Chapter IV Presentation of Data

Table 1. Age of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percentage Rank
18 91 43.3 1
19 56 26.7 2
20 45 21.4 3
21 18 8.6 4
Total 210 100.0

Table 2. Gender of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage Rank
MALE 72 34.3 2
FEMALE 133 63.3 1
NON-BINARY 3 1.4 3
GAY 1 .5 4
PREFER NOT TO 1 .5 4
ANSWER
Total 210 100.0

Table 3. Ethnicity of the Respondents

Ethnicity Frequency Percentage Rank
TAUSOG 150 71.4 1
SINAMA 41 19.5 2
BISAYA 12 5.7 3
TAGALOG 7 3.3 4
Total 210 100.0

Table 4. Social Flatform of the Respondents

Social Flatform Frequency Percentage Rank
FACEBOOK 179 85.2 1
INSTAGRAM 12 5.7 2
OTHERS 9 4.3 3
TIKTOK 6 2.9 4
TWITTER 4 1.9 5
Total 210 100.0

Table 5. Perception of the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Indicator Mean SD Interpretation
A1 2.3952 1.19448
A2 1.6905 .82683
A3 3.0190 1.35887
A4 2.2429 1.11238
A5 2.2429 1.15044
A6 2.5429 1.14523
 A7 2.7286 1.18509
A8 3.1333 1.40788
A9 2.7857 1.27425
A10 2.9143 1.28751
A11 2.7799 1.26695
A12 2.7095 1.30013
A13 2.6524 1.24051
A14 2.7571 1.24627
A15 3.1762 1.46160
Average 2.65

Table 6. Perceived physical impact of cyberbullying on the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi
on cyberbullying
Indicator Mean SD Interpretation
B1 2.7524 1.35393
B2 2.6762 1.30875
B3 3.0048 1.26981
B4 3.0143 1.25076
B5 2.8421 1.30050
B6 2.9429 1.27041
B7 2.9524 1.31157
B8 2.8952 1.25598
B9 3.0192 1.26247
B10 2.9381 1.23775
B11 2.9952 1.26225
B12 3.0810 1.27850
B13 2.9810 1.19793
B14 2.8762 1.32112
B15 2.9095 1.36827
Average 2.93

Table 7. Perceived emotional impact of cyberbullying on the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi
on cyberbullying
Indicator Mean SD Interpretation
C1 2.3762 1.24754
C2 2.5190 1.19493
C3 2.6810 1.16903
C4 2.6333 1.18355
C5 2.8278 1.11760
C6 2.7476 1.23277
C7 2.5381 1.24546
C8 2.4000 1.22259
 C9 2.4905 1.19104
C10 2.5810 1.25489
C11 2.6286 1.19614
C12 2.8095 1.22646
C13 2.6095 1.21785
C14 2.8524 1.24973
C15 2.7000 1.29056
Average 2.63

Table 8. Perceived social impact of cyberbullying on the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on
cyberbullying
Indicator Mean SD Interpretation
D1 2.2762 1.21392
D2 2.6000 1.19087
D3 2.5333 1.11163
D4 2.7000 1.24911
D5 2.8286 2.38800
D6 2.6905 1.19184
D7 2.8762 1.18358
D8 2.7476 1.22107
D9 2.7381 1.28405
D10 2.8619 1.22376
D11 2.7571 1.24627
D12 2.8762 1.18358
D13 2.9286 1.21775
D14 2.6238 1.22822
D15 2.7190 1.32048
Average 2.72

Table 9. Mean Score obtain by Age Perception of the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on
cyberbullying

Age Mean SD Interpretation

18 2.6689 .72141
19 2.6000 .65850
20 2.7593 .62470
21 2.4556 .57497
Table 10. Mean Score obtain by Gender Perception of the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on
cyberbullying

Gender Mean SD Interpretation

MALE 2.5472 .64393
FEMALE 2.7236 .68560
NON-BINARY 2.2222 .55910
GAY 1.8000 .
PREFER NOT TO 2.7333 .
ANSWER

Table 11. Mean Score obtain by Ethnicity on Perception of the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi-
Tawi on cyberbullying

Ethnicity Mean SD Interpretation

TAUSOG 2.6504 .67002
SINAMA 2.5951 .63812
BISAYA 2.7333 .88215
TAGALOG 2.8667 .65772

Table 12. Mean Score obtain by Social Flatform on Perception of the 12th graders of Bongao,
Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Social Flatform Mean SD Interpretation

FACEBOOK 2.6929 .67082
INSTAGRAM 2.4389 .64664
OTHERS 2.4222 .63246
TIKTOK 2.2444 .87399
TWITTER 2.5667 .51783
Table 13. Mean Score obtain by Age on Perceived physical impact of cyberbullying on the 12th
graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Age Mean SD Interpretation

18 2.9275 .93880
19 2.9899 .95627
20 3.0533 .79679
21 2.3926 .51278

Table 14. Mean Score obtain by Gender on Perceived physical impact of cyberbullying on the
12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Gender Mean SD Interpretation

MALE 2.8646 .83568
FEMALE 2.9557 .92448
NON-BINARY 2.4444 .73736
GAY 2.8000 .
PREFER NOT TO 4.8000 .
ANSWER

Table 15. Mean Score obtain by Ethnicity on Perceived physical impact of cyberbullying on the
12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying
Ethnicity Mean SD Interpretation
TAUSOG 2.8998 .86823
SINAMA 2.8927 .87151
BISAYA 3.1167 1.23260
TAGALOG 3.3333 1.07566

