1. Classroom Teacher, St. Anthony’s Academy of Carmen, Inc., Philippines.

*             Correspondence: junreyanub2@gmail.com

Keywords: student, bullying experiences, teacher schools

1. INTRODUCTION

Bullying is a pervasive and complex issue characterized by the intentional and persistent abuse of power through repeated verbal, physical, and/or social behavior, with the aim of causing physical, social, and/or psychological harm to individuals [1]. This phenomenon can occur when an individual or group exploits their perceived or actual power over one or more people who feel helpless to stop the abuse, thereby creating a power imbalance that can have severe consequences [2]. Educational institutions play a critical role in addressing bullying, as it can have long-term effects on students’ psychological, academic, and social development [3]. A child’s early years are crucial for the development of values, relationships, and self-worth, and these experiences are greatly influenced by the school environment. Bullying can distort these experiences, leading to long-term problems in psychology, academics, and social skills [4]. By addressing bullying, schools take a proactive approach to prevent future crises and resolve current challenges by delving into these underlying issues and offering support, guidance, and, if necessary, intervention [5]. The prevalence of bullying in Philippine schools is alarming. According to Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, at least seven out of ten students in Philippine public schools have experienced bullying, placing the nation first out of 70 countries with the issue. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that 40 percent, or four out of ten, children aged 13 to 17 had experienced bullying. Furthermore, the Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM) showed that 63 percent of Grade 5 or 10-year-old learners experienced bullying [6]. According to Bernadette Madrid of the Child Protection Network Foundation, the Nation’s Health Survey results showed that 40 to 60 percent of children aged 13 to 17 experienced bullying [7]. Bullying is not limited to public schools; it is also present in private institutions, such as St. Anthony’s Academy of Carmen, Incorporated (SAACI). The researcher has observed bullying and rejection firsthand, including incidents where a Grade 7 boy physically harassed his classmates and a Grade 8 student verbally abused a female classmate [8]. These observations highlight the need for a comprehensive study on student bullying experiences and school interventions. The researcher, who is also a teacher at a private secondary school, aims to conduct a study that would ascertain the student bullying experiences and school interventions among Catholic Private Schools in the Province of Bohol [9]. The study believes that student bullying can be addressed by investigating and implementing interventions within the Catholic private school setting. The purpose of the study is to determine the students’ level of bullying experiences and the intervention strategies employed by teachers in addressing the students’ bullying experiences among Grade 11 and Grade 12 students in selected Bohol Association of Catholic Schools (BACS) of the Diocese of Talibon, Bohol in the academic year 2023-2024. By examining the experiences of students and the responses of teachers, the study seeks to identify effective interventions to address bullying in Catholic private schools. The findings of this study will contribute to the development of evidence-based strategies to prevent and mitigate bullying, ultimately promoting a safe and supportive learning environment for students.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive-correlational research design was employed in the study, and the quantitative data was gathered using a survey questionnaire to measure the level of bullying experienced by the students and intervention strategies employed by the teachers in addressing bullying in their classes. This survey was conducted in the Bohol Association of Catholic Schools–Talibon, Inc. for the school year 2023-2024. These schools were situated in the Third District of Bohol, particularly in Candijay, Pilar, Carmen, Duero, Mabini, and Anda, and the Second District of Bohol, namely Getafe, Trinidad, Bien Unido, Ubay, and Inabanga. The Bohol Association of Catholic Schools – Talibon was supervised by the Bishop of Talibon, a Board of Trustees, a Diocesan Superintendent, an Academic Supervisor, School Directors, Principals, and Cashiers staff the member schools.

Figure 01: Map of Bohol Province Highlighting the Municipalities of the Respondent Schools

To establish the study sample, the researcher employed purposive sampling. Anecdotal records were secured from the class advisers of students who experienced bullying, spanning Grades 11 and Grade 12, during the academic year 2023–2024. Thus, the total number of respondents is 1021 students and 59 teachers. The number of respondent schools with the number of students and teachers and their respective municipalities were the following.

