An Inquiry into Bullying at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, Department of Criminology

An Inquiry into Bullying at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, Department of Criminology

Irene Tayaben Altero¹, Kristine De Leon Makil², Gibby D. Hermoso³

^1,2,3Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300109

Received: 15 February 2025; Revised: 26 February 2025; Accepted: 01 March 2025; Published: 03 April 2025

ABSTRACT

 There has been a limited study on bullying in higher education, particularly in criminology programs. The particular nature, prevalence, and impact of bullying among criminology students remain unknown. The ASIST, Department of Criminology, aims to contribute to the greater body of evidence on bullying in higher education and provide insights into the issues faced by criminology students. This study investigated bullying among criminology students at the Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology (ASIST) using a descriptive research design employing correlation and comparative techniques. The research explored the relationship between students’ bullying experiences and their satisfaction with administrative responses. 270 first-year, second-year, and third-year students participated. The study was guided by several theoretical frameworks, including the Social-Ecological Model of Bullying, Labeling Theory, Social Learning Theory, Restorative Justice, and relevant criminological theories such as Differential Association and Strain Theory. Findings revealed that 62.84% of students reported experiencing bullying, with verbal abuse being the most common form. A significant portion (37.16%) of bullied students chose not to report the incidents. No significant correlation was found between demographic factors (age, sex, civil status) and satisfaction with anti-bullying measures. Based on these findings, the study recommends several strategies to combat bullying at ASIST, including raising awareness of support services, fostering a mental health culture, enhanced faculty and staff training, targeted anti-bullying programs addressing demographic vulnerabilities, improved reporting mechanisms, regular policy updates, expanded counseling services, peer education programs, and inclusive policy development. These recommendations aim to create a safer and more supportive learning environment for criminology students.

Keywords: Bullying in Higher Education, Criminology Students Experience, Bullying Prevalence, Anti-bullying Interventions, Student Support Services.

INTRODUCTION

Bullying, according to the Anti-Bullying Alliance, is the intentional, repetitive injuring of one individual or group by another, resulting in a power imbalance. Bullying can take many forms, including physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, online, or indirect, and it can occur in person or online. Hurtful, repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality are all key factors.

Moreover, bullying is defined as the behavior of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press).

Furthermore, “Bullying” shall refer to any severe or repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a hostile environment at school for the other student; infringing on the rights of the other student at school; or materially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school; such as, but not limited to, the following: a. Any unwanted physical contact between the bully and the victim like punching, pushing, shoving, kicking, slapping, tickling, headlocks, inflicting school pranks, teasing, fighting and the use of available objects as weapons; b. Any act that causes damage to a victim’s psyche and emotional well-being; c. Any slanderous statement or accusation that causes the victim undue emotional distress like directing foul language or profanity at the target, name-calling, tormenting, and commenting negatively on the victim’s looks, clothes, and body; and d. Cyberbullying or any bullying is done through the use of technology or any electronic means (Republic Act 10627 – Anti-Bullying Act of 2013).

Bullying is a global problem that has an impact on learning and personal development at educational institutions all around the world (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO). It’s especially unsettling in academic settings where departments like the Department of Criminology at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology are devoted to studying and preventing human violence. Like many other countries, the Philippines is not exempt from the widespread bullying pandemic. Research presents a worrisome image, revealing startlingly high incidence rates in a range of educational contexts.

