a focused study to measure the current level of

awareness among students regarding anti-bullying programs and to examine how this

awareness relateed to actual bullying incidents.

Importantly, the internal policies and regulations of La Salette of Ramon Inc.,

served as a foundational framework for cultivating a disciplined and respectful learning

environment. By clearly outlining expected behaviors and boundaries, these guidelines

encouraged accountability, reinforced moral development, and set consistent standards

for conduct. In this way, the policies acted as a preventive mechanism against bullying by

promoting respect for others, personal responsibility, and adherence to school norms.

Integrating these institutional rules into anti-bullying initiatives allowed students,

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
teachers, and staff to understand their roles in maintaining a safe and supportive school

climate.

For the purposes of this study, "awareness of anti-bullying programs" referred to

the extent to which students understood the school's anti-bullying policies, recognized

different forms of bullying, knew how to report incidents, and understood the

consequences of bullying behavior. "Incidence of bullying" referred to the frequency of

reported bullying events within the school over a specified period, including both

officially reported incidents and those disclosed through research surveys.

This study aimed to explore the relationship between students' awareness of anti-

bullying programs and the incidence of different types of bullying (physical, verbal, and

cyberbullying) at La Salette of Ramon, Inc. during the school year 2025-2026. It will

focused on high school students from Grades 7 to 12.

While many studies had looked at how well anti-bullying programs worked

around the world, few had specifically examined how much students know about these

programs in the Philippines, especially in private schools like La Salette of Ramon, Inc.

This gap in research gave us a chance to explore how Filipino students' awareness levels

affected bullying incidents, potentially helping to create better, more culturally

appropriate ways to prevent bullying.

It’s also important to consider factors such as age, gender, and grade level when

examining the connection between awareness of anti-bullying programs and bullying

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
incidents. Research had shown that these factors can significantly influence both the

prevalence of bullying and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. For instance, a

meta-analysis assessing school anti-bullying interventions published in JAMA Pediatrics

(2020) examined how moderator variables including participant age and gender

proportion were associated with outcomes. This study concluded that antibullying

programs were effective overall in reducing bullying behaviors and improving mental

health, with a mean participant age of approximately 11 years, and nearly equal-

representation of male and female participants, reinforcing the need to account for age

and gender in bullying research make it more specific

In the Philippines, Tiauzon & Malquisto (2019) conducted a study among public

high school students in Dulag, Leyte during the 2017–2018 school year, which showed

significant differences in bullying experiences based on gender and grade level. Their

findings emphasized the need for targeted approaches that consider these factors, as

patterns of bullying behavior and victimization were differed for different groups of

students.

By including these factors (age, gender, and grade level) in our study, this

research aimed to better understand how knowledge of anti-bullying programs related to

bullying incidents across different groups of students. This approach will helped us

identify possible trends in how effective awareness programs were for different ages,

genders, or grade levels. This information could help create better anti-bullying strategies

at La Salette of Ramon, Inc., and possibly in other similar schools across the Philippines.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Ultimately, this study sought to provide valuable insights that could inform the

development of more effective and targeted anti-bullying interventions, contributing to a

safer and more supportive school environment for all students.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the level of awareness of

anti-bullying programs among high school students at La Salette of Ramon, Inc., and the

incidence of bullying within the school. Specifically, this study sought to answer the

following questions:

1. Level of awareness of the respondents on the school anti-bullying program

in terms of:

1.1 Policies and guidance

1.2 Preventive measures and activities

1.3 support service

2. What is the Incidence of bullying experienced or witnessed by the

respondents in school in terms of:

2.1 Physical Bullying

2.2 Verbal Bullying

2.3 Cyberbullying

3. What is the relationship of level of awareness of the respondents on the

school anti bullying and incidence of bullying experienced or witnessed by

the respondents in school?

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
4. Create an intervention program to strengthen the implementation of anti-

bullying programs in school.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this study was to assess how the level of awareness of

anti-bullying programs affected the occurrence of bullying in La Salette of Ramon, Inc.,

with the aim of informing a more effective intervention and advocacy program.

Specifically, this study aims to:

1. Determined the level of awareness of the respondents on the school anti-bullying

program in terms of:

1.1 Policies and guidance

1.2 Preventive measures and activities

1.3 support service

2. Examined the incidence of bullying experienced or witnessed by the respondents

in school in terms of:

2.1 Physical Bullying

2.2 Verbal Bullying

2.3 Cyberbullying

3. Assessed the relationship between respondents’ level of awareness of the school’s

anti-bullying policies and the incidence of bullying they have experienced or

witnessed.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
4. Developed an intervention program to strengthen the implementation of the

school’s anti-bullying program.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

This study focused on assessing the level of awareness among high school

students (Grades 7-12) at La Salette of Ramon, Inc., regarding the school's existing anti-

bullying programs and analyzed its impact on the incidence of bullying within the school

environment. The research was conducted during the school year 2025-2026.

The study specifically examined the school's implementation of the Child

Protection Policy (DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012) and the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (RA

10627). It did not evaluate the effectiveness of specific program components but rather

focused on the relationship between overall awareness and bullying incidence.

This research was delimited, however, for it relied on self-reported data, which

might have been subject to recall bias or underreporting. The research was confined to a

single school, which may have limited generalizability to other contexts. Lastly, the study

was conducted over a single academic year, which may not have captured long-term

trends or changes.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will be beneficial to the following:

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Students: The findings will helped students become more informed about bullying types

and actionable responses, potentially leading to a safer, more inclusive school culture.

Increased awareness may have empower students to recognize and report bullying

incidents more effectively.

Teachers: This study will provided teachers with insights into students' understanding of

anti-bullying programs, helping them to refine their approaches to bullying prevention

and intervention. It may also guided the development of more effective classroom

strategies to reinforce anti-bullying messages.

School Administrators: The results will offered valuable data to assess the effectiveness

of current anti-bullying initiatives and inform policy decisions. This could have led to

more targeted and efficient allocation of resources for bullying prevention.

Parents and Guardians: This study will guided parents and guardians in understanding

their children's awareness of bullying issues, enabling them to reinforce anti-bullying

messages at home and collaborate more effectively with the school.

Policy Makers: The findings may have contributed to the refinement of anti-bullying

policies at the school, local, or even national level, particularly in the context of private

schools in the Philippines.

Future Researchers: This study will provided a validated, context-specific dataset

linking awareness to actual bullying occurrences, filling gaps in the literature where few

studies had isolated this variable in the Philippine setting.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
The following terms are both conceptually and operationally for better

understanding of the concepts used in this study:

Awareness of Anti-Bullying Programs: The extent to which students understood the

school's anti-bullying policies, recognized different forms of bullying, know how to

report incidents, and understand the consequences of bullying behavior. This was

measured using a standardized questionnaire developed for this study.

Incidence of Bullying: The frequency of reported bullying events within the school over

a specified period. This included both officially reported incidents and those disclosed

through the research survey.

Physical Bullying: Direct physical actions intended to hurt another person, such as

hitting, pushing, or kicking.

Verbal Bullying: The use of words to harm others, including name-calling, insults,

threats, and teasing.

Cyberbullying: The use of digital technologies to deliberately and repeatedly harass,

humiliate, or intimidate others.

Anti-Bullying Program: A comprehensive set of policies, procedures, and activities

implemented by the school to prevent and address bullying behaviors, in compliance with

DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012 and RA 10627.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i

REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents related literature and studies from a variety of books,

journals, articles, published and unpublished materials, and websites that are relevant to

the study. These data serve as the researcher’s preliminary step and point of reference.

A. RELATED LITERATURE

Awareness and Perception of Anti-Bullying Programs Among School Stakeholders

Awareness and perception of anti-bullying programs among school stakeholders

are shaped by both theoretical understanding and practical outcomes. Bandura’s (1977)

social learning theory explained that students learn behaviors by observing and imitating

others, especially when such behaviors are rewarded. In schools, programs that

consistently model empathy, respectful communication, and positive peer interactions

foster stronger adoption of prosocial behaviors. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological

systems theory, as cited by Espelage and Swearer (2019), emphasizes that bullying is

influenced by multiple systems, peer groups, family, school policies, and culture

requiring interventions that address these layers simultaneously.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Empirical evidence reinforced these frameworks. Jiménez-Barbero et al. (2015)

found that school-based programs moderately reduced bullying, with short, early

interventions proving most effective. Rosa-Alcázar et al. (2016) reported that integrating

emotional-control training, peer counseling, and clear policies led to notable reductions in

victimization. Gaffney, Ttofi, and Farrington (2019) showed global decreases in bullying

(19%) and victimization (15%), particularly in programs with strong parental engagement

and staff training. Ng et al. (2021) observed that school-wide initiatives using cognitive-

behavioral strategies and consistent discipline achieved better outcomes, while

Crokidakis (2025) highlighted the need for broad participation to reach a critical

threshold of effectiveness.

Stakeholders’ perception of program importance is reinforced by research on

mental health impacts. Zhao et al. (2023) found that bullying victims face three to five

times higher risk of psychological distress in minor cases and up to 17 times higher in

severe cases, with issues such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Findings on relational

aggression (2025) further stress the role of teacher defending behaviors and peer support

in building school connectedness and academic confidence, which shape stakeholders’

belief in program value.

Moreover, policy frameworks influence stakeholder awareness and program

effectiveness. The UNESCO school violence prevention framework (2023) advocates a

multi-layered approach with leadership, inclusivity, professional training, reporting

systems, and data monitoring methods proven to reduce bullying and improve well-being.

