Differences of Perception Between Generations in the

Context of Misinformation on Social Media Platforms among

Governance and Public Affairs Students of DLS-CSB and Millennials.

In Fulfillment of the Requirement in

QUANTYA: Quantitative Research

Submitted to:
Ms. Emervic De Pedro

Submitted By:
Dinglasan, Sean Christian
Mariano, Renz
Que, Hannah Jaye
Tan, Trisha Kaye

OLDI2

December 2022
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction

There is no doubt that the earth has been experiencing rapid changes as well as
unpredictable global challenges from economic imbalances, climate change, poverty, education,
and society itself. While globalization has continually resulted in interconnectedness, despite its
enormous social and practical benefits, the internet allows people to spread false information
quickly and across a wider audience, often while making an appearance credible. It became a
two-way street. Despite the advantages, there is also a cost.

We live in the "information age," in which information, personal views, leisure, and
user-generated content, or news, are easily accessible. This news has a big role for every
individual: 1) to inform citizens regarding what is going on in their surroundings; 2) to educate
people about the significance and meaning of these "facts"; 3) to provide a platform for open
political discussions in the larger society to enable the formation of public opinion; 4) to provide
publicity to governmental and political organizations as a watchdog role of journalism; and 5) to
advocate for political viewpoints (Simons, n.d).

False information did exist even in prehistory. It predates humanity. What differentiates
fake news today is the ease with which it can be created, spread, and multiplied due to modern
communication tools, including social media. Social media makes it simple to disseminate
information to a large audience while also making it simple to access information. Nowadays,
information can be obtained with a single click from various social media platforms. Moreover,
more and more individuals are becoming more aware of information technology (IT), cyber
security, data management, and other topics that are covered by computers, which is the reason
they are easily controlled and manipulated.

Social media platforms can also give information on how to create new articles, websites,
vlogs, blogs, or YouTube videos that provide misrepresentation. Information is everywhere.
Indeed, disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation have been the roots of the constant
pollution of the information space, whilst also manipulating facts and disrupting public
communication. It is regarded as an ongoing modern problem because society has paid close
attention to it ever since.

The term "fake news" is commonly used. To be confident in the content people consume
online, it is vital to first comprehend what "misinformation" and "disinformation" are, in addition
to the differences between them. Misinformation is a term used for accidental false information;
it is any content that inadvertently misinforms individuals. On the other hand, disinformation is
used to deliberately deceive; it may come from biased reviews, deceptive clickbait headlines,
conspiracy theories, or edited images and videos targeted to audiences.

The target audience of misinformation is every generation. As a matter of fact, in the

modern century, both Generation Z and Millennials are victims of this. Gen Z or zoomers, those
who were born between 1997 and 2012, are drawn to social media habits rather than reading
text-based articles such as newspapers (Choi, 2020). On the contrary, Millennials' failure to
distinguish between fake and factually correct news can have severe repercussions for a person's
physical, emotional, and financial well-being (Adam, 2022). Furthermore, cognitive decline by
itself can account for older adults' engagement with fake news. It is also claimed that Millennials
who are new to social media may struggle to identify factual content or manipulated images.

Therefore, this paper shall undertake the ambitious task of investigating whether the
social media platforms of DLS-CSB Governance and Public Affairs students as well as
Millennials have been affected and are vulnerable to misinformation.

To summarize, the researchers’ key distribution is to further study and investigate

information regarding misinformation. With respect to implementation, the researchers would
keep the questionnaire data private to avoid privacy violations. Lastly, the paper will judge the
success or failure of the aforementioned question on the vulnerability to misinformation on
social media platforms between DLS-CSB governance and public affairs students and
Millennials.
Significance of the Study

As our dependence on social media platforms for information and entertainment

continues to grow, identifying and evaluating the veracity of the content we see online becomes a
more difficult endeavor. The study aims to understand how different generations consume media
content that is presented to them, especially how these individuals respond when they encounter
fake news and what they believe to be the characteristics of a reliable source of information, be it
in the form of news outlets, youtube channels, or facebook pages. This would greatly facilitate
the researchers goal in figuring out the best measures to detect and combat the spread of
misinformation. The findings of the study would benefit the following groups of individuals:

General Public. Given that anyone can be a target and victim to fake news, building awareness
on how to do fact-checking and correcting erroneous information before sharing is crucial
contrary to simply indulging such on surface level. If the latter is not avoided by the public, there
will be implications that can damage the credibility of a person, organization or subject matter.