While bullying has been extensively studied in K-12 and workplace settings (DepEd poll, 2015), research on bullying in higher education, particularly in Criminology programs, is limited. While several researches have addressed the larger issue of academic harassment or peer victimization, there is still a considerable gap in knowing the specific nature, prevalence, and impact of bullying among criminology students. Furthermore, the specific context of criminology studies, with its emphasis on power dynamics, social hierarchies, and probable exposure to real-world crime and violence, produces an environment conducive to the development of bullying behaviors. This uncharted terrain demands a thorough examination to uncover the hidden facets of this problem. By focusing on the ASIST, Department of Criminology, this study hopes to add to the larger body of evidence on bullying in higher education while also providing vital insights into the specific issues that criminology students face.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The study employs several theoretical frameworks to comprehend and examine bullying inside the ASIST Department of Criminology. Bullying can be caused by a variety of causes, according to the Social-Ecological Model of Bullying. These factors include individual traits, peer and group dynamics, school policies, and wider society standards. According to the labeling theory, the use of labels can influence how people think and act in social situations. The Social Learning Theory posits that bullying is acquired through observation and imitation, while the concepts of restorative justice prioritize mending the damage inflicted by bullying and fostering rapprochement between the victim and the offender. To gain a deeper understanding of the reasons for bullying conduct in the department, specialized theories in the field of criminology, such as the theories of differential association and strain, may also be taken into consideration.

The conceptual framework of the study involves several components which include the demographic profile of the respondents, also the forms of bullying experience of the students, and their level of satisfaction with the actions implemented by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying cases. Additionally, the proposed intervention program in addressing the bullying problems at ASIST, Criminology Department will develop.

Figure 1: Paradigm of the Study

Statement of the problem

This study seeks to answer the following research question:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following:

1. Age;
2. Sex;
3. Civil Status;
4. Year/s in the Program?

2. What are the forms of bullying experienced by the Criminology Students of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology?

3. What actions did the students who experienced bullying in coping with the situation?

4. What is the level of satisfaction of the respondents to the actions implemented by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying cases?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the forms of bullying they experienced?

6. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their level of satisfaction with the actions implemented by the administration/ grievance committee in addressing bullying?

7. Is there a significant difference in the satisfaction of the respondents to the action implemented by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying when grouped according to the type of bullying experienced?

Significance of the study

A study focusing on bullying within the ASIST, Department of Criminology is crucial for several reasons:

1. Uncovering Hidden Issues: Bullying frequently occurs in the shadows, with victims hesitating to speak up due to fear, embarrassment, or a perceived lack of support. This research has the potential to shed light on these difficulties.
2. Impact on Student Well-Being: Bullying can have serious psychological, emotional, and academic consequences for victims. Understanding its incidence and nature within the department is critical for designing effective prevention and intervention plans.
3. Promoting a Positive Learning Environment: A bully-free environment is critical for students’ academic and personal success. This study can help to create a more supportive and inclusive departmental culture.
4. Informing Policy and Practice: The research findings can be used to inform department policies and practices, as well as to serve as a model for other academic institutions.
5. Building a Knowledge Base: There is little study on bullying in criminology departments. This research can contribute to the increasing body of information on the subject.
6. Empowering Students: By giving victims, a voice and analysing their experiences, this study encourages students to seek help and support.
7. Strengthening the Criminology Profession: A bully-free department can promote a more ethical and competent criminology profession.

By addressing the issue of bullying within the ASIST, Department of Criminology, this study can contribute to a safer, more supportive, and productive learning environment for all students.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology Main Campus La Paz Extension, Mudeng, La Paz, Abra under the College of Arts and Sciences, Criminology Department.

Research Design

This study utilized the descriptive method of research. These methods are appropriate for this study to find what prevails in the present condition.

The descriptive research designs will be used in this study to investigate bullying within the ASIST, Department of Criminology. Descriptive because it will describe the forms of bullying experienced by the Criminology Students of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology. A correlation technique will be used since it will establish if a significant relationship exists between the profile of the respondents and the forms of bullying, they experienced, as well as between the profile of the respondents and their level of satisfaction with the actions implemented by the administration/ grievance committee in addressing bullying.

Lastly, the comparative technique will be used to establish if significant differences exist in the significant difference in the satisfaction of the respondents to the action implemented by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying when grouped according to the type of bullying experienced.

Population and Sampling

Seventy-five (75) are First Year, one hundred twenty (120) are in their Second Year, and seventy-five (75) from Third Year, a total of two hundred seventy (270) which include male and female students studying criminology at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, Department of Criminology were all participate in the inclusive participant selection process. This method guarantees inclusivity and safe reporting while offering a thorough understanding of bullying experiences and perceptions. However, only those respondents who responded that they experienced bullying were treated statistically.