Second Congressional District/ Name of Municipality	Number of Respondent Schools	Number of Students	Number of Teachers
1.      Getafe	1	98	6
2.      Trinidad	1	82	6
3.      Bien Unido	1	41	2
4.      Ubay	2	154	11
5.      Inabanga	1	87	4
Third Congressional District/ Name of Municipality
1.      Candijay	1	74	6
2.      Pilar	1	62	2
3.      Carmen	1	211	8
4.      Duero	1	56	5
5.      Mabini	1	88	5
6.      Anda	1	68	4
TOTAL	12	1021	59

The researcher then distributed the questionnaire to the respondents, the researcher guaranteed the respondents the confidentiality of the data to encourage them to provide truthful and objective answers to each item. After retrieving the questionnaires, the data were tallied, tabulated, and interpreted. In determining the profile of the respondents, their age, year level, sex, and class attendance frequency were used. Weighted mean was used to interpret the level of students’ bullying experiences in terms of physical bullying, verbal bullying, social bullying, emotional bullying, cyberbullying, and gender-based bullying and the intervention strategies employed by the teachers to address students’ bullying experiences. The responses about the different forms of bullying will be divided into four categories: never, one time, sometimes, and many times, for statistical reasons.

The students’ responses were based on the guide below:

Weight	Range of Values	Interpretation	Description
4	3.26–4.00	Many times	5 times or more in a week
3	2.51–3.25	Sometimes	2-5 times a week
2	1.76–2.50	One time	Once a week
1	1.00–1.75	Never	Not at all in a week

The weight equivalents of the responses in the school-administered interventions are divided into three categories: many times, sometimes, and never, with corresponding categories of 3, 2, and 1.

The teachers’ intervention responses were based on the guide below:

Weight	Range of Values	Interpretation	Description
3	2.35-3.00	Many times	5 times or more in a week
2	1.68-2.34	Sometimes	2-5 times a week
1	1.00-1.67	Never	Not at all in a week

The means of all the types or categories were totaled and then divided by the number of means to determine the overall mean of the bullying types and the school-administered interventions.One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized to determine the significant difference between the students’ level of bullying experience and their age, year level, and sex.  Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation was used to determine the significant relationship between the level of students’ bullying experience and and their class attendance and the significant relationship between the level of students’ bullying experience and the intervention strategies employed by the teachers in addressing students’ bullying.

3. RESULT & DISCUSSION

The study’s findings, analysis, and interpretation of the data provide a comprehensive understanding of student bullying experiences. The data reveals that most students are 17 years old, followed by 18 and 16 years old, with few students above 20 years old. In terms of year level, 55% of respondents are Grade 11, and 44.45% are Grade 12. The study also shows that 560 students are females, and 461 are males. Notably, students aged 17 are most bullied, while older students are less bullied. Bullying is more prevalent among Grade 11 students and female students. Regarding class attendance, the data indicates that 142 Grade 11 and 97 Grade 12 students have marked absences for the academic year, with a higher proportion of absences among Grade 11 students. Overall, 23% of student-respondents have absences, which is alarming. These findings provide valuable insights into the profile of students who experience bullying, their attendance patterns, and the differences in bullying experiences based on age, year level, and sex. The study’s results can inform the development of targeted intervention strategies to address student bullying and improve attendance.

Table 01: Displays the profile of the students in terms of age, year level, and sex.

Profile of the Students	Frequency	Percentage
Age
16	259	25.37
17	440	43.10
18	271	26.54
19	36	3.53
20	8	0.78
21	4	0.39
22	2	0.20
24	1	0.10
Total	1021	100
Year level
11	557	54.55
12	464	44.45
Total	1021	100
Sex
Male	461	45.15
Female	560	54.87
Total	1021	100
Class Attendance
Grade 11	142	59%
Grade 12	97	41%
Total	239	100%

The data revealed that of the physical bullying experienced by the students, they many times experienced being forced to engage in a fight with another person, kicked by their classmates/schoolmates, punched by someone, bitten by someone, and slapped by their classmates/schoolmates with mean scores of 3.65, 3.67, 3.55, 3.48, and 3.27 respectively. Moreover, they sometimes experience being pushed or pinched. Generally, physical bullying is experienced by the students “many times,” which means that they have been being bullied 5 times or more in a week.

