Where bullying occurs
The first question asked where bullying mainly occurs. The possible answers for question 4 were classroom, hallway, school entrance and exits, comfort rooms, on the way to and from school, canteen, and electronically. Responses indicated that 57% (n=8) answered that bullying occurred in the classroom while 43% (n=6) answered hallway and 21% (n=3) answered never and 1% (n=1) either on the school entrance and exits and on the way to and from school (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Where does bullying mainly occur? (n=14)
For pupils in grade 4, bullying most often occurs in the classroom and on the hallways. This findings is supported by numerous researchers, who suggest that bullying most often where there is little or no adult supervision (Coloroso, 2010; Rigby,2008).
The second question asked which types of bullying they have experienced. The responses were divided in to two sections. One section included types of verbal bullying, while the other included types of physical bullying. The verbal bullying section included jokes, teasing, threats and insults. The physical bullying included pushing/shoving, small thefts (less than a 50 peso), great thefts (anything more than a 50 peso), fighting, and assault with a weapon.
Figure 2: Which types of bullying have you experienced? (n=14)
Response indicated that verbal bullying was twice as prevalent as physical bullying. Out of the 14 students there were 75 incidents of verbal bullying reported. The results indicated that out of the different types of verbal bullying, 71% (n=10) answered teasing, 36% (n=5) answered jokes, and only 14% (n=2) answered threats and insults (Figure 3).
Figure 4: Which types of bullying have you experienced? (n=14)
Out of the 14 students, there were 35 incidents of physical bullying reported. The results indicated that out of the different types of physical bullying, 68% (n=13) answered pushing/shoving, 36% (n=5) answered fighting, and a 1% (n=1) and answered small thefts. (Figure 4).
The third question asked students how often they had been bullied. The possible answers to question 3 were daily, more than once a week, once a week, more than once a month, once a month, once a quarter, once a year, and never. Response indicated that 20% (n=3) had never been bullied while the remaining 80% (n=14) said they had been bullied, daily, weekly, monthly or just sometime throughout the year (Figure 5).
Figure 5: How often have you been bullied? (n=14)
Is there a significant difference in the bullying behaviors of the student-respondents between the pre-documentation and post documentation results?
The next question was to identify the frequency of bullying among nineteen grade 4 students (13 males & 6 females). The checklist was completed daily between September 15, 2017 and November 3, 2017. The teacher researcher recorded data on the teacher observation log during a class hours for grade 4 students in four weekly logs for a total of four observational logs. The checklist documented the frequency of malicious teasing, name-calling, exclusion, physical aggression, and gossiping/spreading rumors. The checklist can be found in Appendix C.
The completion of observational logs resulted in the total of 74 observable bullying occurrences with their respective places. The two most observable bullying occurrences were name-calling and rumor/gossip, which resulted in 33% (n=24) and 30% (n=22) respectively. Both observable bullying occurrences of malicious teasing and exclusion resulted in 15% (n=11). Physical aggression was observed the least often resulting in 10% (n=14) of the observable bullying occurrences. Following were the analyzed results from the teacher observation logs (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Teacher Observation Log-Behaviors (n=147)
Table 1 .Students Level of Empathy Before
and After the Intervention Period
Table shows the level of empathy of the grade 4 students before and after the intervention period. The students were able to gain 0.53 points from the pre-implementation period mean result of 3.47 to 4.00 in the post-implementation period.
Table 2. Paired Difference of Students’ Level of Empathy
Before and After the Intervention period
Pre- vs Post Intervention period
Table 2 reveals that the before and after the implementation of the intervention differ as indicated in the table. The significant value which is .000 is below the set alpha level of 0.05 which direct the rejection of null hypothesis. These mean that there is a significant difference between before and after the implementation results of the intervention. The students’ level of empathy improved after being exposed to CERP.
Experts suggest that students’ empathy is a motivator for engaging in prosocial behaviors because it requires a desire to help another person (Eisenberg, 2005). Similarly, a lack of empathy may be associated with negative behaviors. Feshbach (1997) suggests that if someone were able to understand or feel another person’s negative emotion, he would be less inclined to continue with the negative behavior like bullying. Succinctly, if a person can empathize and relate to other humans’ emotions, then he should have less negative behavior toward others. Conceptually, caring climates—which require empathy—encourage people to consider others’ feelings and engage in caring behaviors themselves (Noddings, 2005, Battistich et al., 1997).
Table 3. Problems Encountered by the Teacher-Researcher
in the Implementation of CERP
Problems Encountered by the
Lack of support services to establish CERP as Bullying Intervention Program.
Lack of awareness to Child Protection Policy among children.
Lack of classroom evaluation to determine the status of bullying behaviors in the school.