Table 1. Respondents Experience of Bullying

Research Instrument and Data Collection

A questionnaire checklist was used as the main data gathering tool which comprises of 5 parts. Part 1 contains the profile of the respondent; Part 2 – the bullying experiences of the respondent; Part 3 – the actions of the students who experienced bullying; Part 4 – The level of satisfaction with the actions implemented by the administration/ grievance committee in addressing the bullying case; and Part 5 are the additional thoughts of the respondents. A questionnaire is a self-report form designed to elicit information that can be obtained through the written response of the respondent, which the questions lead to have less depth. This is primarily developed by the researchers and validated by a Social Work, Psychologist, and Political Science expert.

The researchers obtained permission from the Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology’s President, floated questionnaires, and distributed them to respondents after explaining the study’s objectives. They also assured the confidentiality of all collected information.

Tabulation was made from the answers of the respondents after retrieving the questionnaire followed by data analysis. The Likert 5-point scale was employed to evaluate the variables, reflecting the level of satisfaction from low to high. This scale has five ranges:

Table 1. 5-Point Likert Scale

Statistical Treatment

To examine and interpret the data, the investigator utilized the subsequent statistical protocol:

1. Frequency counts and percentages will be used to describe the profile, forms of bullying, and actions made by the students who experienced bullying.
2. The weighted mean will be used to determine the level of satisfaction of the respondents with the action taken by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying cases
3. Bivariate Analysis (r) will be used to establish if a significant relationship exists between the profile of the respondents and the forms of bullying, they experienced; and a relationship between the profile of the respondents and their level of satisfaction with the actions implemented by the administration/ grievance committee in addressing bullying.
4. One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to establish if a significant difference exists in the satisfaction of the respondent to the action implemented by the administration/grievance committee in addressing bullying when grouped according to the type of bullying experienced.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

1. Profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex, civil status, and year/s in the program.

The provided table summarizes the profile of the respondents which include the age, sex, civil status, and year/s in the program, who participated in the study of bullying at ASIST, Department of Criminology.

TABLE 1. PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

The table above shows, the majority of respondents (56.76%) are aged 19-20, which is typical for college or university students. Bullying occurs between 10 and 24 years, with 63.51% of victims being male and 36.49% being female. Moreover, respondents are single, with 51.35% having been in the Criminology Program for 2 years. Bullying practices are more constant over time, particularly among certain student groups, with boys being more likely to engage in similar actions. The ASIST study suggests that bullying might continue even as students advance in their academic careers.

2. Forms of Bullying Experienced by the Criminology Students of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology

The bullying experienced by the Criminology Students at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology is shown in the table below which includes the forms of bullying, perpetrated the bullying, bullying occurrence, place of occurrence, and effect of bullying.

Table 2 Forms of Bullying Experienced by The Criminology Students of Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology

Verbal abuse is the most common form of bullying reported by students (49.52%), followed by social exclusion (19.85%), physical aggression (13.74%), cyberbullying (8.40%), academic sabotage (8.40%), and other forms (4.58%). Verbal bullying is a common global issue, with less supervised settings being the most prevalent type (Man, X. et. al., 2022; Ahmed et al., 2023).

Bullying is a prevalent issue in schools, with fellow students being the most frequent perpetrators (73.54%) and faculty members (26.46%). It is crucial for schools to address this issue through anti-bullying initiatives, staff training, and fostering positive school climates (Gusfre et. al, 2023; Asio, 2019). Bullying is most common in classrooms (72.30%), followed by school premises (22.30%). Studies show that bullying can negatively affect academic performance and social integration (Katherine Schaeffer, 2023). The emotional impact of bullying is the most common consequence reported by students (60.81%), with academic, social, and other effects also significant. Addressing all forms of bullying is essential for students’ wellbeing and academic success (FA Esquivel et. al, 2023).