Table 02: Presents the level of students’ bullying experience as classified as physical bullying with their weighted mean.

Physical Bullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I have been pushed by classmates/schoolmates.	3.20	Sometimes
2.      I have been forced to engage in a fight with another person.	3.65	Many times
3.      I have experienced being pinched by others.	2.95	Sometimes
4.      I have been kicked by classmates or schoolmates.	3.67	Many times
5.      I have been punched by others.	3.55	Many times
6.      I have been bitten by someone.	3.48	Many times
7.      I have been slapped by classmates or schoolmates.	3.27	Many times
Composite Mean	3.40	Many times

 

The findings of the study underscore the imperative need for targeted interventions and strategies to combat physical and verbal bullying in schools. Physical bullying, which includes aggressive acts such as hitting, kicking, tripping, and unwanted touching, necessitates the creation of safe and supportive environments where such behavior is not tolerated, and students feel empowered to report incidents without fear. This perspective is supported by [10], who emphasize the severity of physical bullying as a form of aggressive physical intimidation. The study reveals that students experience various forms of verbal bullying, including racist remarks, sexually offensive comments, violent threats, and hurtful words, with mean scores indicating frequent occurrences. Notably, students reported experiencing sexually offensive remarks most frequently, highlighting the prevalence of severe verbal bullying. These findings stress the importance of addressing harmful behaviors and fostering a supportive environment where students feel respected and safe. To effectively prevent and intervene in verbal bullying, efforts should specifically target the forms identified as most frequent, such as sexually offensive remarks and violent threats, ensuring that all students can learn in a secure and nurturing setting.

Table 03: Portrays the level of students’ bullying experience as classified as verbal bullying.

Verbal Bullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I received some hurtful words.	2.46	One time
2.      I was teased about my body.	3.09	Sometimes
3.      I had rumors spread about me.	3.21	Sometimes
4.      I experienced racist remarks made about me.	3.50	Many Times
5.      I endured sexually offensive remarks made about me.	3.67	Many times
6.      I have received some violent threats.	3.50	Many times
7.      I was threatened by a language which I did not understand.	3.50	Many times
Composite Mean	3.28	Many times

The result is supported study [11] who indicated that a confluence of factors impacts verbal bullying among adolescents. To prevent verbal bullying, it is necessary to understand the progression of offenders’ deviance and develop intervention activities through mental health services. Verbal bullying among adolescents has become more common in recent years.

Table 04: Level of students’ social bullying experiences

Social Bullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I was ignored or left out by someone on purpose.	2.99	Sometimes
2.      I was told not to be friends with someone.	3.34	Many times
3.      My things were stolen.	3.04	Sometimes
4.      I was tripped by a group of students.	3.58	Many times
5.      My face was dirtied by them.	3.68	Many times
6.      I was embarrassed by someone in public.	3.30	Many times
7.      I received aggressive stares from a group of students.	3.18	Sometimes
Composite Mean	3.30	Many times

 

Table 04 presents the level of students’ bullying experience specifically in the context of social bullying, revealing an overall mean of 3.30, which is categorized as occurring “Many Times.” This categorization implies that, on average, students reported experiencing social bullying incidents five times or more in a week. Among the various forms of social bullying reported, the statement “My face was dirtied by them” had the highest mean of 3.68, also categorized as “Many Times,” indicating that this particular form of bullying is experienced frequently by the students. Conversely, the statement “I was ignored or left out by someone on purpose” had the lowest mean of 2.99, categorized as “One Time,” suggesting that being intentionally ignored or left out is reported less frequently compared to other forms of social bullying. The data highlights the variability in students’ experiences of social bullying, with specific acts like having their faces dirtied or being manipulated in social relationships occurring more frequently. The composite mean of 3.30 reinforces that social bullying is a significant issue among the surveyed students, occurring many times a week. These findings emphasize the need to address specific behaviors that contribute to social bullying, such as public embarrassment, theft, and social exclusion, and to promote inclusive and respectful interactions among students. By fostering a positive and supportive school environment, efforts can be made to prevent social bullying incidents and ensure that all students feel valued and included.