Students of the School of Diplomacy and Governance (SDG). Since fake news is primarily
political in nature, misinformation is a problem that falls under psychological warfare. Media is
considered to be a powerful tool that can be weaponized on a negative aspect as it can polarize
the opinions of the people. Its prevalence is a phenomenon that is happening on both a local and
international scale which should prompt institutions to protect its constituents and root out
instigators behind the malefaction.

Future Researchers. The results may be used as a reference to conduct similar studies not
limited to students of political-affiliated majors, wherein they may also choose their preferred
generation to examine in order to see whether or not individuals from different backgrounds are
concerned about fake news and how they respond to it. Furthermore as technology advances,
more innovative and efficient methods may emerge to help better address the problem that
society will continue to face in the age of digitalization.
Statement of the Problem

The researchers would like to seek answers from the following questions:

Central Research Question: What difference in perspective does the 33 respondents from
DLS-CSB Governance and Public Affairs students and 33 Millennial respondents have to
misinformation on social media platforms?

Supporting Questions:
1. What is the proportion of respondents from:
a. Millennial Group
b. Generation Z
2. What is the perception of the respondents on misinformation on social media platforms?
3. Is there a significant difference between the perception of the Millennials and Generation
Z respondents on misinformation on social media platforms?

Hypothesis to be Tested:

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the perception of Millennials and
Generation Z respondents on misinformation.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the perception of Millennials

and Generation Z respondents on misinformation.

CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND PROCEDURE

Population and Sample

In view of the presented rationale, the target population would be the students of AB
Governance and Public Affairs in De La Salle College of St. Benilde for Academic Year
2022-2023. There are currently 36 students enrolled in the aforementioned course, composed of
freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. For the comparison to be made, the researchers will also be
gathering data from individuals with the birth year 1981-1996 to represent the millennial group.
The number of respondents for both groups will be equal in order for there to be balance in
responses.

With a population of 𝑁 = 36 and a Margin of Error (𝑒) of 5%, the researchers will be
utilizing the Slovin's formula to find the sample size 𝑛. The equation is as follows:

𝑁 = 36
𝑒 = 0. 05

𝑁
𝑛 = 2
1 + 𝑁𝑒

36
𝑛= 2
1 + 36 (0.05)

𝑛 = 33. 03

Hence, the study will be selecting 33 respondents for the conduct of this research.

Sampling and Data Gathering Techniques

The sampling technique that will be used in this study is random stratified sampling,
which means that respondents will be categorized into two groups, in regards with their age as
this study aims to compare the two respondent categories. In gathering data, researchers will use
a survey and questionnaire method in order to gather data for a sizable number of respondents, in
order to determine the awareness level of the chosen respondents to misinformation on social
media. Survey questionnaires will be in the form of a google form and sent through email or
social media messaging. Onsite data will also be collected for the millennial group.
Research Design

As the researchers wish to conduct research on the awareness of misinformation among

two different generations, the descriptive-comparative research design will be utilized in this
study as this will take into account two variables. If there exists a significant difference between
the two respondent categories, the descriptive-comparative design will examine and compare the
two variables in order to draw the conclusion that one is significant to the other.

Instrument/Questionnaire

The study utilized a Six-Point Likert Scale Survey Questionnaire to collect data and to
properly assess the perception levels and awareness of the two target populations: Millennials
(Working Adults) and Generation Z (DLS-CSB Governance and Public Affairs Students), on the
topic of misinformation on social media. The aforementioned type of survey questionnaire
provides the participants with ample opportunity to fully process and reflect upon the questions.
In comparison to the typical format of Likert Scales, wherein survey participants are provided
with the options of: 2 positives, 2 negatives, and neutrality, which gives rise to the possibility of
participants simply responding with indecisiveness all throughout, Six-Point Likert Scales
account for the reality that no perception is truly neutral, therefore necessitating the participant to
specify a perception that either leans positively or negatively. (Thompson, 2018) The level of
perception and awareness is assessed based on the response of the participant; a score of 6 on the
scale indicates high levels of awareness, whereas a score of 1 indicates low levels of awareness
for misinformation on social media, thus signaling the participants’ vulnerability to the ongoing
phenomenon.
Processing of Data

Statement and Hypothesis Data Gathered Statistical Tools

1. Profile of the Number of Millennials and Frequency Count and

respondents in terms Generation Z Respondents Percentage
of birth year

2. Perception of the Level of agreement to the Mean and Standard Deviation

respondents on Likert-type Questionnaire
misinformation

3. Significant Difference Mean responses on the T-test for independent

on Perception of the questionnaire samples
Millennial Group and
Generation Z
respondents on
misinformation