3. Actions of The Students Who Experienced Bullying in Coping with The Situation

The actions did the students who experienced bullying in coping with the situation are determined in the table below which includes who reported the incidents of bullying and to whom they reported.

TABLE 3 Actions Students Did Who Experienced Bullying in Coping Up with The Situation

The Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology found that a majority of students (62.84%) reported their bullying experiences, indicating a willingness to seek help. However, 37.16% chose not to report, raising concerns about potential stigma or fear of retaliation (Boulton, M.J. et. al, 2017). The most common reporting channel was the class advisor, with 59.14% of students choosing this option. A significant number of students reported to friends, highlighting the importance of peer support (De Luca L. et. al., 2019; Bauman, S., 2008). Only 5.38% reported to a Guidance Counselor/Designate, indicating a need for increased awareness about counselors’ role in addressing bullying (Tan, M. L. G., 2022). A mere 3.23% reported to the program head, indicating a lack of accessibility or perceived effectiveness of higher administration in addressing bullying issues (Tan, M. L. G., 2022; Espelage, D. L. et al., 2013). Some students sought help from alternative sources, such as peers, online platforms, or informal support networks (Kowalski et. al.2014; Malm, E. K., 2013).

Overall, the findings from the Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology highlight the need for a multifaceted approach to improving reporting practices and support systems for students experiencing bullying.

4. Level of Satisfaction of the Respondents to the Actions Implemented by the Administration/Grievance Committee in Addressing Bullying Cases

The data presented in Table 4 reflects the level of satisfaction among respondents regarding the actions implemented by the administration and grievance committee in addressing bullying cases. The mean scores and corresponding descriptive ratings (DR) indicate a generally “Neutral” perception of the effectiveness of these actions.

Table 4. Level of Satisfaction of the Respondents to the Actions Implemented by the Administration/Grievance Committee in Addressing Bullying Cases

Norm:

As shown from the table, the indicator that received the highest means score of “2.95” is “The grievance committee made me feel heard and respected during the reporting process”, followed by “I feel safe and respected by my peers within the ASIST department now” and “The administration took my bullying complaint seriously and initiated a proper investigation” with a mean 2.94 and 2.84 respectively all has a “Neutral” descriptive rating (DR). While the high mean scores for these indicators suggest that the grievance committee and administration have made progress in addressing bullying, the neutral descriptive rating indicates that there is still work to be done. Ongoing efforts to promote a culture of respect, safety, and trust are necessary to ensure that all students feel heard, respected, and supported within the department (Espelage, D. L. et al., 2013; Tan, M. L. G., 2022; Kowalski et al. 2014).

Meanwhile, the indicator “I was kept informed about the progress of the investigation into the bullying case” received the lowest mean score of 2.59 with a descriptive rating “Disagree”, indicating dissatisfaction among students regarding communication about the progress of their cases. A lack of information can lead to frustration and feelings of neglect, which can discourage future reporting. This highlights the need for the administration to improve transparency and communication during the investigation process (Espelage, D. L. et al., 2013). Moreover, the indicators higher than the lowest mean score are “The disciplinary actions taken against the bully were fair and appropriate” with a mean score of 2.72 followed by the indicator “The administration provided me with adequate support (e.g., counselling, emotional support) after the bullying incident” with a mean score of 2.83 both has a descriptive rating (DR) “Neutral”. The study indicates students’ uncertainty about fairness and appropriateness of bullying disciplinary actions, indicating a lack of clarity in the system. Hall (2017) argues that consistent enforcement of disciplinary policies is critical to maintaining a safe and respectful school environment. Students are more likely to trust the system when they see that consequences are applied fairly and consistently, regardless of the perpetrator’s status or relationship with the school. The ASIST study’s neutral rating may indicate inconsistencies in how disciplinary actions are administered, leading to student uncertainty.