Table 05: Level of students’ emotional bullying experiences

Emotional Bullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      My secrets were disclosed to others without my consent.	3.20	Sometimes
2.      I was forced into doing things that I did not want to do.	3.37	Many times
3.      I was treated differently because of my religious beliefs.	3.78	Many times
4.      I experienced an attack while speaking in public.	3.71	Many times
5.      I was looked down on by a classmate/schoolmate.	3.21	Sometimes
6.      I was teased or mocked by others.	3.26	Many times
7.      I was subjected to threats.	3.64	Many times
Composite Mean	3.45	Many times

 Table 05 presents the level of students’ bullying experience specifically in the context of emotional bullying, with an overall weighted mean of 3.45, categorized as occurring “Many Times.” This indicates that students frequently experience emotional bullying. The statement “I was treated differently because of my religious beliefs” has the highest mean of 3.78, also categorized as “Many Times,” suggesting that students often face discrimination based on their faith. This highlights the importance of promoting religious tolerance and respect within school environments to prevent such incidents. On the other hand, the statement “My secrets were disclosed to others without my consent” has the lowest mean of 3.20, categorized as “Sometimes,” indicating that while privacy invasion is a form of emotional bullying, it may not be as prevalent as other forms. However, even occasional occurrences can significantly impact students’ well-being and trust. The composite mean of 3.45 underscores that emotional bullying is a frequent issue among students. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive anti-bullying strategies that specifically address issues like religious discrimination and privacy invasion. By creating a supportive and inclusive school culture, promoting empathy and respect, and implementing clear policies against bullying, schools can mitigate emotional bullying and foster a safe learning environment for all students. This is consistent with previous studies that show students who experience bullying, whether as victims or perpetrators, often present emotionally damaged profiles compared to those who do not participate in bullying [12].

Table 06: Level of Students’ Cyberbullying Experiences

Cyberbullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I discovered that someone had taken an embarrassing picture of me to show to others.	2.86	Sometimes
2.      I received abusive chat room messages.	3.49	Many times
3.      I have experienced somebody who posted harmful information about me.	3.66	Many times
4.      I received nasty video clips.	3.68	Many times
5.      I experienced harassment through a call.	3.80	Many times
6.      I received some hurtful messages online.	3.22	Sometimes
7.      I experienced the distressing situation of having my social media identity stolen.	3.62	Many times
Composite Mean	3.48	Many times

Table 06 presents the level of students’ bullying experience specifically in the context of cyberbullying, with a composite mean of 3.48, categorized as “Sometimes.” This indicates that students reported experiencing cyberbullying incidents two to five times a week. The highest mean is associated with the statement “I experienced harassment through a call,” with a mean of 3.80, categorized as “Many Times,” suggesting that this form of cyberbullying is particularly prevalent. In contrast, the statement “I discovered that someone had taken an embarrassing picture of me to show to others” has the lowest mean of 2.86, categorized as “Sometimes.” The data highlights the variability in students’ experiences of cyberbullying, with harassment through calls being the most frequently reported form. These findings underscore the need for efforts to address cyberbullying, focusing on educating students about online safety, promoting responsible digital behavior, and providing support for those who experience cyberbullying. Strategies to prevent cyberbullying should target specific forms, such as harassment through calls and harmful information posted online. This is consistent with previous studies that have identified variables associated with cyberbullying, including age, gender, online behavior, and past experiences of victimization, and have reported varying prevalence rates of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. By addressing these issues, schools can help create a safer online environment for students [13].