There is no integration of Anti-bullying policy in lesson plan
Lack of establish classroom rules to prevent bullying behaviors
There is no school mechanism to identify the high-risk locations of bullying behaviors at school
Lack of response plan in terms of coordination and monitoring bullying behaviors in school
School personnel has no training to handle bullying behaviors in school
Lack of dissemination with the parents and students with the consequences of students bullying in school
Lack of empowerment of the Supreme Pupil Government officers to carry a message that bullying is not good thing to do in school.
Lack of response plan in terms of coordination and monitoring bullying behaviors in school ranked number 1. This is because through the creation and implementation of a comprehensive response plan, anti-bulling activities would demonstrate support of the aim of Republic Act No. 10627 known as the Anti-Bullying Act.
Lack of awareness to Child Protection Policy among children ranked number 2. Awareness is vitally important for elementary school pupils. Child Protection awareness help children develop healthy interpersonal relationships, evaluate verbal and non-verbal gestures and learn to present themselves in effective and competent ways to other students.
Elementary school is an important time for developing awareness on Child Protection Policy because during this time, children are exploring, learning about emotions, trying to navigate peer pressure, and building a sense of self.
Lack of classroom evaluation to determine the status of bullying behaviors in the school ranked number 3. The conduct of a thorough building-wide assessment uncovers the extent that bullying in the school. With the use multiple methods to collect information and analyzing the pattern of student disciplinary helps to prevent significant patterns of bullying.
Lack of support services to establish CERP as Bullying Intervention Program ranked number 4. By monitoring the school’s bully-prevention efforts as a support service of the school can reduce the amount of bullying among students. The school can use the same monitoring methods to track progress in bully prevention as were first used to address the seriousness of the bullying problem.
Lack of establish classroom rules to prevent bullying behaviors ranked number 5. Posting classroom rules prohibiting bullying and listing the consequences may help reduce bullying incidents. This puts would-be bullies on notice and outlines the risks they are taking. Teachers must consistently enforce the rules for them to have meaning. Schools should post signs in each classroom and apply age-appropriate penalties.
No integration of Anti-bullying policy in lesson plan ranked number 6. By assigning bullies to a particular location or to particular activities during teaching may help prevent bullying incidents. This approach separates bullies from their intended victims. If teachers give bullies constructive tasks such as tutoring other students, there is less chance that bully may occur in the classroom.
School personnel have no training to handle bullying behaviors in school ranked number 7. Schargel (2004) suggests that classes containing students with behavioral, emotional, or learning problems have more bullies and victims, teachers in those classes may require additional, tailored training in spotting and handling bullying.
Lack of dissemination with the parents and students with the consequences of students bullying in school ranked number 8. School administrators should inform parents about the school’s bullying policy. This removes any excuse students have for bullying, puts parents on notice that the school takes bullying seriously, and stresses the importance the school places on countering it.
Lack of empowerment of the Supreme Pupil Government officers to carry a message that bullying is not good thing to do in school ranked number 9. Schedule on Reduced Class Friday Program meetings may help to reduce bullying in school in which students and teachers engage in discussion, role-playing and artistic activities related to preventing bullying and other forms of violence among students.
No school mechanism to identify the high-risk locations of bullying behaviors at school ranked number 10. Bullying prevention coordinating committee should develop schoolwide rules and sanctions against bullying, systems to reinforce prosocial behavior, and events to raise school and community awareness about bullying.
The researcher realized that there is still a problem in school that needs to be addressed. This a group of students that need help when it comes to bullying and the intervention implemented as a successful in assisting these students.
The researcher was not surprised that the hot spots for bullying behavior were the classrooms and hallways. The researcher realized that this is due in part to the lack of supervision and understand what is needed to improve these situations. Verbal bullying was twice as prevalent as physical bullying and this was also not a surprising discovery. It made the researcher realized that the interventions should concentrate on how to relate and deal with people in general. Students need to be educated as to what bullying is. Many do not even realize they are bullying and hopefully will change when they are informed. Due to the fact that pushing was the most reported type of physical bullying we knew our intervention needed to have some sort of conflict resolution component.
1. Teachers may attend training to learn more about bullying prevention program and their obligations to effectively discharge of their function as loco parentis to students.
2. Teachers should establish classroom rules and explain to their class what behavior is considered to be appropriate.
3. Formulate clear routines against bullying and inculcate both desirable and improper behaviors.
4. Increase awareness by providing students with information about negative effects of bullying on students’ growth and development.
5. Ensure maximum supervision to students during recess periods and in hallways as this is when most bullying occurs.
6. Create a healthy social environment where there are openness and appreciation of all students. Communicate particular skills and approaches in the classroom such as empathy, supplementary thinking ideas, and problem-solving to improve students’ behavior.