The overall mean score of 2.79, rated as neutral, reflects a mixed perception of the administration’s effectiveness in addressing bullying. While some aspects, such as feeling heard and respected, are viewed positively, significant concerns remain regarding communication, support, and the perceived fairness of disciplinary actions.

5. Relationship between the Profile of the Respondents and the Forms of Bullying they experienced.

Table 5 Correlation Matrix Showing the Relationship Between the Profile of The Respondents And

The Forms of Bullying They Experienced

Legend: VA – Verbal Abuse  PA – Physical Aggression * – Significant at 0.05

Level   SE– Social Exclusion or Isolation CB – Cyberbullying ** – Significant at 0.01

Level AS – Academic Sabotage O – Others

As presented in the above table, it shows that “Age” is negatively correlated with physical aggression (r=-0.159, p<0.05), social exclusion (r=-0.143, p<0.05), and other forms of bullying (r=-0.148, p<0.05). This suggests that as students get older, they are less likely to experience these types of bullying. According to Smith, P. K., et al., (1994) and Wang, J., et al., (2009), bullying is prevalent among younger children, with physical aggression and social exclusion being more common. As children grow older, they develop better social skills and resilience, reducing victimization. Older students report lower levels of bullying due to maturation and increased social awareness.

Meanwhile, “Sex” is positively correlated with verbal abuse (r=0.276, p<0.01), indicating that females are more likely to experience verbal abuse compared to males. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995) highlights the differences in bullying experiences between genders, showing that girls are more likely to experience relational and verbal aggression, while boys tend to be more involved in physical forms of bullying. This aligns with your findings regarding the positive correlation between sex and verbal abuse. However, it is negatively correlated with other forms of bullying (r=-0.156, p<0.05), implying that males are more likely to experience these unspecified types of bullying. Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007) found that boys are more likely to experience physical bullying, while girls report higher instances of verbal and relational bullying. The findings support the negative correlation between sex and other forms of bullying.

Moreover, while there is no correlation coefficients are reported for “Civil Status”, the “Years in the program” is negatively correlated with verbal abuse (r=-0.655, p<0.01), physical aggression (r=-0.246, p<0.01), academic sabotage (r=-0.144, p<0.05), and other forms of bullying (r=-0.352, p<0.01). This suggests that students who have been in the program longer are less likely to experience these types of bullying. According to Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004), supportive educational environments for longer periods are less likely to experience bullying, due to the development of social networks and coping strategies. School climate and anti-bullying programs also contribute to reduced victimization.

The results suggest that younger students, females, and those who have been in the program for a shorter time are more vulnerable to certain forms of bullying. However, more research is needed to fully understand the complex relationships between student characteristics and bullying experiences.

6. Relationship between the Profile of the Respondents and their Satisfaction to the Actions Implemented by the Administration/ Grievance Committee in Addressing Bullying.

Table 6 presents the correlation coefficients between the profile of respondents and their satisfaction with the actions taken by the administration or grievance committee in addressing bullying. The key variables analyzed include age, sex, civil status, and years in the program.

Table 6 Coefficient of Correlations Showing the Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and Their Satisfaction to The Actions Implemented by the Administration/ Grievance Committee in Addressing Bullying.

The study found no significant correlation between age, sex, or years in a bullying program and respondents’ satisfaction with the administration’s actions. Age had a weak positive correlation, while sex had a weak and positive correlation (Yang, Y., et al., 2021; Oriol, X., et al., 2021). Years in the program had a virtually zero correlation, suggesting that satisfaction is more influenced by the quality and effectiveness of interventions (Gaffney, H., et al., 2021). The analysis suggests that demographic factors do not influence respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the administration’s actions.

7. Significant Difference in the Satisfaction of the Respondents to the Action Implemented by the Administration/Grievance Committee in Addressing Bullying when Grouped According to the Type of Bullying Experienced

Table 7 Anova Summary Table Showing the Differences in The Satisfaction of The Respondents to The Action Implemented by The Administration/Grievance Committee In Addressing Bullying When Grouped According to The Type of Bullying Experienced.