Data sets were analyzed using the Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS). The method of interpretation was adopted from Pimentel (2019)'s study on
developing an appropriate description for the likert scale based on the objective of the research.
The table below shows the scale and interval of the responses from 1-6 with 1 described as
strongly unaware and up to 6 described as strongly aware of misinformation on social media.
 Six-Point Likert Scale

Responses Interval Difference Description

6 5.15-6.00 0.85 Strongly Aware

5 4.32-5.1 0.82 Aware

4 3.49-4.31 0.82 Moderately Aware

3 2.66-3.48 0.82 Moderately Unaware

2 1.83-2.65 0.82 Unaware

1 1.00-1.82 0.82 Strongly Unaware

 CHAPTER 3
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Research Question 1: What is the proportion of the respondents from

a. Millennial Group
b. Generation Z

Table 1
Profile of the Respondents in terms of Birth Year

Birth Year Frequency Percentage

Millennial Group 33 50%

Generation Z 33 50%

Total 66 100%

Table 1 shows the profile of the respondents in terms of birth year. Thirty-three (or 50%)
out of sixty six respondents were born in the year 1981 to 1996 and make up the Millennial
Group while thirty-three (or 50%) of the respondents were born in the year 1997 to 2012, which
are considered to be Generation Z.

Research Question 2: What is the perception of the respondents on misinformation on

social media platforms?

Table 2
The Perception of the Millennial Group on Misinformation

Statements 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mean S.D. Interpretation

a. I believe that 9 13 3 3 3 2 4.48 1.523 Aware of
I am able to 2 misinformation
differentiate
between fake
and credible
sources.

b. I make sure to 6 6 5 4 8 4 3.58 1.732 Moderately

check the 6 aware of
name(s) of misinformation
the
publisher/auth
or to see if it
is a reputable
and reliable
source.

c. I make sure to 7 5 5 4 8 4 3.61 1.766 Moderately

understand 7 aware of
the context misinformation
and factuality
of the news
article I am
reading.

d. I am aware 8 5 10 5 4 1 4.15 1.438 Moderately

that fake 8 aware of
news sites misinformation
often try to
disguise
themselves as
 credible
through
image
manipulation.

e. I believe that 3 10 12 5 3 0 4.15 1.093 Moderately

the media 2 aware of
outlets that I misinformation
obtain
information
from are
credible
sources.

f. Published 11 5 4 6 6 4 4.18 1.648 Moderately

articles do not 0 aware of
necessarily misinformation
mean that
they are
credible
sources of
information.

g. I find it 7 3 4 6 12 1 3.52 1.641 Moderately

important to 7 aware of
correct false misinformation
information to
stop the
spread.
 h. I make sure to 8 1 1 3 10 10 2.91 1.99 Moderately
report media unaware of
content that misinformation
contains false
information.

Total/Grand 59 48 44 36 54 23 3.82 1.671 Moderately

Mean/Grand SD 3 aware of
misinformation

Table 2 shows the level of awareness of the Millennial Group regarding misinformation
on social media. Statement A, with a mean of 4.48 and a standard deviation of 1.5232, indicates
that the Millennial Group is aware of misinformation. Statements B, C, D, E, F, G ,H, on the
other hand, with mean scores of 3.58, 3.61, 4.15, 4.15, 4.18, 3.52, 2.91, and standard deviations
of 1.7326, 1.7667, 1.4388, 1.0932, 1.6480, 1.6417, 1.99, respectively, indicate that the Millennial
Group is moderately aware of misinformation on social media. In general, the respondents from
the Millennial Group have moderate levels of awareness of misinformation, with a grand mean
of 3.82, and a standard deviation of 1.6713.

Table 3
The Perception of Generation Z on Misinformation

Statements 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mean S.D. Interpretation

a. I believe that I 12 15 5 0 0 1 5.09 1.0113 Aware of

am able to misinformation
differentiate
between fake
and credible
sources.
Statements 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mean S.D. Interpretation

b. I make sure to 12 10 8 1 0 2 4.82 1.3099 Aware of

check the misinformation
name(s) of the
publisher/autho
r to see if it is a
reputable and
reliable source.

c. I make sure to 20 7 5 0 0 1 5.33 1.0801 Strongly aware

understand the of
context and misinformation
factuality of the
news article I
am reading.

d. I am aware that 24 6 2 0 0 1 5.55 1.0028 Strongly aware

fake news sites of
often try to misinformation
disguise
themselves as
credible
through image
manipulation.

e. I believe that 11 11 8 1 1 1 4.82 1.2107 Aware of

the media misinformation
outlets that I
obtain
information
 Statements 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mean S.D. Interpretation

from are
credible
sources.

f. Published 14 9 3 2 3 2 4.70 1.5907 Aware of

articles do not misinformation
necessarily
mean that they
are credible
sources of
information.

g. I find it 20 6 5 1 0 1 5.27 1.1531 Strongly aware

important to of
correct false misinformation
information to
stop the spread.

h. I make sure to 11 13 6 3 0 0 4.97 0.9515 Aware of

report media misinformation
content that
contains false
information.