In Northern Ireland, the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (2016) requires clear
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
definitions, prevention measures, stakeholder involvement, and incident reporting,

promoting shared responsibility. In the United States, comprehensive state laws with

clear policies, staff training, and reporting mechanisms have lowered bullying rates,

particularly for female and LGBTQ+ students, while also reducing depression and

suicidal ideation (Rees et al., 2022).

In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against

Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) specifically classifies child abuse to include

physical, emotional, and psychological harm, which encompasses acts of bullying.

Section 2 of the Act affirms the State’s policy to provide special protection to children

from all forms of abuse and to ensure their rights to survival, development, and special

protection. In the school context, this law mandates that educational institutions act

swiftly and effectively when bullying occurs, as failure to do so may constitute

negligence, making the school administratively and legally accountable. Similarly, the

policies and regulations of La Salette of Ramon provide the institutional framework for

promoting a safe and disciplined learning environment. These guidelines emphasize

respect, proper behavior, responsibility, and moral development while prohibiting

offensive language, immoral actions, and prohibited substances, thereby creating

conditions that support the objectives of anti-bullying programs and reinforce stakeholder

awareness and perception.

In addition, RA 11036 institutionalizes the integration of mental health services

within educational systems. Sections 2 and 5 mandate the promotion of mental health in

all institutions, especially schools, through mental health education, early intervention,
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
and access to psycho-social services. For victims of bullying, this Act ensures that

schools are legally bound to provide immediate psychological first aid, establish referral

mechanisms to mental health professionals, and build supportive environments that

protect students’ emotional well-being. The law reinforces the holistic role of schools in

not only addressing bullying as a disciplinary issue but also treating it as a public mental

health concern requiring systemic and sustained responses.

Overall, stakeholders’ awareness and perception of anti-bullying programs are

strengthened when they see evidence of effectiveness, legal and policy support, and

mental health protection. Programs that are visible, consistent, and community-driven not

only reduce bullying but also foster safe, inclusive, and supportive school environments.

Impact of Anti-Bullying Programs on the Incidence of Bullying in Schools

The development and implementation of anti-bullying programs have evolved to

address the complex social dynamics within schools. One key framework that has

influenced recent interventions is Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, as cited

by Espelage and Swearer (2019). This theory explained that bullying behavior arises not

just from individual traits but through the interaction of multiple systems, including peer

groups, school culture, family background, and societal influences. As a result, programs

that take a whole-system approach addressing multiple environmental layers

simultaneously tend to be more effective than those that focus solely on student behavior.

In an extensive global meta-analysis, Gaffney et. al., (2019) reviewed over 65

anti-bullying programs and reported consistent reductions in both bullying (by 19%) and
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
victimization (by 15%). Programs that included parental involvement and comprehensive

staff training demonstrated stronger outcomes, emphasizing the importance of

collaboration among school stakeholders. These findings support the need for multi-level

engagement and sustained community participation to effectively reduce bullying.

Similarly, Ng et. al., (2021) found that even modest reductions in bullying rates

can have a substantial long-term impact when interventions are implemented school-

wide. Programs that incorporated cognitive-behavioral strategies, clear school policies,

and consistent enforcement mechanisms showed the highest success rates. This highlights

the importance of structured, psychologically informed approaches grounded in

consistent practice and discipline.

Adding a computational perspective, Crokidakis (2025) used agent-based

modeling to simulate the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs. His research revealed

that programs only become significantly impactful when they reach a critical threshold of

implementation across the school population. Low-intensity efforts produced minimal

change, while widespread, high-engagement interventions led to a meaningful decline in

bullying incidents. This suggests that scalability and intensity are key factors in program

success.

From a mental health standpoint, Zhao et. al., (2023) conducted a nationwide

survey involving over 95,000 students in China. Their study found that victims of

bullying were significantly more likely to experience anxiety, depression, PTSD, and

other psychological disorders. Even minor bullying incidents increased mental health
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
risks by 3–5 times, while severe bullying was linked to a 17-fold increase in

psychological distress. These findings reinforce the urgent need for effective and far-

reaching anti-bullying interventions to prevent long-term harm.

Emerging research on relational aggression (2025) has further emphasized the

protective role of teacher and peer support. Teacher defending behaviors were associated

with increased academic self-efficacy, while peer defending contributed to stronger

feelings of school connectedness. Both factors are critical for creating inclusive,

supportive school environments that discourage bullying and promote student well-being.

At the international level, the UNESCO School Violence Prevention Framework

(2023) provides evidence for the success of comprehensive, multi-layered interventions.

The framework outlines essential components such as inclusive school leadership,

continuous teacher training, effective reporting systems, and data-driven monitoring.

Schools that have adopted this model have seen measurable improvements in student

safety, mental health, and academic outcomes demonstrating that anti-bullying programs

are most effective when embedded within broader school reform initiatives.

National and regional legislation has proven instrumental in reinforcing anti-

bullying efforts. In Northern Ireland, the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act of 2016

mandates that all grant-aided schools adopt a standardized definition of bullying and

implement comprehensive prevention and response policies. The law requires active

involvement from parents, staff, and students in developing school-specific strategies,

and obligates schools to record and report all bullying incidents to their Board of
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Governors. This legal framework ensures school accountability and promotes a unified

approach to creating a safe educational environment.

In the United States, state-level anti-bullying legislation has produced similar

positive outcomes. According to Rees et. al., (2022), stated that enforced comprehensive

anti-bullying laws including requirements for school policies, staff training, and reporting

mechanisms saw significant reductions in bullying, particularly among at-risk

populations such as female and LGBTQ+ students. These laws were also linked to lower

rates of depression and suicidal ideation, underscoring their dual function as both

preventive and therapeutic tools within the education system.

In the Philippines, the Republic Act No. 10627, also known as the Anti-Bullying

Act of 2013, provides a national legal basis for addressing bullying in both public and

private elementary and secondary schools. Although enacted prior to 2015, its

enforcement has been strengthened in recent years through the Department of

Education’s implementing guidelines. The law mandates that all schools formulate and

implement anti-bullying policies, conduct regular awareness campaigns, and establish

clear disciplinary and reporting procedures. This legal framework emphasizes the

school's responsibility to prevent, address, and document incidents of bullying while

promoting a culture of respect and discipline.

Components of Effective Anti-Bullying Interventions and Advocacy Strategies

Reducing bullying in schools requires the implementation of well-designed,

evidence-based, and school-wide anti-bullying programs. Research consistently showed

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
that effective interventions must include multiple coordinated components that engage

the entire school community students, teachers, parents, and administrative staff.

According to Gaffney et. al., (2021), anti-bullying programs are significantly

more effective when they follow a whole-school approach. Their study found that

programs incorporating clear school-wide rules against bullying, structured teacher

training, classroom discussions on respect and empathy, and direct support for both

victims and perpetrators led to a 15–20% reduction in bullying incidents. A key success

factor was parental involvement, such as through informational sessions and workshops,

which helped reinforce the school’s anti-bullying values at home.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) supports this integrated approach by identifying six essential components of

effective school-based bullying prevention. These include strong and inclusive school

leadership, clearly defined and consistently enforced anti-bullying policies, the

cultivation of a safe and supportive school environment, professional training for all

school staff, active partnerships with parents and communities, and the establishment of

robust systems for monitoring and evaluating bullying-related cases and responses. This

framework encourages schools to move beyond reactive responses and adopt proactive

strategies that foster a culture of safety and inclusion.

In the Philippines, the Safe Schools Act of 2010 (Republic Act No. 10154), serves

as an important legal framework to protect students and promote a safe learning

environment free from violence, including bullying. This law mandates educational
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
institutions to adopt policies and procedures to prevent, report, and respond to incidents

of bullying, harassment, and other forms of abuse. Complementing this, the Department

of Education issued DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2013, which provides guidelines for

implementing anti-bullying programs in schools. The order requires the establishment of

a Child Protection Committee (CPC), the conduct of awareness-raising activities for

students, parents, and school staff, and the integration of values education to promote

empathy, respect, and responsible behavior among learners.

However, challenges remain in the actual implementation of these legal

frameworks. A study by Pinera et al. (2022), found that although awareness of the Safe

Schools Act and related policies among students and school staff was high, significant

gaps existed in how these policies were practiced particularly in addressing verbal and

cyberbullying. The study recommended more extensive training for school personnel and

enhanced monitoring systems to ensure consistent enforcement. These findings highlight

that the existence of policies alone is insufficient; the quality and consistency of their

application determine their effectiveness.

Another crucial component of effective anti-bullying interventions is peer and

bystander involvement. Programs such as STAC (Strategies to Act as a Bystander) have

proven effective in increasing students’ self-confidence and peer advocacy, enabling

them to take action when they witness bullying. Integrating bystander training within

frameworks like Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports (PBIS) also helps reduce bullying by equipping students to

support their peers and intervene constructively. Nevertheless, teachers remain central
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
figures in the success of these programs. Effective classroom management, active

engagement with students and parents, and timely intervention are all crucial

components. However, many teachers report difficulty in maintaining strong

collaboration with parents and ensuring consistent disciplinary responses.

As bullying prevention evolves, restorative justice programs have emerged as an

impactful alternative to traditional disciplinary methods. Lan, Law, and Pan (2022),

found that restorative justice approaches, which focus on repairing harm through

facilitated dialogue between the bully, the victim, and the school community, promote

accountability and empathy more effectively than punitive measures alone. These

programs encourage offenders to understand the consequences of their actions, foster

emotional healing for victims, and rebuild trust within the school environment. Moreover,

when restorative practices are combined with ongoing support and clear behavioral

expectations, they help reduce repeat bullying incidents and improve overall school

climate. The success of these programs depends on trained facilitators, consistent

implementation, and a school culture open to dialogue and conflict resolution.