Note: Means of the same letters do not significantly differ from each other.

The results of the table above indicate that there are no significant differences in satisfaction across the different types of bullying experienced (F-computed = 1.552, F-critical = 2.267, p > 0.05). This suggests that respondents who experienced verbal abuse, physical aggression, social exclusion/isolation, cyberbullying, academic sabotage, or other types of bullying had similar levels of satisfaction with the actions taken by the administration/grievance committee to address the bullying incidents. The study focuses on the relationship between types of bullying and the perceived effectiveness of anti-bullying measures. It highlights that while satisfaction levels may not significantly differ across types of bullying, the effectiveness of interventions can vary based on the specific context and implementation. The literature review by Holt, Keyes, Smith, & Sharp emphasizes the need for tailored approaches to address the nuances of various bullying types. Rigby’s work highlights the importance of understanding different forms of bullying and their impact on student well-being, suggesting that students who encounter more severe forms may have different expectations and levels of satisfaction. The meta-analysis by Farrington and Ttofi (2009) concludes that while many programs are generally effective, the perceived satisfaction and outcomes can vary based on the type of bullying addressed. This suggests that a tailored approach to anti-bullying strategies may be necessary to better meet the needs of all students and enhance the overall effectiveness of school responses to bullying.

The means for each type of bullying are all denoted with the same letter “a”, further confirming that the means do not significantly differ from each other. This implies that the respondents’ satisfaction levels were consistent regardless of the specific type of bullying they encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The study on bullying among Criminology students at the ASIST, Department of Criminology, highlights the demographic profile of the respondents, including their age, sex, civil status, and year in the program. Understanding respondents’ profiles helps identify vulnerabilities and develop targeted anti-bullying programs.
2. The data highlights the need for comprehensive anti-bullying initiatives in an institution, with verbal abuse being the most common form. A high incidence of bullying in classrooms (72.30%) necessitates inclusive environments. Emotional consequences of bullying, including psychological well-being, necessitate counselling services and support systems.
3. The Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology found that 62.84% of students reported bullying incidents, indicating a proactive approach. However, 37.16% chose not to report, raising concerns about barriers to seeking help. The class advisor was the most common reporting channel, but a low percentage of students reported to Guidance Counselors and program heads. To improve reporting, the institution should increase awareness of support services, foster a mental health culture, and provide effective training for faculty and staff.
4. The Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology’s administration and Grievance Committee have been praised for their handling of bullying cases. Students felt heard and respected during reporting, indicating a comfortable environment for voicing concerns. However, a neutral mean score of 2.79 suggests areas for improvement. Communication gaps and inadequate support post-incident indicate students may feel their needs are not fully met. To improve student satisfaction, the institution should improve communication strategies and support services.
5. Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology’s study reveals demographic factors impact bullying experiences among Criminology students. Younger students are more vulnerable, while females face more verbal abuse. Tailoring anti-bullying strategies to different demographics can create a safer academic environment.
6. The study reveals no significant correlation between demographic factors and satisfaction with anti-bullying measures, suggesting the administration should focus on improving response to complaints, irrespective of demographics.
7. The study found no significant differences in satisfaction levels across bullying forms among respondents, suggesting students’ perceptions of the administration’s response aren’t influenced by specific bullying types. Emphasizing communication, victim support, and fair disciplinary actions is crucial.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The program involves regularly evaluating the unique vulnerabilities and experiences of various demographic groups to develop effective anti-bullying strategies.
2. Increase awareness about reporting channels and simplify processes to reduce student non-reporting of bullying incidents, ensuring a comfortable and safe reporting environment.
3. Implement a system for regular updates on student reports, build trust, and establish feedback mechanisms to improve communication and identify areas for improvement.
4. Expand counseling services for emotional support and post-incident support for victims of bullying, including workshops, peer support groups, and mental health professionals.