Total/Grand 124 77 42 8 4 9 5.07 1.1969 Aware of

Mean/Grand SD misinformation

Table 3 shows the level of awareness of the Generation Z group regarding

misinformation on social media. Statements I, J, M, N, and P, with means of 5.09, 4.82, 4.82,
4.70, and 4.97, and standard deviations of 1.0113, 1.3099, 1.2107, 1.5907, and 0.9515,
respectively, indicate that the Generation Z group is aware of misinformation. On the other hand,
Statements K, L, and O, with means of 5.33, 5.55, and 5.27, and standard deviations of 1.0801,
1.0028, and 1.1531, respectively, indicate that the Generation Z group is strongly aware of
misinformation on social media. In general, the respondents from the Generation Z group are
aware of misinformation in social media, with a grand mean of 5.07, and a standard deviation of
1.1969.

Table 4
Mean Score Comparison per Statement

Statements Mean Score of Mean Score of

Millennial Generation Z
respondents respondents

a. I believe that I am able to differentiate between 4.48 5.09

fake and credible sources.

b. I make sure to check the name(s) of the 3.58 4.82

publisher/author to see if it is a reputable and
reliable source.

c. I make sure to understand the context and 3.61 5.33

factuality of the news article I am reading.

d. I am aware that fake news sites often try to 4.15 5.55

disguise themselves as credible through image
manipulation.

e. I believe that the media outlets that I obtain 4.15 4.82

information from are credible sources.

f. Published articles do not necessarily mean that 4.18 4.70

they are credible sources of information.
 g. I find it important to correct false information to 3.52 5.27
stop the spread.

h. I make sure to report media content that contains 2.91 4.97

false information.

Total/Grand Mean/Grand SD 3.82 5.07

In comparing the results of both respondent groups, it may be observed that the mean
scores obtained by Generation Z, as represented by the GPA students, are higher than those of
the Millennial Group. It shows that the former is exercising more caution in media consumption
in order to prevent falling prey to misinformation.

Research Question 3: Is there a significant difference in the perception of the Generation Z

students and Millennial respondents on misinformation on social media platforms?

Hypothesis to be Tested:

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the perception of Millennials and
Generation Z respondents on misinformation.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference between the perception of Millennials

and Generation Z respondents on misinformation.

Hypothesis Testing

1. H0: There is no significant difference between the perception of Millennials and

Generation Z respondents on misinformation.
H1: There is a significant difference between the perception of Millennials and
Generation Z respondents on misinformation.
2. α = 0.05 ; two-tailed: p-value= 0.000.
3. Decision Rule: Reject H0 if less than or equal to 0.05
4. Decision: Reject H0 because p-value (0.000) is less than α (0.05)
5. Conclusion: There is a significant difference between the perception of Millennials and
Generation Z respondents on misinformation
 CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY OF RESULTS, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Table of Summary of Research Questions, Statistical Tools, Findings and Conclusion

Research Questions Statistical Findings Conclusion

Tools

1. What is the proportion of Frequency Out of 66 There is an equal

the respondents from Counts and respondents, 33 number of
a. Millennial Group Percentages (50%) are Millennials respondents for both
b. Generation Z and 33 (50%) are Gen generations.
Z.

2. What is the perception of Mean and The Millennial group Using the Six-Point
the respondents on Standard had a total mean of Likert scale, it was
misinformation on social Deviation, 3.82 , while the Gen determined that the
media platforms? Six-Point Z group had a total Millennial group
Likert scale mean of 5.07. were ‘moderately’
aware of
misinformation on
social media, while
the Gen Z group were
“aware” of
misinformation on
social media.