Empathy-building exercises, such as perspective-taking and scenario-based role-

plays, also contribute to anti-bullying success. Programs like ABBL (Anti-Bullying

Through Building Leadership) demonstrate that when students are encouraged to

understand how their actions affect others, they are more likely to develop moral

engagement and take responsibility for creating a positive school climate. These

strategies not only reduce bullying behavior but also cultivate emotional intelligence,

resilience, and a sense of accountability among students.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Theories related to the Level of Awareness on Anti-Bullying Programs and its

influence on the incidence of Bullying in School: Basis for Strengthened Intervention

and Advocacy Program

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), developed by Icek Ajzen (1985; 1991),

posits that an individual's behavior is primarily guided by behavioral intentions, which

are influenced by attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived

behavioral control. In the context of bullying, awareness of anti-bullying programs can

shape students’ attitudes positively, align perceived social expectations through peer and

teacher support, and increase confidence in their ability to intervene or report incidents.

As such, TPB offers a robust framework for understanding how awareness fosters

intentions that lead to measurable anti-bullying behaviors in school environments.

Social Learning Theory

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977), rooted in his earlier Bobo doll

experiments of the 1960s, emphasizes that individuals learn through observation,

imitation, and modeling, particularly when behaviors are rewarded or punished. In

bullying contexts, increased awareness programs expose students to role models such as

teachers or peers who demonstrate constructive, prosocial responses to bullying. When

these behaviors are positively reinforced, students are more likely to imitate them,

promoting a culture of intervention and support that reduces bullying behaviors

schoolwide.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Group Socialization Theory

Judith Rich Harris (1995) proposed Group Socialization Theory, arguing that peer

groups, more than parents or formal authorities, shape children's social behaviors and

personalities. Applied to bullying, awareness efforts embedded within peer networks like

classrooms or friend groups can shift group norms, making anti-bullying behaviors more

desirable and socially reinforced. If awareness initiatives are peer-supported and peer-led,

they are more likely to influence student behavior by leveraging the powerful role of

group dynamics in shaping social conduct.

Peer Contagion Theory

Thomas J. D. and Jessica M. T. (2011) defined Peer Contagion Theory as the

process through which behaviors often antisocial or aggressive spread unintentionally

within peer groups through mutual reinforcement. This theory warns that poorly designed

awareness programs may inadvertently cluster at-risk students, leading to "deviancy

training." However, it also highlights a strategic opportunity: by intentionally promoting

and modeling prosocial behaviors within peer networks, schools can leverage peer

contagion positively to reinforce anti-bullying norms and reduce harmful behaviors.

Social–Emotional Learning (SEL)

Social–Emotional Learning (SEL), formally introduced by the Collaborative for

Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in 1994 and rooted in the 1968

Comer School Development Program, promotes core competencies such as self-

awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and responsible decision-making (Elias et al., 1997).

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
SEL provides a strong foundation for anti-bullying awareness initiatives by equipping

students with emotional and interpersonal skills necessary to recognize, respond to, and

prevent bullying. Enhanced SEL competencies foster resilience and empathy, creating a

school climate less tolerant of aggression and more conducive to intervention.

Bystander Intervention Theory

Bystander Intervention Theory, originating from the work of Darley and Latané

(1968), explaidned why individuals often fail to act in emergencies due to factors like

diffusion of responsibility and social inhibition. In bullying scenarios, this theory

elucidates why students may remain passive despite awareness of bullying. Structured

awareness programs can address these barriers by guiding students through the five

decision-making stages of intervention: notice, interpret, feel responsible, know how, and

act thereby empowering them to shift from passive bystanders to active defenders,

ultimately reducing bullying incidents.

B. RELATED STUDIES

Physical Bullying

Research consistently showed that school-based anti-bullying programs are

effective at reducing bullying, including physical aggression. However, the degree of

effectiveness depends heavily on the specific components of each program and the

quality of implementation.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
To begin with, a large-scale Campbell systematic review conducted by Gaffney et

al. (2021) found that anti-bullying programs reduced bullying perpetration by 18–19%

and victimization by 15–16% on average. Despite these promising results, the effects

varied across studies, indicating that not all programs work equally well. These findings

suggest that while physical bullying can be reduced as part of broader anti-bullying

efforts, the specific design and implementation of each program are crucial to its success.

Building on this, Gaffney et. al., (2021) also examined which program

components were most effective. Their component analysis revealed that programs using

a whole-school approach where teachers, staff, students, and parents are all actively

engaged achieved the greatest reductions in bullying. Specific elements such as clear

anti-bullying policies, consistent classroom rule enforcement, parent engagement, and

informal peer involvement were found to be especially impactful. These features not only

increased awareness but also reduced opportunities for physical aggression in

unsupervised areas like playgrounds and hallways.

Likewise, Olweus et. al., (2019) evaluated the widely implemented Olweus

Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP). Their large-scale study showed measurable

reductions in multiple forms of bullying, including physical aggression, when the

program was implemented with fidelity. Core elements such as school-wide rules, regular

class meetings, and consistent teacher supervision proved essential. Notably, physical

bullying declined most in schools where teachers actively monitored common spaces,

reinforcing the importance of visibility and consistency in reducing aggressive incidents.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Moreover, findings from the KiVa program further strengthen the case for

structured, whole-school interventions. Huitsing et. al., (2020) reported that a randomized

controlled trial of KiVa in Dutch primary schools led to significant reductions in both

bullying and victimization. Follow-up studies indicated sustained improvements in

defending behaviors and peer support. Likewise, the UK-based Stand Together trial,

Thorn et al., (2025) found that the odds of being bullied were 13% lower in KiVa schools

after one year, confirming that regular implementation and student awareness are key

factors in reducing physical bullying.

The effectiveness of peer-led programs has also been demonstrated. Zambuto et

al. (2020) assessed Italy’s No Trap! program and found that it reduced both traditional

and cyberbullying, along with internalizing symptoms such as anxiety. Interestingly, the

study found that nominated peer educators who tended to be more socially influential

were more effective than voluntary ones, highlighting how strategic implementation

choices can affect outcomes.

In addition to structured interventions, programs focused on social-emotional

learning (SEL) show potential. For example, Espelage et. al., (2015) found that Second

Step, an SEL-based curriculum, reduced aggressive behavior and victimization in middle

school trials particularly when the program was delivered with fidelity. While results

were somewhat mixed, the findings suggest that SEL can support reductions in physical

bullying when integrated into a broader anti-bullying strategy.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Transitioning to another key factor, implementation quality often determines

whether a program succeeds or fails. Hall and Dawes (2019) found that how a program is

delivered can be as important as the program itself. Their study revealed that high

implementation fidelity marked by student knowledge of reporting procedures and

appropriate school responses was linked to lower physical bullying and increased teacher

intervention. This underscores the importance of awareness and clarity among both

students and staff.

Similarly, Tolmatcheff et al. (2024) demonstrated that high-quality delivery and

strong fidelity work best when combined. However, their findings also indicated that

well-trained teachers and clear materials can sometimes compensate for imperfect

implementation. As a result, investments in coaching, resources, and ongoing monitoring

are recommended to ensure consistent use of effective techniques and sustained

reductions in physical bullying.

Beyond the school level, state and national policies also influence bullying

outcomes. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2015), in a JAMA Pediatrics study, found that students in

states with anti-bullying laws aligned with U.S. Department of Education guidelines

reported significantly lower rates of bullying and cyberbullying. These laws included

essential elements such as clear definitions (including physical bullying), procedures for

reporting and investigation, and enumerated protections for vulnerable groups. This

reinforces the idea that well-structured laws, when combined with school-level

enforcement, can lead to real reductions in physical aggression.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
In a related study, Hall and Dawes (2019) emphasized that visible, well-

implemented policies matter far more than written mandates alone. Their research linked

lower bullying rates to schools with active staff training, student awareness campaigns,

and consistent data monitoring. The implication is clear: effective policies require active

engagement and accountability to reduce physical bullying meaningfully.

Looking beyond the West, global studies further revealed the prevalence of

physical bullying and the need for context-sensitive responses. For instance, Peltzer and

Pengpid (2016) analyzed Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) data

across ASEAN countries and found that physical bullying remains a major concern in the

region. The study identified psychosocial risk factors and low school connectedness as

common correlates. It concluded that health-promoting schools with embedded

awareness campaigns are necessary to complement traditional disciplinary approaches.

Supporting this, UNICEF (2019) reported that nearly one in three students

worldwide experienced bullying, with 16% identifying physical bullying (such as being

hit, kicked, or pushed). The report also emphasized that boys were more likely to be

physically bullied, pointing to the importance of gender-sensitive awareness campaigns.

At the country level, the GSHS Philippines (2015) revealed that 26.7% of bullied

students identified physical bullying such as being shoved, kicked, or hit as the form they

experienced most frequently. This highlights the pressing need for interventions that

prioritize awareness, protection, and clear reporting systems in Filipino schools.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Finally, recent data from the World Health Organization (2024) further confirm

that physical aggression remains widespread. Across 44 countries, about 1 in 10

adolescents reported involvement in repeated physical fights over the past year, with

higher rates among boys. These findings reaffirm that physical violence continues to be a

persistent issue in adolescent peer relationships and must be directly addressed in both

school programs and national policy frameworks.