Table 07: Level of students’ gender-based bullying experiences

Gender-based Bullying	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I was being called gay/lesbian.	3.51	Many times
2.      I was told I walk like a gay/lesbian.	3.51	Many times
3.      I am being told my favorite colors and styles are boyish/girlish.	3.44	Many times
4.      I am being teased that my voice is like boys/girls.	3.51	Many times
5.      I am being told my appearance is like a boy/girl.	3.53	Many times
6.      I was told I liked boy/girl clothing.	3.39	Many times
7.      I was told to choose friends of the same sex.	3.64	Many times
Composite Mean	3.50	Many times

 

Table 07 presents the level of students’ bullying experience specifically in the context of gender-based bullying, with a weighted mean of 3.50, categorized as “Many Times.” This indicates that students reported experiencing gender-based bullying incidents five times or more in a week. The highest mean is associated with the statement “I was told to choose friends of the same sex,” with a mean of 3.64, also categorized as “Many Times.” In contrast, the statement “I am being teased that my voice is like boys/girls” has the lowest mean of 3.39, still categorized as “Many Times.” The data highlights the prevalence of gender-based bullying, particularly in enforcing gender stereotypes and norms. The findings suggest that efforts to address this issue should focus on promoting diversity, respect for individual identity, and creating inclusive environments where all students feel accepted regardless of their gender expression or preferences. Strategies to prevent gender-based bullying should target specific forms, such as pressure to conform to certain friendship patterns based on gender. These findings are supported by previous research, which has estimated high prevalence rates of gender-based school bullying, particularly among certain populations, and noted differences in experiences based on factors like sexual orientation and gender identity. By addressing these issues, schools can help create a more inclusive and supportive environment for all students [14].

Table 08: Summary of level of students’ bullying experiences

Indicators	Student -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      Physical bullying	3.40	Many times
2.      Verbal bullying	3.28	Many times
3.      Social bullying	3.30	Many times
4.      Emotional bullying	3.45	Many times
5.      Cyberbullying	3.48	Many times
6.      Gender-based bullying	3.50	Many times
Composite Mean	3.50	Many times

Table 08 presents a summary of students’ level of bullying experiences, revealing a concerning picture of the prevalence of bullying among the surveyed students. The composite mean falls under the “many times” category, indicating that students experienced various forms of bullying, including physical, verbal, social, emotional, cyberbullying, and gender-based bullying, five times or more throughout the week. This high frequency of bullying incidents highlights the need for targeted interventions and support systems to address bullying within the school environment and promote a safe and respectful atmosphere for all students. In response to bullying, teachers employ various strategies, with “showing care and respect” being a frequently used approach, receiving a weighted mean of 2.75. This reflects teachers’ supportive and empathetic stance, which is crucial in building positive relationships and addressing bullying effectively. However, the strategy of developing programs with parents received the lowest mean of 2.03, indicating that teachers only sometimes collaborate with parents to address bullying issues. This suggests an area for improvement in teacher-parent collaboration to comprehensively address bullying [15].

Table 09: Various intervention strategies along with their weighted means and qualitative.

Intervention Strategies	Teacher -respondents
	Weighted Mean	Qualitative Description
1.      I approach the situation with firmness and gentleness.	2.63	Many times
2.      I establish a one-on-one relationship with the students.	2.27	Sometimes
3.      I am honest and genuine in my dealings; recognizing that the student merely needs attention.	2.69	Many times
4.      I always let him/her know that I care, trust, and respect him/her.	2.75	Many times
5.      I give him/her responsibilities and provide praise.	2.69	Many times
6.      I stay calm and set limits.	2.64	Many times
7.      I allow them to tell me what is upsetting them.	2.66	Many times
8.      I am directive and firm about the behavior I will accept.	2.58	Many times
9.      I acknowledge their anger and frustration.	2.54	Many times
10.  I help the student solves his/her problem and address the real issues when they become calm.	2.59	Many times
11.  I talk to the student in private.	2.71	Many times
12.  I listen carefully if the student shares his/her feelings and experiences.	2.73	Many times
13.  I am supportive and express my concern about the situation.	2.49	Many times
14.  I let the student know that I’ve noticed that he/she appears to be feeling down and I would like to help.	2.51	Many times
15.  I reach out and encourage the student to discuss how he/she is feeling.	2.61	Many times
16.  I encourage cooperative learning activities with other students.	2.73	Many times
17.  I praise students frequently.	2.56	Many times
18.  I assign social responsibility.	2.46	Many times
19.  I develop programs with parents.	2.07	Sometimes
20.  I provide small group social skills training.	2.15	Sometimes
21.  I tap on their desk or put a hand on their shoulder.	2.39	Many times
22.  I provide a safe place where they feel accepted and supported.	2.61	Many times
23.  I avoid the usage of negative consequences to force them to study or focus.	2.41	Many times
24.  I give a reward if they have done something good.	2.36	Many times
25.  I am compassionate, not critical.	2.44	Many times
26.  I conduct conferences frequently with parents to learn about student’s interest and achievements outside of school.	2.03	Sometimes
27.  I speak softly in a non-threatening manner.	2.49	Many times
28.  I use “prudent” reprimands for misbehavior.	2.32	Many times
29.  I look for opportunities for students to display their leadership role in class.	2.61	Many times
30.  I make time to talk alone with students.	2.37	Many times
Composite Mean	2.50	Many times