5. Tailor anti-bullying programs to demographic groups, especially younger students and females, by developing targeted initiatives and awareness campaigns to promote empathy and respect.
6. Implement peer education programs and increase faculty training to foster a positive school climate by empowering students to prevent bullying and support their peers.
7. Regular assessments and inclusive policy development are essential for evaluating and adapting anti-bullying policies at Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, ensuring student voices are heard and their needs are considered.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmed, B., Yousaf, F. N., Ahmad, A., Zohra, T., & Ullah, W. (2023). Bullying in educational institutions: College students’ experiences. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 28(9), 2713-2719.
2. Asio, J. M. R. (2019). Students bullying teachers: Understanding and behavior of college students from a higher education institution. Asio, JMR (2019). Students Bullying Teachers: Understanding and Behavior of College Students from a Higher Education Institution. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(2), 11-20.
3. Bauman, S. (2008). The role of elementary school counselors in reducing school bullying. The Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 362-375.
4. Boulton, M. J., Boulton, L., Down, J., Sanders, J., & Craddock, H. (2017). Perceived barriers that prevent high school students seeking help from teachers for bullying and their effects on disclosure intentions. Journal of adolescence, 56, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.11.009
5. Cowie, Helen & Smith, Peter. (2009). Peer support as a means of improving school safety and reducing bullying and violence. Handbook of Prevention Science. 177-193.
6. Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 48(2), 86.
7. Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of school health, 73(5), 173-180.
8. De Luca L, Nocentini A and Menesini (2019). The Teacher’s Role in Preventing Bullying. Front. Psychol. 10:1830. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830
9. Espelage, D. L. (2014, November). Using NCES surveys to understand school violence and bullying. In Prepared for the National Academy of Education’s Workshop to Examine Current and Potential Uses of NCES Longitudinal Surveys by the Education Research Community, Washington, DC.
10. Espelage, D. L., Rao, M. A., & De La Rue, L. (2013). Current research on school-based bullying: A social-ecological perspective. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 22(1), 21-7.
11. Esquivel, F. A., López, I. L. D. L. G., & Benavides, A. D. (2023). Emotional impact of bullying and cyber bullying: perceptions and effects on students. Revista Caribeña de Ciencias Sociales, 12(1), 367-383.
12. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and justice, 17, 381-458.
13. Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell systematic reviews, 17(2), e1143. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1143
14. Gusfre, K. S., Støen, J., & Fandrem, H. (2023). Bullying by teachers towards students—a scoping review. International journal of bullying prevention, 5(4), 331-347.
15. Hall, W. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1), 45-69.
16. Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2018). The role of school context in implementing a statewide anti-bullying policy and protecting students. Educational policy, 32(4), 507-539.
17. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), 1073.
18. Malm, E. K. (2013). The association of parent factors with bullying, victimization and bystander behaviors.
19. Man, X., Liu, J., & Xue, Z. (2022). Effects of bullying forms on adolescent mental health and protective factors: global cross-regional research based on 65 countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(4), 2374.
20. Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, health & medicine, 22(sup1), 240-253.
21. Oriol, X., Miranda, R., & Amutio, A. (2021). Correlates of bullying victimization and sexual harassment: Implications for life satisfaction in late adolescents. The Journal of School Nursing, 37(3), 202-208. PMID: 31315504 DOI: 1177/1059840519863845
22. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian journal of psychiatry, 48(9), 583-590.
23. Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior, 24(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2337(1998)24:3
24. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be?. Cambridge University Press.
25. Tan, M. L. G. (2022). Role of School Administrators in Bullying Prevention in State Universities Laboratory Schools: Implication to Pre-service Training. Role Sch. Adm. Bullying Prev. State Univ. Lab. Sch. Implic. to Pre-service Train, 94(1), 14.
26. Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of anti‐bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(1), 13-24.
27. Yang, Y., Zheng, C., Xie, M., Yuan, S., Zeng, Y., Zhou, M., … & Baker, J. S. (2021). Bullying victimization and life satisfaction among rural left-behind children in China: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in pediatrics, 9, 671543. doi: 3389/fped.2021.671543