Taken together, this research showed that physical bullying can be significantly

reduced through carefully designed and well-implemented school-wide programs.

Consistent elements across successful interventions include clear rules, teacher

supervision, student awareness, and peer engagement. Additionally, national and regional

data indicated that addressing physical aggression requires attention not only at the

school level but also through system-wide reforms, public awareness, and gender-

sensitive approaches. For lasting impact, anti-bullying efforts must be proactive,

inclusive, and anchored in both evidence and practice.

Verbal Bullying

Verbal bullying remains one of the most prevalent and damaging forms of school-

based aggression, significantly affecting students’ emotional and psychological well-

being. Unlike physical bullying, verbal bullying often goes unnoticed by adults but leaves

lasting internal scars on its victims. This form of bullying typically includes name-

calling, body shaming, teasing, and hurtful remarks targeting a student’s identity,

academic ability, or background.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Firstly, Maalikih (2025) reported that the most frequent verbal bullying behaviors

experienced by adolescents include body shaming (71%), academic performance insults

(56%), and derogatory remarks about family background (57%). These types of verbal

attacks are not only common but also emotionally harmful. Approximately 40% of

students reported feeling deeply hurt, and about 38% experienced embarrassment. These

emotional responses are directly linked to lowered self-confidence and heightened levels

of anxiety. Thus, Maalikih’s findings highlight how verbal bullying undermines students’

emotional security and social adjustment in the school environment.

Similarly, Kapitanoff and Pandey (2024) provided further insight by categorizing

common verbal bullying behaviors. According to their findings, verbal bullying typically

includes name-calling (e.g., “stupid”), personal insults (e.g., “ugly”), and derogatory

labeling (e.g., “fat”). These verbal attacks often aim to degrade the victim’s physical

appearance or intelligence, and they are frequently used to exert power or control in peer

groups.

Supporting these findings, Sari et al. (2024) observed that most verbal bullying is

committed by peers through consistent name-calling and harsh language. While some

students reported that bystanders attempted to intervene, many witnesses chose to remain

silent, either out of fear or uncertainty. This study highlights the need for stronger peer

intervention training in schools.

Turning to the psychological effects, Claudia et. al., (2022), which found a strong

link between body shaming and low self-confidence among high school students. Victims
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
often withdrew from social interactions to avoid further ridicule and reported reduced

academic motivation. The study concluded that verbal abuse, particularly targeting

appearance, can significantly harm students’ emotional well-being and engagement in

school.

In addition, Smith (2021) conducted a longitudinal study that revealed long-term

mental health consequences. The findings showed that students who experienced frequent

teasing and name-calling were more likely to develop depressive symptoms two years

later even after controlling for initial mood levels. This emphasizes how verbal bullying

can have lingering effects beyond adolescence.

Furthermore, Bjarehed et al. (2021) employed a multilevel growth model to track

verbal bullying trends over time. Their findings revealed a concerning pattern: verbal

bullying tends to increase as students’ progress through school levels. This growth is

attributed to increasing social competition, identity development, and peer-group

dynamics in adolescence. Therefore, the authors recommend that interventions be

introduced early in students' academic journeys to prevent bullying from becoming a

persistent behavior.

Despite these troubling patterns, several studies demonstrate that effective

intervention strategies can reverse the trend. For instance, Naido et al. (2016)

implemented a school-wide intervention aimed at reducing verbal bullying and reported a

significant decline in such behaviors post-intervention. The key factors behind this

success included awareness campaigns, teacher training, and peer-led activities that
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
fostered healthier student interactions. As a result, the program not only reduced bullying

incidents but also improved overall peer norms and school climate.

Similarly, Saloshni et al. (2016) examined the effectiveness of structured school-

based programs that incorporated role-playing, empathy exercises, and student-led

discussions. Their findings confirmed that such interventions led to a noticeable decrease

in verbal bullying and an increase in empathy among students. These outcomes suggest

that when students are given tools to understand and manage social conflict, they are less

likely to engage in harmful behavior.

In support of therapeutic approaches, Darimis et al. (2022) explored how

counseling interventions that use cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) elements can assist

victims of verbal bullying. Their study showed that CBT-based counseling, especially

when focused on forgiveness and emotional regulation, helped victims process their

experiences and improve their interpersonal skills. These interventions allowed students

to rebuild their emotional strength and reintegrate into peer groups with greater

confidence.

Looking at the long-term effects, Wolke and Lereya (2015) conducted a

longitudinal study that followed individuals from childhood into adulthood. They

discovered that individuals who were verbally bullied as children had significantly higher

rates of chronic mental health issues including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation

compared to non-victimized peers. This research clearly illustrates that verbal bullying is
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
not just a school problem; it is a serious public health issue with consequences that can

extend well into adulthood.

To address these risks, Smith et al. (2016) recommended the implementation of

school programs that promote empathy, peer support, and conflict resolution. Their study

revealed that students who participated in these programs developed stronger social-

emotional skills, reduced aggression, and showed more supportive behavior toward their

peers. These programs also contributed to creating a more inclusive and emotionally safe

school environment.

However, it is important to recognize that some student populations are more

vulnerable to verbal bullying. Beth et al. (2017) focused on students with autism

spectrum disorder (ASD) and found that they are disproportionately affected by verbal

abuse in school settings. The researchers emphasized that bullying severely restricts these

students’ ability to access inclusive education and that schools must actively listen to

their perspectives in order to provide meaningful support. Their study advocates for

personalized intervention strategies tailored to the needs of students with

neurodevelopmental conditions.

In terms of prevention, Lumbat et al. (2025) evaluated behavioral counseling

methods that use modeling techniques to teach students how to respond to bullying

situations. The study found that observing and practicing assertive responses such as

standing up to verbal abuse or seeking help reduced both perpetration and victimization.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
This technique proved especially effective when integrated into classroom routines and

supported by trained counselors.

Lastly, Pakpahan et al. (2024) highlighted the importance of coordinated efforts

among educators, families, and mental health professionals. Their research concluded

that effective responses to verbal bullying require a shared commitment across

stakeholders, including consistent communication, early identification, and sustained

behavioral reinforcement. When these systems work together, schools are better equipped

to prevent verbal bullying and support affected students.

In conclusion, the research on verbal bullying provides clear evidence of its

damaging psychological effects and its persistent presence in schools. However, it also

points to multiple, evidence-based strategies for addressing the problem. From early

intervention and social-emotional education to cognitive-behavioral counseling and

multi-stakeholder collaboration, effective solutions are within reach. By fostering

empathy, awareness, and accountability, schools can create safer and more inclusive

environments where all students feel seen, supported, and respected.

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying has emerged as a serious and growing concern among children and

adolescents, with a wide range of psychological, behavioral, and social consequences. A

substantial body of research highlights its prevalence, risk factors, mental health effects,

and the effectiveness of various interventions.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Among the foundational studies, Zhu et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review

revealing that the prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration among children and

adolescents ranged from 6.0% to 46.3%, while victimization ranged from 13.99% to

57.5%. Verbal aggression was the most common form. Their findings identified 14 risk

factors such as age, gender, impulsiveness, online behavior, poor interpersonal

relationships, and prior victimization as well as three protective factors, including

emotional intelligence, strong parent–child relationships, and a supportive school climate.

Expanding on this, Camerini et al. (2020) analyzed longitudinal studies and found

perpetration rates between 5.3% and 66.2%, and victimization rates between 1.9% and

84.0%. Their results emphasized person-related risk factors, particularly involvement in

traditional bullying and internalizing problems. However, there was limited evidence on

media-related and environmental factors, such as problematic internet use or parent and

peer relationships highlighting gaps for future investigation.

Moreover, Aboujaoude et al. (2015) supported these findings by reporting

cyberbullying victimization rates of 20% to 40%, with females and sexual minorities

being more frequently targeted, while males were more often identified as perpetrators.

Importantly, this study highlighted the fluidity of online roles, where victims could easily

become perpetrators. These dynamics underline the complexity of cyberbullying and its

strong link to depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, and suicidality, presenting it as a

pressing public health issue.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Regarding mental health outcomes, Hamm et al. (2015) found a strong

association between cyberbullying and poor psychological well-being, such as depression

and suicidal ideation. Their scoping review showed that victims exposed to repeated

cyberbullying were significantly more likely to attempt suicide than their non-victimized

peers. These findings underline the need for early detection, preventive strategies, and

enhanced support systems in both school and digital environments.

Similarly, Buelga et al. (2022) confirmed that adolescents who experience

cyberbullying are at greater risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts. Despite varying

prevalence rates, the study consistently identified cyber-victimization as a serious mental

health risk, reinforcing the urgency of school-based interventions.

Supporting this, Peprah et al. (2023), using data from 51,405 adolescents in

Argentina, Panama, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, revealed that 20% had

experienced cyberbullying and 21.1% reported suicidal thoughts. Notably, 38.4% of

cyberbullying victims reported suicidal ideation, compared to 16.6% of non-victims.

Even after adjusting for demographic and behavioral factors, victimized adolescents were

nearly twice as likely to experience suicidal thoughts. These results emphasize the

importance of implementing comprehensive school interventions involving educators,

families, and peers.

Continuing this discussion, Evangelio et. al., (2022) found that cyberbullying

among elementary and middle school students was closely associated with anxiety and

depression. Their review also identified risk factors such as students’ roles (victim or
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
perpetrator), sociodemographic traits, and overlapping involvement in traditional

bullying. Intervention programs like PREDEMA and TEI were reported to effectively

reduce cyberbullying behavior and foster a more positive school climate.