Table 09 presents an overview of the intervention strategies employed by teachers to address student bullying, along with their weighted means and qualitative descriptions. The composite mean for all intervention strategies is 2.50, categorized as “Many times,” indicating that teachers frequently use various approaches to manage bullying incidents. The data suggests that teachers often focus on building positive relationships, showing empathy and support, and addressing students’ emotional needs to effectively address bullying. However, the findings also highlight an area for improvement: consistently involving parents in anti-bullying efforts and developing collaborative programs with them. Strengthening teacher-parent partnerships could enhance the effectiveness of interventions and create a more cohesive approach to addressing bullying. This is consistent with previous research that has shown the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs, particularly those that employ supportive-cooperative intervention strategies, in reducing bullying victimization. By building on these findings, schools can develop more comprehensive and effective approaches to preventing and addressing bullying [16].

Table 10: Difference in Students’ Level of Bullying Experience to their Age

Source of Variation	SS	dꭍ	MS	F	P-value	F Critical Value
Between Groups	3.439	7	0.491	2.553	0.013	2.019
Within Groups	194.946	1013	0.192

Table 10 presents the difference in students’ level of bullying experiences to their age. It can be gleaned from the table that there is a significant difference in students’ level of bullying experience to their age since the p-value of 0.013 is lower than the 5% significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that the level of bullying that the students experience varies according to their age.

 Table 11: Difference in Students’ Level of Bullying Experience to their Year Level

Variable	n	Mean	Standard Deviation	t	2-Tailed test (df=1019, α=0.05)
Year Level					Critical Value	P value
Grade 11	557	3.40	0.441	0.173	1.962	0.863
Grade 12	464	3.395	0.442

Table 11 illustrates the difference in students’ level of bullying experience to their year level. Data revealed a significant difference in students’ level of bullying experience to their year level since the p-value of 0.863 is higher than the 5% significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 12: Difference in Students’ Level of Bullying Experience to their Sex

Variable	n	Mean	Standard Deviation	t	2-Tailed test (df=1019, α=0.05)
Sex					Critical Value	P value
Male	461	3.424	0.452	1.710	1.962	0.088
Female	560	3.376	0.431

Table 12 displays the difference in students’ level of bullying experience to their sex. Data revealed a significant difference in students’ level of bullying experience to their year level since the p-value of 0.088 is higher than the 5% significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted. The finding conforms to the study of [17], who stated that males are more likely to be bullied than females, at least proportionately; this trend is consistent across age groups and survey time points, though it varies by survey. Besides, in the case of bullying, there were more bully victims among the boys, but no differences were found in the pure victims or pure perpetrators.

Table 13: Relationship between the levels of students’ bullying experience to their class attendance

Variable	Computed r	Computed t	Degrees of Freedom	Tabulated t	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
				@ 0.05
Levels of students’ bullying experience
Class Attendance	0.023	0.737	1019	1.96	Accept	Not Significant

Table 13 displays the relationship between the levels of students’ bullying experience and their class attendance. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation revealed no significant relationship between the levels of students’ bullying experience and their class attendance since the computed t-value of 0.737  is lower than the tabulated t-value, which is 1.96. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. On the other hand, the table exhibits the computed correlation coefficient (r) of 0.023, which indicates a very weak positive correlation between students’ bullying experience levels and their class attendance. It suggests that while there may be a slight tendency for higher bullying experience to be associated with slightly better class attendance, this relationship is not strong enough to be considered significant.