Table 16. Mean Score obtain by Social Flatform on Perceived physical impact of cyberbullying
on the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying
Social Flatform Mean SD Interpretation
FACEBOOK 2.9343 .90425
INSTAGRAM 3.0889 .93995
OTHERS 2.5556 .69442
TIKTOK 2.7556 .93966
TWITTER 3.1167 .94497
2.9252 .89683
Table 17. Mean Score obtain by Age on Perceived emotional impact of cyberbullying on the 12th
graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Age Mean SD Interpretation

18 2.6293 .86257
19 2.6477 .90709
20 2.7052 .67037
21 2.3481 .69378

Table 18. Mean Score obtain by Gender on Perceived emotional impact of cyberbullying on the
12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Gender Mean SD Interpretation

MALE 2.6231 .81467
FEMALE 2.6311 .83654
NON-BINARY 2.4222 1.00074
GAY 3.0667 .
PREFER NOT TO 2.4000 .
ANSWER

Table 19. Mean Score obtain by Ethnicity on Perceived emotional impact of cyberbullying on
the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying
Ethnicity Mean SD Interpretation
TAUSOG 2.5814 .77702
SINAMA 2.6797 .75560
BISAYA 2.8889 1.38836
TAGALOG 2.8286 1.02766

Table 20. Mean Score obtain by Social Flatform on Perceived emotional impact of cyberbullying
on the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying
Social Flatform Mean SD Interpretation
FACEBOOK 2.6652 .81375
INSTAGRAM 2.7778 .94893
OTHERS 2.2741 .72911
TIKTOK 1.8778 .88183
TWITTER 2.3500 .45664
Table 21. Mean Score obtain by Age on Perceived social impact of cyberbullying on the 12th
graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Age Mean SD Interpretation

18 2.7370 .87700
19 2.7060 .95285
20 2.7674 .69014
21 2.5259 .78778

Table 22. Mean Score obtain by Gender on Perceived social impact of cyberbullying on the 12th
graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Gender Mean SD Interpretation

MALE 2.7111 .90445
FEMALE 2.7353 .83048
NON-BINARY 1.9333 .41633
GAY 3.0667 .
PREFER NOT TO 2.7333 .
ANSWER

Table 23. Mean Score obtain by Ethnicity on Perceived social impact of cyberbullying on the
12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Ethnicity Mean SD Interpretation

TAUSOG 2.7062 .84519
SINAMA 2.7398 .77342
BISAYA 2.7222 1.10603
TAGALOG 2.8095 1.12245

Table 24. Mean Score obtain by Social Flatform on Perceived social impact of cyberbullying on
the 12th graders of Bongao, Tawi- Tawi on cyberbullying

Social Flatform Mean SD Interpretation

FACEBOOK 2.7479 .84880
INSTAGRAM 2.7667 .86058
OTHERS 2.4000 .91773
TIKTOK 2.2333 1.05304
TWITTER 2.6333 .30062
Table 25. Test of Significant Difference by Age Using Analysis of Variance
Is there a significant difference on the perceived impact of cyberbullying of 12th graders when
grouped according to their Age?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between 3.092 2 1.546 2.643 .076 Accepted
Groups
Within 56.745 97 .585
Groups
Total 59.837 99
Is there a significant difference on the overall wellbeing of 12th graders when grouped
according to their Age?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between 2.383 3 .794 1.297 .277 Accepted
Groups
Within 126.226 206 .613
Groups
Total 128.609 209
Not Significant if p-value > 0.05

Table 26. Test of Significant Difference by Gender using t-Test

Is there a significant difference on the perceived impact of cyberbullying of 12th graders when
grouped according to their gender?
t DF p-value Decision
-1.795 203 .074 Accepted
Is there a significant difference on the overall wellbeing of 12th graders when grouped
according to their gender?
t DF p-value Decision
-.359 203 .720 Accepted
Not Significant if p-value > 0.05
Table 27. Test of Significant Difference by Ethnicity Using Analysis of Variance
Is there a significant difference on the perceived impact of cyberbullying of 12th graders when
grouped according to their Ethnicity?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between .535 3 .178 .389 .761 Accepted
Groups
Within 94.334 206 .458
Groups
Total 94.869 209
Is there a significant difference on the overall wellbeing of 12th graders when grouped
according to their Ethnicity?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between .785 3 .262 .422 .738 Accepted
Groups
Within 127.824 206 .621
Groups
Total 128.609 209
Not Significant if p-value > 0.05

Table 28. Test of Significant Difference by Social Flatform Using Analysis of Variance
Is there a significant difference on the perceived impact of cyberbullying of 12th graders when
grouped according to their Social Flatform?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between 2.346 4 .586 1.299 .272 Accepted
Groups
Within 92.523 205 .451
Groups
Total 94.869 209
Is there a significant difference on the overall wellbeing of 12th graders when grouped
according to their Flatform?
SS DF MS F p- Value Decision
Between 2.701 4 .675 1.099 .358 Accepted
Groups
Within 125.909 205 .614
Groups
Total 128.609 209
Not Significant if p-value > 0.05
Table 29. Test of Significant Relationship between perception on cyberbullying and impact on
the overall wellbeing of 12th graders
Variables r-Value Degree of p-Value Decision
Relationship
Perception x .406 Moderate .000 Rejected
Impact on the
overall
wellbeing of 12th
graders
Not Significant if p-value > 0.05
+-(0.80-1.00) Very Strong
+-(0.60-0.79) Strong
+-(0.40-0.59) Moderate
+-(0.20-0.39) Weak
+-(0.00-0.19) Very Weak