Kwan et al. (2020), through a systematic map of 19 reviews, provided additional

evidence that cyberbullying is negatively associated with mental health outcomes such as

depression, anxiety, and self-harm. However, they also identified a critical gap in the

literature, noting that most existing evidence was cross-sectional and that longitudinal

and qualitative research remains limited. Moreover, two-thirds of the reviews assessed

were rated as having low or unclear methodological quality, calling for more robust

research designs.

Encouragingly, several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of

cyberbullying intervention programs. For instance, Özgür (2020), in a systematic review

of 28 studies, reported that programs using technological, non-technological, or

combined approaches generally led to positive outcomes in reducing cyberbullying and

victimization. The most successful interventions were school-based and emphasized

student engagement, social-emotional learning, and parental involvement. However, the

review also highlighted inconsistencies in evaluation methods and stressed the need for

standardized assessment tools to better determine program effectiveness.

In addition, Zych et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis showing that

cyberbullying perpetrators displayed significantly lower levels of affective and cognitive

empathy compared to uninvolved peers. No significant differences were found among

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
victims or bystanders. These findings suggest that low empathy is a strong predictor of

perpetration and that empathy training may be a crucial component in cyberbullying

prevention programs.

Parental involvement was also highlighted in Ayodele’s (2025) review, which

stressed the growing use of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and messaging apps for

cyberbullying. The study revealed that while cyberbullying cannot be completely

eliminated, risks can be significantly reduced when parents maintain open

communication, supervise online activity, and promote digital awareness. Encouraging

children to express their emotions and teaching them safe online behavior were found to

be key protective factors.

Likewise, Tayeh (2025) explored cyberbullying in Jordanian university settings

and found that 100% of surveyed students identified social media particularly Facebook

and Instagram as primary platforms for cyberbullying. Despite this recognition, there was

a widespread reluctance to report incidents, largely due to cultural and societal norms.

The study emphasized the urgent need for smartphone-based reporting tools and legal

reforms to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable.

Furthermore, Fulantelli et al. (2022) examined the intersection of cyberbullying

and cyberhate, revealing that these forms of cyber-aggression often co-occur and share

underlying risk factors such as anonymity and social disinhibition. Victims of one form

were frequently targeted by the other, compounding psychological harm. However,

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
existing interventions often treat these issues separately, and the study advocated for

integrated programs that address both phenomena simultaneously.

Taken together, these studies present a compelling case for the seriousness of

cyberbullying and its far-reaching impact on youth mental health. Key risk factors

include age, gender, low empathy, poor parent–child relationships, and prior

victimization, while protective factors involve emotional intelligence, supportive school

climates, and strong family involvement. Although various intervention programs have

shown promising results, future efforts must focus on improving research quality and

designing holistic, evidence-based strategies that engage all stakeholders to effectively

address and prevent cyberbullying.

C. SYNTHESIS

Awareness and perception of anti-bullying programs among school stakeholders

are shaped by both theoretical foundations and practical outcomes, underscoring the need

for comprehensive, school-wide strategies. Theories such as Bandura’s Social Learning

Theory and Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory highlight that bullying

behavior is influenced not only by individual actions but also by peer, school, and

community contexts, requiring multi-level interventions. Empirical research supports

this, with studies (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2015; Rosa-Alcázar et al., 2016) demonstrating

the effectiveness of early interventions, emotional training, and peer support, while large-

scale analyses (Gaffney et al., 2019; Ng et al., 2021) found that programs with parental
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
involvement, cognitive-behavioral strategies, and consistent rule enforcement are most

successful. Crokidakis (2025) emphasizes that broad implementation is crucial, linking

awareness to stronger stakeholder belief in program necessity, especially as evidence

showed victims face elevated risks of anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Zhao et al., 2023).

Positive perceptions also grow when students and staff witness defenders fostering school

connectedness and resilience. Legally, international and national frameworks such as

UNESCO’s (2023) model and laws in Northern Ireland, the U.S., and the Philippines

(RA 7610, 10627, 11036) mandate safe, inclusive environments through training, mental

health services, and reporting mechanisms, yet implementation gaps remain, particularly

regarding cyberbullying (Pinera et al., 2022). Therefore, effective programs integrate

clear policies, empathy-building, community engagement, and restorative practices like

STAC and SEL-based strategies, which promote emotional intelligence and peer

advocacy. Complementary theories such as the Theory of Planned Behavior, Group

Socialization, Peer Contagion, and Bystander Intervention further explained how

awareness leads to behavioral change when students are supported by positive norms,

skills, and confidence. Altogether, the integration of theory, empirical evidence, and legal

mandates revealed that anti-bullying efforts are most effective when they are holistic,

inclusive, and embedded within the school culture.

Studies consistently showed that school-based interventions effectively reduce

physical, verbal, and cyberbullying when grounded in evidence, implemented with

fidelity, and supported by policy and community involvement. Physical bullying

decreases significantly through whole-school approaches involving consistent

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
supervision, clear rules, peer and parental engagement, and quality implementation

(Gaffney et al., 2021; Olweus et al., 2019; Huitsing et al., 2020; Thorn et al., 2025; Hall

& Dawes, 2019; Tolmatcheff et al., 2024), while global data highlight ongoing

challenges, especially among boys, necessitating culturally responsive, gender-sensitive

strategies (WHO, 2024; UNICEF, 2019; GSHS Philippines, 2015). Verbal bullying,

though less visible, inflicts deep psychological harm such as lowered self-esteem, social

withdrawal, and long-term mental health issues including depression and anxiety

(Maalikih, 2025; Smith, 2021; Wolke & Lereya, 2015; Claudia et al., 2022), with

interventions focusing on empathy building, cognitive-behavioral counseling, and peer

awareness proving effective, particularly for vulnerable groups like students with autism

(Naido et al., 2016; Saloshni et al., 2016; Darimis et al., 2022; Beth et al., 2017;

Pakpahan et al., 2024). Cyberbullying’s rising prevalence and severe psychological

consequences especially for females and marginalized youth are well documented (Zhu

et al., 2021; Camerini et al., 2020; Aboujaoude et al., 2015; Peprah et al., 2023; Buelga

et al., 2022), with promising interventions (TEI, PREDEMA, SEL-based) requiring

active engagement from schools, families, and students (Evangelio et al., 2022; Özgür,

2020). However, barriers such as low empathy, inadequate parental monitoring, and

stigma around reporting hinder progress (Zych et al., 2019; Ayodele, 2025; Tayeh, 2025),

while the overlap of cyberbullying with cyberhate calls for integrated, multi-faceted

responses in digital environments (Fulantelli et al., 2022).

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT OUTPUT

VARIABLE

Level of Awareness Incidence of bullying Proposed

Intervention
1. Policies and 1. Physical Bullying Program
Guidelines 2. Verbal Bullying
2. Preventive 3. Cyberbullying
Measures and
Activities
3. Support service

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the study

This conceptual framework presents the relationship between the level of

awareness of the anti-bullying program and the incidence of bullying within the school

environment. Specifically, it examines how students’ awareness of existing policies and

guidelines, preventive measures and activities, and available support services may

influence the occurrence of physical, verbal, and cyberbullying. The results derived from

this relationship will serve as the foundation for the development of a proposed

intervention program aimed at effectively addressing and reducing bullying in schools.

NULL HYPOTHESIS

There is no significant relationship between the level of awareness of anti-

bullying programs and the incidence of bullying in schools.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter delved mainly into the research method that was used in the study,

the locale of the study, the respondents, the data-gathering instrument, the data-gathering

procedure, and the statistical treatment of data.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study utilized a descriptive-correlational research design to investigate the

relationship between students’ level of awareness of anti-bullying programs and the

incidence of bullying at La Salette of Ramon during the 2024–2025 school year. The

descriptive aspect assessed students’ awareness by examining their knowledge of anti-

bullying policies, attitudes toward prevention of bullying, and participation in related

school initiatives. The correlational aspect explored the extent to which this level of

awareness was associated with the frequency and nature of reported bullying incidents.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
This research design was appropriate as it enabled a systematic and objective analysis of

existing conditions and the relationships between key variables without experimental

manipulation. Findings from this study were expected to provide evidence-based insights

that could inform the enhancement of school-wide anti-bullying strategies and the

development of more effective advocacy and intervention programs.

RESPONDENTS

The respondents of this study consisted of selected junior and senior high school

students of La Salette of Ramon for the school year 2024–2025. To begin with, these

students were chosen as they were directly engaged in and affected by the

implementation of anti-bullying programs within the school. Specifically, their level of

awareness, experiences, and perceptions regarding bullying and related initiatives were

vital in assessing the effectiveness of existing interventions and understanding the

incidence of bullying on campus. Furthermore, from the total population of 437 junior

and senior high school students, the respondents were selected using the simple random

sampling method to ensure fairness and equal representation across different grade levels

and sections. In addition, the sample size was determined using the Raosoft sample size

calculator, applying a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error to ensure the
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
statistical reliability of the results. The distribution of respondents according to grade

level and section was presented in Table 1. Table

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Grade level and Population Sample Percentage

Sections

Grade 7 St. Raphael 52 23 11.22%

Grade 7 St Gabriel 46 20 9.76%

Grade 8 St. Agnes 48 21 10.24%

Grade 8 St. Bridget 44 19 9.27%

Grade 9 St Rita 35 15 7.32%

Grade 9 St Lucy 36 16 7.80%

Grade 10 St Ambrose 37 16 7.80%

Grade 10 St Augustine 38 16 7.80%

Grade 11 St. Monica 31 13 6.34%

Grade 11 St. Vincent De 34 15 7.32%

Paul

Grade 12 San Lorenzo 35 15 7.32%

Ruiz

Grade 12 San Pedro 37 16 7.80%

Calungsod

TOTAL N= 473 n= 205 100%

LOCALE OF THE STUDY

Since the researchers are students in La Salette of Ramon, Inc., they decided to

make their schools the locale of the study.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i

Figure 2. Map of La Salette of Ramon, Inc.