Table 14: Relationship between the level of students’ bullying experience and the intervention strategies employed by the teachers in addressing students’ bullying

Variable	Computed r	Computed T	Degrees of Freedom	Tabulated t	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
				@ 0.05
Levels of students’ bullying experience
Intervention Strategies	0.193	1.487	57	1.96	Accept	Not Significant

Table 14 explores the relationship between the level of students’ bullying experience and the intervention strategies teachers employ. Data showed no significant relationship between the levels of students’ bullying experience and the intervention strategies used by the teachers since the computed t-value of 1.487 is lower than the tabulated t-value, which is 1.96. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. On the other hand, the computed correlation coefficient (r) is 0.193, which indicates a weak positive correlation between students’ bullying experience levels and the intervention strategies used by teachers. It suggests that while there may be a slight tendency for teachers to use more intervention strategies as bullying experience levels increase, this relationship is not strong enough to be considered significant [18].

Table 15: Relationship between the level of students’ bullying experience and the intervention strategies employed by the teachers in addressing students’ bullying

Variable	Computed r	Computed T	Degrees of Freedom	Tabulated t	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
				@ 0.05
Physical Bullying	-0.067	-0.504	57	±1.960	Accept	Not Significant
Intervention Strategies
Verbal Bullying	0.046	0.347	57	±1.960	Accept	Not Significant
Intervention Strategies
Emotional Bullying	-0.098	-0.742	57	±1.960	Accept	Not Significant
Intervention Strategies
Social Bullying	-0.142	-1.080	57	±1.960	Accept	Not Significant
Intervention Strategies
Cyber Bullying	-0.272	-2.136	57	±1.960	Reject	Significant
Intervention Strategies
Gender-based Bullying	-0.211	-1.630	57	±1.960	Accept	Not Significant
Intervention Strategies

Table 15 examines the relationship between students’ bullying experiences and teachers’ intervention strategies. The findings indicate no significant relationship between physical, verbal, emotional, social, and gender-based bullying experiences and teachers’ intervention strategies. However, a significant relationship exists between cyberbullying experiences and intervention strategies. The correlation analysis reveals weak positive correlations between verbal bullying and intervention strategies, and weak negative correlations between physical, emotional, social, and gender-based bullying and intervention strategies. Notably, a moderate negative correlation exists between cyberbullying experiences and the effectiveness of intervention strategies, suggesting that as cyberbullying experiences increase, the effectiveness of interventions decreases. This highlights the need for teachers to reassess and adapt their strategies to better address cyberbullying.

4. CONCLUSION

The study aimed to assess the prevalence and differences in bullying experiences among students at the Bohol Association of Catholic Schools of the Diocese of Talibon, Inc. during the 2023-2024 school year. It examined students’ profiles, bullying experiences (physical, verbal, social, emotional, cyberbullying, and gender-based), and teachers’ intervention strategies. The study involved 1021 Grade 11 and 12 students, using frequency counts, weighted means, T-tests, ANOVA, and Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation to analyze the data. The findings highlight an urgent need for targeted actions to address bullying in schools, as students frequently experience various types of bullying, particularly Grade 11 students with attendance challenges. While teachers actively employ strategies to address bullying, differences in experiences across age groups suggest the need for customized approaches. The study also found no clear link between bullying, attendance, and intervention effectiveness, emphasizing the need for further investigation and thoughtful strategies to create safer and more welcoming school environments. To address the issue of bullying, several recommendations can be implemented. Firstly, the school can establish comprehensive bullying prevention programs that tackle various forms of bullying, equipping students with the necessary tools and resources to report and effectively address bullying incidents. Secondly, targeted support and intervention strategies can be provided to students to improve attendance rates and address underlying issues contributing to absenteeism. Additionally, teachers can benefit from professional development seminars or training opportunities to enhance their skills in implementing effective intervention strategies and creating a supportive and inclusive classroom environment. Furthermore, continued research and evaluation are essential to understand the evolving nature of bullying dynamics and the effectiveness of intervention strategies, ensuring ongoing improvement and adaptation of anti-bullying initiatives. Lastly, a proposed anti-bullying campaign program can be presented to increase students’ awareness of bullying, promoting a safer and more informed school community.