In the year 1964, Bugallon, a barrio of Santiago, became a town. The town of

Ramon came into existence with twelve barrios ceded by the municipalities of Santiago

and San Mateo. At this time, the only existing School in the new town was an elementary

school. Hence, pupils who wished to pursue secondary education went to nearby towns of

Santiago, San Mateo, Echague, and Alicia. After three years of such experience, it was

proposed in one of the town council meetings that a high school be established in the

town.

Inspired by changes, improvements, and uplifts within the institution, La Salette

of Ramon, Inc., is now stronger and more ready to face the challenges of time

and stand tall among other schools in town and the province. Every Salettinian graduate

will always make a difference and will be molded with passion for excellence, will live a

God-centered life, become a responsible lifelong learner, service-oriented, and in

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
communion with others in building a better world. Every Salettinian graduate will always

be proud to say: “In my school, there is fullness of life.”

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research instrument used in this study was a structured questionnaire divided

into two main parts. Part I focused on the level of awareness of the respondents regarding

the school anti-bullying program. This section measured the extent to which students

were aware of school policies and guidance, preventive measures and activities, as well

as support services provided to address bullying. The indicators for this part were adapted

and modified from Republic Act No. 10627, also known as the Anti-Bullying Act of

2013 (Philippines), as well as the works of Smith and Sharp (1994) in School Bullying:

Insights and Perspectives and Espelage and Swearer (2003) in Research on School

Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here?

published in School Psychology Review.

While part II of the instrument addressed the incidence of bullying experienced

or witnessed by the respondents in school. This section was divided into three

dimensions: (a) Physical Bullying, which included items on hitting, pushing, and

damaging belongings; (b) Verbal Bullying, which covered name-calling, insults, threats,

and rumor-spreading; and (c) Cyberbullying, which measured online harassment,

exclusion, and harmful digital behaviors. The items in this part were adapted and

modified from Olweus (1993) in Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can

Do, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) in Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Responding to Cyberbullying, Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston (2012) in Cyberbullying:

Bullying in the Digital Age, and Tokunaga (2010) in Following You Home from School:

A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research on Cyberbullying Victimization. The

questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale to measure both awareness (ranging from

“Not Aware” to “Very Aware”) and the incidence of bullying (ranging from “Never” to

“Very Often”). To establish internal consistency and reliability, the instrument was pilot

tested. The Computed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall questionnaire yielded

a value of 0.89, which indicated high reliability. According to Nunnally (1978),

Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher was considered acceptable, thus confirming

that the instrument was reliable for assessing both awareness and incidence of bullying.

In addition, the research instrument was first reviewed by experts to confirm that

its content, clarity, and relevance were suitable for accurately measuring the study

variables. Following this validation, a pilot test was conducted at JET Montessori School

of Ramon, Incorporated, with 30 respondents from Grades 7 to 12 participating in the

assessment. During the pilot testing, unclear questions were identified, the instrument’s

reliability was checked, and the appropriateness of the items for the students’ level of

understanding was evaluated. As a result of these findings, several items were refined to

enhance their clarity and ensure that respondents could provide accurate and meaningful

answers. Overall, these steps ensured that the final instrument was clear, relevant, and

effective for data collection.

Table 2. Result of Cronbach’s Alpha

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i

INTERNAL
VARIABLES DESCRIPTION VALUE CONSISTENT

K # OF ITEMS 30

SUM OF THE ITEM

(s2y) VARIANCE 22.18888889
GOOD
VARIANCE OF TOTAL
s2x SCORE 102.8488889

a CRONBACH'S ALPHA 0.8113007

Scoring. The researcher will utilize the four-point Likert scale in scoring the

survey questionnaire and assess the level of awareness and acceptance of anti-bullying

programs, as well as their perceived influence on the incidence of bullying among

students and teachers.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Table 3. Scale, Range, and Qualitative Description of The Level of Awareness

of the Respondents on the School Anti-Bullying Program and The Incidence of

Bullying Experienced or Witnessed by the Respondents in School.

Scale Range The Level of Awareness of the The Incidence of Bullying

Respondents on the School Experienced or Witnessed by
Anti-Bullying Program the Respondents in School.
4 3.27 - 4.0 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
3 2.51 - 3.26 Agree Agree
2 1.76 - 2.50 Disagree Disagree
1 1.0 - 1.75 Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

To assess the level of awareness on anti-bullying programs and its influence on

the incidence of bullying in school, the study will follow several procedures.

Seeking Permission to Conduct the Study. The researchers will submit formal

letters to the school principal, the school director, and the teachers to request permission

to administer the survey. The letters will explain the purpose of the study and will

guarantee that all information gathered will be treated with strict confidentiality and

anonymity. They will also state that copies of the results will be provided to the school

principal, director, or teachers upon request.

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Identifying the Respondents. After approval has been granted, the researchers

will coordinate with the school principal and teachers to identify the respondents of the

study. Students and teachers will be selected as participants to ensure that different

perspectives regarding awareness of anti-bullying programs and experiences with

bullying are represented.

Distributing the Research Instruments. The researchers will prepare the

finalized survey questionnaires, each assigned with a unique code for record-keeping.

With the assistance of the teachers, the questionnaires will be distributed to the select

respondents. Adequate time will be allotted for the completion of the instruments, and

follow-ups will be made in case of incomplete responses. Respondents will be assured

that their participation is voluntary and that their answers will remain confidential.

Floating the Questionnaires. The researchers will personally float the

questionnaires to the students in their respective classrooms with the coordination of the

teachers. Clear instructions on how to answer each part of the instrument will be

explained before distribution. Students will be encouraged to answer honestly and

thoughtfully, emphasizing that their responses will remain anonymous. During the

answering period, the researchers will remain available to address any clarifications while

ensuring a non-intrusive and supportive environment.

Collecting and Analyzing the Data. Once the questionnaires have been

completed, the researchers, with the cooperation of the teachers, will gather and organize

the responses. A tally sheet will be prepared to record and score the data. The results will
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
then undergo statistical analysis to address the research problems stated in Chapter I.

Finally, the findings will serve as the foundation for enhancing the school’s intervention

and advocacy program against bullying, with the support of the principal, director, and

teachers.

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE STUDY

The data that will be gathered will be computer processed using the statistical

package for social sciences (SPSS) where:

1. Weighted mean will be used to determine the perceptions and level of awareness

of students and teachers regarding anti-bullying programs, as well as their views

on the effectiveness, accessibility, implementation strategies, support systems,

and overall impact of these programs on reducing the incidence of bullying in

school.

2. Pearson’s r will be applied to determine the relationship between the

respondents’ level of awareness of the anti-bullying program and the incidence of

bullying in school. This statistical test will measure the strength and direction of

the correlation between the two variables

ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

This study will adhere to ethical research standards to ensure the rights, privacy,

and well-being of the respondents. Prior to data collection, the researcher will secure
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
approval from the school Director and school Principal to conduct the study. Informed

consent will be obtained from all respondents by ensuring that they voluntarily participate

with a clear understanding of the study's purpose, procedures, and potential implications.

Confidentiality and anonymity will be strictly maintained by assigning codes instead of

names and ensuring that all collected data will be used solely for research purposes. The

researcher will also guarantee that respondents have the right to withdraw from the study

at any stage without any consequences. Additionally, the study will comply with ethical

guidelines set by La Salette of Ramon and relevant research ethics boards to uphold

integrity, respect, and fairness in the research process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Notour A., et. al,(2024). School bullying is occuring everywhere: A need for effective
Anti-bullying strategies. Retrieved from:
[Link]
388679566_School_Bullying_is_Occurring_Everywhere_A_Need_for_Effective_Anti-
bullying_Strategies/links/67dbe784e62c604a0df61c0a/School-Bullying-is-Occurring-
[Link]

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179–211. [Link]
5978(91)90020-T
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Atmoko A., et. al., (2022) Treating verbal bullying among students between cognitive
behavioral counseling and group counseling with discussion. Journal of education
and instruction. [Link]
Ayodele, O. (2025) Cyber bullying Classification: parent roles to protect their children
Cyber bullying his classification and parent roles to protect their children.
Retrieved from:
[Link]
n_parent_roles_to_protect_their_children_Cyber_bullying_his_classification_and
_parent_roles_to_protect_their_children

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.1, 141-154. Retrieved from:

[Link]

Beth S., et Al.., (.2017) Understandings and Experiences of Bullying: Impact on Students
on the Autism Spectrum. Australasian Journal of Special Education, v41 n2 p123-
140. [Link]
Bjarehed M., et. al., (2021). Moral disengagement and verbal bullying in early
adolescence: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, pp.63-
73. [Link]
Bonell, C., et al., (2018). Effects of the Learning Together intervention on bullying and
aggression in English secondary schools (INCLUSIVE): A cluster randomized
controlled trial. The Lancet, 392(10163), 2452–2464. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Borgen N.T., et. al. (2024). Do school-level anti-bullying interventions affect the
prescription of prescribed drugs in young adulthood? A case using the Olweus
bullying prevention program. International Journal of Bullying Prevention,
pp172-188. [Link]

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University

Press. Department of Education. (2013). DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2013 – IRR of
RA 10627. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Campbell L.O., et. al,(2023), Teachers' Motivation to participate in anti-bullying

training and their intention to intervene in school bullying: a self-determination
theory perspective. International journal of bullying prevention, [Link]
from: [Link]
%5c&pg=2&id=EJ1420385
Cipra, A., & Hall, L. (2019). CORE Matters: A Bullying Intervention Pilot Study. RMLE
Online, 42(4), pp. 1–13. [Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Clarkson, S., et. al., (2022). The UK stand together trial: protocol for a multicenter
cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-
effectiveness of KiVa to reduce bullying in primary schools. BMC Public Health,
22, 608. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Cliplef, Jayne (2021). Overcoming barriers to anti bullying intervention. BU Journal of

Graduate Studies in Education, pp.47-51. Retrieved from:
[Link]
Cook, C. R., et. al, (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2),
65-83. [Link]
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (n.d.). About
SEL. Retrieved August 7, 2025, from: [Link]
Coloroso, B. (2003). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander: From preschool to high
school—How parents and teachers can help break the cycle of
violence. HarperCollins. Retrieve
from: [Link]
bystander-barbara-coloroso
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to
practice. Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 86–
93. [Link]

Crokidakis, N. (2025). A mathematical model for the bullying dynamics in schools. arXiv
preprint. Applied Mathematics and Computation 492, 129254, Retrieved from:
[Link]

Claudia, et. al., (2022) Verbal Bullying Body-Shaming Behavior and Self-Confidence
among Teenage Students in Indonesia. mjmr, 06 (04.001). pp. 1-9. Retrieved
from: [Link]

Department of Education (DepEd). (2013). DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2013: Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10627.
[Link]
Darimis et. al., (2022). Treating Verbal Bullying among Students between Cognitive
Behavioral Counseling and Group Counseling with Discussion. Pegem Journal
of Education and Instruction, pp253-259. Retrieved from: [Link]
q=verbal+bullying&id=EJ1365172

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of

responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
[Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social
and emotional development. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 189–217.
[Link]

Dong, Z., et al., (2025) Promoting Positive Leadership: Examining the Long-Term
Dynamics of Anti-Bullying Programs. Prev Sci 26, pp. 43–55.
[Link]
Doumas, D. M., & Midgett, A. (2024). Effect of multi-model intervention on bullying
prevention through peer advocacy. Current Psychology. Retrieved from:
[Link]
Evangelio (2022) Cyberbullying in elementary and middle school students: A systematic
review. Computers & Education 176:104356
[Link]
Espelage, D. L., et al., (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step® middle-school program:
Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 37, 52–63. [Link]
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and
victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School
Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–
383. [Link]
Farrington D., et. al, (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention
programs. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Farrington D., et. al, (2019). Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention
Programs Globally: A Meta-analysis. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Farrington P.D., et. al, (2021). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying
perpetration and victimization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[Link]
Fraguas, D., et al. (2020). Assessment of school anti-bullying interventions: A meta-
analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(1), 1–12.
[Link]
Fulantelli, G., et al. (2022). Cyberbullying and cyberhate as two interlinked instances of
cyber-aggression in adolescence: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychology
13, 909299. [Link]
Gaffney, H., et. al., (2021). Examining the effectiveness of school bullying intervention
programs globally: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention,
3(3), 165–181. Retrieved from: [Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Gaffney, H., et. al. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention
programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
45, 111–133. [Link]
Hall, W. J., & Dawes, H. C. (2019). Is fidelity of implementation of an anti-bullying
policy related to student bullying and teacher protection of students? Education
Sciences, 9(2), 112. [Link]
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., et. al., (2015). Associations Between Antibullying Policies and
Bullying in 25 States – PubMed. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Herkama, S., el. al., (2023). Improving the implementation of KiVa antibullying program
with tailored support: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Contemporary Clinical Trials, 137, 107407.
[Link]

Hicks J. ,et. Al, (2018). Middle-school bullying: Student-reported perceptions and

prevalence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling,(page 12) . Retrieved
from:[Link]
388679566_School_Bullying_is_Occurring_Everywhere_A_Need_for_Effective_Anti-
bullying_Strategies/links/67dbe784e62c604a0df61c0a/School-Bullying-is-Occurring-
[Link]

Hikmat, R., et. Al, (2024). A Scoping Review of Anti-Bullying Interventions: Reducing
Traumatic Effect of Bullying Among Adolescents. Journal of Multidisciplinary
Healthcare, 17, pp. 289–304. [Link]
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Corwin Press. Retrieve
from: [Link]
Huitsing, G., et. al., (2020). A large-scale replication of the effectiveness of the KiVa
antibullying program: A randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands.
Prevention Science, 21, 627–638. [Link]
Jiménez-Barbero, J. A. et. al. (2015). Effectiveness of anti-bullying school programs: A
meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, pp. 165–175.
[Link]
Lai, S. L.,et. Al, (2008). Bullying in middle schools: An Asian-Pacific regional study.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(4), 503-515. [Link]
Kapitanoff S., & Pandey C.,(2024). The Content of Verbal Bullying and Emotional
Reactions among Middle-School Students. Child & Youth Care Forum,
pp1311-1332. Retrieved from: [Link]
q=verbal+bullying&id=EJ1443628
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Kowalski, R. M., et. al, (2012). Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.).
Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieve
from: [Link]
cyberbullying-978-1-4443-3480-7
Lan, M., et. al. (2022). The effectiveness of anti-cyberbullying educational programs: A
meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107200.
[Link]
Limber, S. P., & Nation, M. (1998). Bullying among children and youth. Juvenile Justice
Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieve from: [Link]
among-children-and-youth
Lumbat B.S., et. al., (2025) The Effectiveness of Behavioral Counseling using Modeling
Techniques to Prevent Verbal Bullying among Students. Jurnal Ilmiah Bimbingan
Konseling Undiksha. pp. 70-75 [Link]
Maalikih, M., et. al., (2025). Forms and effects of verbal bullying: Perceptions of junior
high school students in Indonesia. Multidisciplinary Review, 8, e2025066.
[Link]

Mahabeer, P., (2020), ‘Decolonizing the school curriculum in South Africa: Black
women teachers’ perspectives’, Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 5(1),
97–119. [Link]
Malazzab O., et. Al, (2022). Awareness and implementation of anti-bullying law among
secondary schools in northeastern cagayan. Retrieved from:
[Link]
bullying-law-among-secondary-schools-in-northeastern-cagayan/?
utm_source&fbclid=IwY2xjawLOQ7RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvQn0jq3xvFLNhRIcQq
oa-VqCkkWRFlZnBQpf7Dj-cKl0LjX8rmgKDa2bMkf_aem_U4nwGmIVc-
JEpINaUEyKeA

Naido S., et. al., (2016). Verbal Bullying Changes Among Students Following an
Educational Intervention Using the Integrated Model for Behavior Change.
Journal of health,pp.813-822. [Link]
Ng, E, D. et. al. (2020). The Effectiveness of Educational Interventions on Traditional
Bullying and Cyberbullying Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis. [Link]

Northern Ireland. Addressing Bullying in Schools Act. (2016). Retrieved from

[Link]
%28Northern_Ireland%29_2016
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Retrieve
from: [Link]
nunnally/[Link]

Olweus, D., et. al., (2019). Addressing specific forms of bullying: A large-scale
evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. International Journal of
Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 70–84. [Link]

Özgür, H. (2020). A systematic review on cyberbullying interventions and preventions.

Shanlax International Journal of Education 9 (1), 11-26.
10.34293/education.v9i1.3373

Pakpahan M., et. al., (2024) DESCRIPTION OF VERBAL BULLYING BEHAVIOR IN

RK BUDI LUHUR PRIMARY STUDENTS. Journal of language and education.
[Link]

Peltzer, K., & Pengpid, S. (2016). Bullying victimization among school adolescents in
five ASEAN countries: Results from the Global School-based Student Health
Survey (GSHS). Makara Journal of Health Research, 20(1), 3–10.
[Link]

Pinera, J. B., et. al.. (2022). Awareness and implementation of the Anti-Bullying Law
among secondary schools in Northeastern Cagayan. International Journal of
Advanced Research, 10(2), 891–898. Retrieved from:
[Link]
anti-bullying-law-among-secondary-schools-in-northeastern-cagayan/

Relational Aggression. (2025). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from

[Link]

Republic Act No. 7610. (1992). Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
[Link]

Republic Act No. 11036. (2018). Mental Health Act of 2018.