References

1. Fischer, S. M., John, N., & Bilz, L. (2021). Teachers’ self-efficacy in preventing and intervening in school bullying: A systematic review. International journal of bullying prevention, 3, 196-212.
2. Mary Rose Bautista Librada (2024). LCO-V: A Resource Material in Science Lessons to Facilitate Learning. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(10):567-575.
3. Fischer, S. M., Woods, H. A., & Bilz, L. (2022). Class teachers’ bullying-related self-efficacy and their students’ bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and combined victimization and perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(2), 184-203.
4. Van Verseveld, M. D., Fekkes, M., Fukkink, R. G., & Oostdam, R. J. (2021). Teachers’ experiences with difficult bullying situations in the school: An explorative study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(1), 43-69.
5. Sushmita Smita & Marzia Dutta (2023). Principal’s Effectiveness and School Performance determined by teachers’ ratings with moderating role of gender orientation. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(12):721-729.
6. Hobaica, S., Kwon, P., Reiter, S. R., Aguilar‐Bonnette, A., Scott, W. D., Wessel, A., & Strand, P. S. (2021). Bullying in schools and LGBTQ+ youth mental health: Relations with voting for Trump. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 960-979.
7. Faith M. Gallardo, Novabella L. Llanos & Garfield R Perez (2024). Leadership Styles of the Principals through the Lens of Teachers and Staff: A Phenomenological Exploration. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(08):470-481.
8. Hikmat, R., Yosep, I., Hernawaty, T., & Mardhiyah, A. (2024). A scoping review of anti-bullying interventions: reducing traumatic effect of bullying among adolescents. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 289-304.
9. Kollerová, L., Soukup, P., Strohmeier, D., & Caravita, S. C. (2021). Teachers’ active responses to bullying: Does the school collegial climate make a difference?. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 912-927.
10. van Aalst, D. A., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2024). A systematic review on primary school teachers’ characteristics and behaviors in identifying, preventing, and reducing bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6(2), 124-137.
11. Johander, E., Turunen, T., Garandeau, C. F., & Salmivalli, C. (2024). Interventions that failed: Factors associated with the continuation of bullying after a targeted intervention. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6(4), 421-433.
12. Vergilio T. Manzano (2024). Leadership Style and Organizational Performance Among Public Schools in San Mateo, Isabela. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(02):136-151.
13. Wu, Q., & Jia, F. (2023). Empowering students against ethnic bullying: review and recommendations of innovative school programs. Children, 10(10), 1632.
14. Yosep, I., Hikmat, R., & Mardhiyah, A. (2023). School-based nursing interventions for preventing bullying and reducing its incidence on students: a scoping review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(2), 1577.
15. Yosep, I., Hikmat, R., Mardhiyah, A., Hazmi, H., & Hernawaty, T. (2022, September). Method of nursing interventions to reduce the incidence of bullying and its impact on students in school: a scoping review. In Healthcare (Vol. 10, No. 10, p. 1835). MDPI.
16. Juny Geraldizo Patierez (2024). Effects of Learning Motivation and Engagement on the Academic Performance and Satisfaction of Senior High School Students. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(05):251-266.
17. Gagnon, C., LeBlanc, L., Robert-Mazaye, C., Maïano, C., & Aimé, A. (2022). Intention to intervene in weight-related bullying in elementary school: A qualitative study of the perspectives of teachers and school counselors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, 103805.
18. Henderson, E. R., Sang, J. M., Louth-Marquez, W., Egan, J. E., Espelage, D., Friedman, M., & Coulter, R. W. (2022). “Words aren’t supposed to hurt, but they do”: Sexual and gender minority youth’s bullying experiences. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(11-12), NP8747-NP8766.