[Link]

Republic Act No. 10627. (2013). An Act Requiring All Elementary and Secondary
Schools to Adopt Policies to Prevent and Address the Acts of Bullying in Their
[Link] from:
[Link]

Republic of the Philippines. (2013). Republic Act No. 10627: Anti-Bullying Act of 2013.
Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
[Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theory and practice. Australian
Institute of Criminology. Retrieve
from: [Link]

Rosa-Alcázar, A. I.,et. Al,(2016). Effectiveness of anti-bullying school programs: A

meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, pp. 165–175.
https:[Link].2015.12.015

Rusdi M., et. Al, E(2024) Anti-bullying program development: building safe and
supportive school environment for adolenscent:pengamban program anti-
bullying:membangun lingkungan sekolah yang aman dan mendukung bagi
remaja [Link]
Bullying_Program_Development_Building_a_Safe_and_Supportive_School_Environme
nt_for_Adolescents_Pengembangan_Program_Anti-
Bullying_Membangun_Lingkungan_Sekolah_Yang_Aman_Dan_Mendukung_Bagi_Rem
a

Russell, S.T., et. al., (2016), ‘Are school policies focused on sexual orientation and
gender identity associated with less bullying? Teachers’ perspectives’, Journal of
School Psychology 54, 29–38. [Link]
Sari, D. P., et. al., (2024). An Exploration of Verbal Bullying Types and The Role of
Bystanders in Affecting Victims’ Mental Health. Tell : Teaching of English
Language and Literature Journal, 12(2).
[Link]
Saloshni N., et. al., (2016). Verbal Bullying Changes among Students Following an
Educational Intervention Using the Integrated Model for Behavior Change.
Journal of School Health, pp813-822. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Smith, J. A. (2021). Longitudinal effects of verbal bullying on depressive trajectories in

early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 57(9), 1458-1469.
[Link]

Smith, P. K. (2000). The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do
- Judith Rich Harris New York: The Free Press, 1998, 462 pp. US$25.50 cloth.
ISBN 0-684-84409-5. US$15.00 paper. ISBN 0-684-85707-3. Simon and
Schuster, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, USA. Politics and
the Life Sciences, 19(1), 112–114. doi:10.1017/S0730938400008984

Smith, P. K., et. al., (2016). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used and age
differences in a fourteen-country study. Aggressive Behavior, 42(3), 241-256.
Retrieved from [Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and
perspectives. Routledge. Retrieve from: [Link]
Bullying-Insights-and-Perspectives/Sharp-Smith-Smith/p/book/9780415103732

Tassava, M., et. al., (2024). Development of an AI anti-bullying system using large
language model key topic detection. arXiv preprint. Retrieved from:
[Link]

Tayeh, Q. (2025) Cyberbullying on Social Media Platforms among University Students

in Jordan. Journal of Posthumanism 5(8). 10.63332/joph.v5i8.3143

Tiauzon, B. A., & Malquisto, P. R. (2019). Incidence of bullying and academic

performance of Grade 7 learners. European Journal of Education Studies, 6(1).
[Link]
Tolmatcheff, C., et. al., (2024). Examining the link between implementation fidelity,
quality, and effectiveness of teacher-delivered anti-bullying interventions in a
randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 25, 407–420.
[Link]

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. [Link]

UNESCO. (2023). School violence prevention through education. In UNESCO

frameworks. Retrieved from:
[Link]

UNESCO. (2017). School violence and bullying: Global status

report. [Link]
UNICEF. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. New York:
UNICEF. [Link]
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). MTSS prevention approaches and effective
intervention. [Link]. Retrieved from:
[Link]
approaches-and-effective-intervention
Wójcik, M. W., & Hełka, A. M. (2019). Meeting the needs of young adolescents:
ABBL anti-bullying program during middle school transition. Psychology.
[Link]
Wolke, D., & Lereya, T. S. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in
Childhood, 100(9), 879-885. Retrieved
from [Link]
World Health Organization (Regional Office for Europe). (2024). A focus on adolescent
peer violence and bullying in Europe, Central Asia and Canada (HBSC 2021/22).
Copenhagen: WHO Europe. [Link]
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
World Health Organization. (2015). Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS)
Results: Philippines 2015. Geneva: WHO.
[Link]

Yoon, J. & Bauman, S., (2014), ‘Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of
bullying prevention and intervention’, Theory into Practice 53(4), pp. 308–314.
[Link]
Zambuto, V., et. al., (2020). Voluntary vs nominated peer educators: A randomized trial
within the NoTrap! anti-bullying program. Prevention Science.
[Link]

Zhao, N., et. al. (2023). School bullying results in poor psychological conditions:
Evidence from a survey of 95,545 subjects. Frontiers in psychology 15, 1279872.
Retrieved from: [Link]

Zhou, J., Zheng, R., & Huang, Y. (2022). A pilot intervention study on bullying
prevention among junior high school students in Shantou, China. BMC Public
Health, 22, Article 12669. [Link]
Zych, I., et. al., (2018). Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and violent behavior 45, 83-97.
10.1016/[Link].2018.03.004

QUESTIONNAIRE

PART I : LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF THE RESPONDENTS ON THE

SCHOOL ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAM
Instruction: Please rate your level of awareness on the following statements. Use the
scale below:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
1.1 POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I am aware that the school has
an official anti-bullying policy.
2. I know the procedures for
reporting bullying incidents.
3. I am aware of the rights and
responsibilities of students
stated in the anti-bullying
policy.
4. I know the possible disciplinary
actions against students who
commit bullying.
5. I am familiar with the school’s
code of conduct regarding
bullying behavior.

This questionnaire was adapted and modified from various established sources to align
with the objectives of the study. Specifically, it draws on the provisions of Republic Act
No. 10627, also known as the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 in the Philippines, which
outlines school policies and measures to address bullying. In addition, the indicators
were informed by the works of Smith and Sharp (1994) in School Bullying: Insights and
Perspectives, which provides a foundational understanding of bullying dynamics in
schools, as well as Espelage and Swearer (2003) in their article Research on School
Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here?
published in School Psychology Review, which emphasizes the importance of prevention
and intervention strategies.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i

1.2 PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND ACTIVITIES

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I am aware of school programs
or campaigns that promote anti-
bullying awareness.
2. I know that teachers integrate
anti-bullying topics into
classroom discussions or
activities.
3. I am familiar with school rules
that encourage positive peer
interactions.
4. I am aware of seminars,
workshops, or orientations
conducted about bullying
prevention.
5. I know that the school organizes
student organizations or peer
groups that help prevent
bullying.

This questionnaire was adapted and modified from established research instruments and
literature on bullying. Specifically, it draws insights from Olweus (1993) in Bullying at
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
School: What We Know and What We Can Do, Limber and Nation (1998) in Bullying
Among Children and Youth published in the Juvenile Justice Bulletin, and Farrington
and Ttofi (2009) in School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization under
the Campbell Systematic Reviews.

1.3 SUPPORT SERVICES

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I am aware that the school
provides counseling services for
bullying victims.
2. know that there are designated
teachers or staff who handle
bullying cases.
3. I am familiar with peer-support
or buddy systems available for
bullied students.
4. I know that parents are informed
and involved when bullying
incidents occur.
5. I am aware that the school
provides referral services to
external professionals or
agencies when necessary.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
This questionnaire was adapted and modified from relevant literature and research on
school bullying. In particular, it was informed by Craig and Pepler (2007) in
Understanding Bullying: From Research to Practice published in Canadian Psychology,
Rigby (2004) in Addressing Bullying in Schools: Theory and Practice by the Australian
Institute of Criminology, and Coloroso (2003) in The Bully, the Bullied, and the
Bystander published by HarperCollins.
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
PART II: INCIDENCE OF BULLYING EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN SCHOOL
Instruction: Please rate your level of awareness on the following statements. Use the
scale below:
4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – strongly Disagree
2.1 PHYSICAL BULLYING

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I have experienced or witnessed
hitting, kicking, or pushing
among students.
2. I have seen students damaging
or taking away personal
belongings of others.
3. I have observed students being
threatened with physical harm.
4. I have witnessed bullying that
involved physical intimidation
(e.g., blocking someone’s path).
5. I have seen incidents of students
being physically excluded or
forced out of groups.

This questionnaire was adapted and modified from established frameworks and literature
on bullying. It is based on the work of Olweus (1993) in Bullying at School: What We
Know and What We Can Do, Smith and Sharp (1994) in School Bullying: Insights and
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Perspectives, and the provisions of Republic Act No. 10627, also known as the Anti-
Bullying Act of 2013 in the Philippines.

2.2 VERBAL BULLYING

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I have heard students being
called names or insulted in
school.
2. I have witnessed teasing or
mocking directed at a student
repeatedly.
3. I have seen students being
threatened or verbally harassed.
4. I have observed others being
humiliated through jokes or
negative comments.
5. I have experienced or witnessed
gossiping or spreading false
rumors about someone.

This questionnaire was adapted and modified from prior research and literature on
bullying and school interventions. Specifically, it was guided by Espelage and Swearer
(2003) in Research on School Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and
Where Do We Go from Here? published in School Psychology Review, Rigby (2004) in
Addressing Bullying in Schools: Theory and Practice by the Australian Institute of
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Criminology, and Coloroso (2003) in The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander published
by HarperCollins.

2.3 CYBERBULLYING

STATEMENT INDICATORS 4 3 2 1
1. I have seen or experienced
students being bullied through
social media platforms.
2. I am aware of incidents where
students received threatening or
insulting messages online.
3. I have observed the sharing of
embarrassing photos or videos
of students without their
consent.
4. I have seen students being
excluded from online groups or
chats as a form of bullying.
5. I have witnessed rumors or
harmful posts being spread
online about classmates.

This questionnaire was adapted and modified from established literature on bullying and
cyberbullying. It draws from Hinduja and Patchin (2009) in Bullying Beyond the
Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying published by Corwin Press,
 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT
i
Kowalski, Limber, and Agatston (2012) in Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age
published by John Wiley & Sons, and Tokunaga (2010) in Following You Home from
School: A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research on Cyberbullying Victimization
published in Computers in Human Behavior.