3. Is there a significant t-test for two The T test decision Therefore there is a
difference between the independent rejected the Null significant difference
perception of the samples Hypothesis as the between the
Millennials and Generation p-value was lower perception of
Z respondents on than ‘α = 0.05’. Millennials and
misinformation on social Generation Z
media platforms? respondents on
misinformation

Findings
1. Millennials are less perceptive or moderately aware of misinformation, having garnered a
grand mean score of 3.82. As presented in Table 1, the low mean scores (3.58, 3.61, 3.52,
2.91) obtained by the Millennial Group on Statements B, C, G, and H respectively, are
especially alarming as it indicates that the majority of the respondents do not always
verify the source, understand the context and factuality, correct or report false
information encountered on social media. It is also observed that 2 respondents are
outliers since the responses towards the questions were expressing degrees of either 1
(strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree). It is likely that the existence of such outliers affected
the mean score of the whole millennial population. As for the total frequency, the results
are scattered among the 6 mean ratings, the highest as 6 (strongly agree) having been
chosen only 59 times throughout the survey, followed by 2 (disagree) with a frequency of
54 times.

2. Generation Z (DLS-CSB Governance and Public Affairs Students) are generally aware of
misinformation occurring on social media and are less vulnerable to it, having garnered a
grand mean score of 5.07. A majority of respondents had responded with degrees of
either 6 (strongly agree) and 5 (moderately agree) towards the statements which is a
positive indicator of their cautiousness to misinformation online. However, there is one
respondent with responses that indicated 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree). The mean
rating of 6 (strongly agree) and 5 (moderately agree) have a frequency of 124 and 77
respectively, deeming it the most chosen response to the statements among Gen Z.

3. With a hypothesis test indicating a 95% level of confidence and a 0.05 level of
significance, the generated excel and SPSS report on the mean responses per respondent
 shows a p-value of 0.000. Therefore, the decision is to reject the given null hypothesis
(H0) because the computed p-value is less than the level of significance (0.05). The
findings of the researchers concluded that there is a significant difference of perception
between Millennials and Generation Z respondents, according to the data presented in the
questionnaire.

Recommendations

This study has revealed that there is a difference in the perception between millennials
and Generation Z when it comes to misinformation wherein the former is only moderately aware
or cautious about the prevalence of fake news on social media in comparison to the latter whose
level of awareness is slightly higher in terms of caution and proactiveness to avoid being
misinformed. The data and findings prompts the need for individuals to be further educated and
informed on ways to validate the source and content of the published media content, and take
action in case the information is proven to be false because awareness on how to detect and
combat misinformation are two important factors that would contribute to reducing the spread in
cyberspace. Therefore, due to prevalent misinformation in social media platforms, it is a concern
that must be addressed and valued by all users.

With this, the researchers recommend the following:

1. DLS-CSB administrators should encourage student activities that are able to raise
awareness regarding misinformation on social media not just among students but also
faculty and staff members. Furthermore, said administrators should function as the ‘first
line of defense’ against such a phenomenon, since they not only hold a distinct authority
within the campus, but also serve as role models for the student body.

2. DLS-CSB students should engage not only within the university, but also the outside
community, through the means of social media, in order to create awareness in regards to
widespread misinformation on social media. In addition, DLS-CSB students, specifically
from the Governance and Public Affairs department, require further reinforcement of
 their respective perception through action so as to lessen their vulnerability from
misinformation that is prevalent in social media.

3. DLS-CSB students must recognize that their personal biases and opinions can alter their
response to a credible source. Therefore, in order to educate themselves about various
viewpoints on relative issues, DLS-CSB students are highly encouraged to look for
reputable sources that convey a variety of viewpoints as well as represent a range of
perspectives on current events.

4. Future researchers may also opt to assess a different generation or survey a larger target
population to expand the scope of their study and examine if there is any similarity or
difference regarding the results. They may also embark on discovering the most common
forms of fake news often encountered online. Doing so would greatly contribute to the
study of misinformation in the country and allow groups or individuals to craft innovative
solutions and approaches to solve the problem.
REFERENCES

Brashier, M., & Schacter, D. (2020, May 19). Aging in an Era of Fake news. Sage
Journal. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420915872

Choi, M. (2020, October 11). When the Gen Z is the source of misinformation it
consumes.
Politico.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/11/gen-z-misinformation-politics
-news-conspiracy-423913

Parent Zone. (n.d). Misinformation vs Disinformation: what’s the difference?. Parent

Zone org.
https://www.parents.parentzone.org.uk/morearticles/misinformation-vs-disinform
ation-what-are-they-and-whats-the-difference

Pimentel, J. (2019, April). Some Biases in Likert Scaling Usage and its Correction.
ResearchGate | Find and share research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332533000_Some_Biases_in_Likert_Sc
aling_Usage_and_its_Correction

Siar, S. (2021, August). Fake news, its dangers, and how we can fight. Philippine
Institute for Development Studies.
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidspn2106.pdf

Thompson, C. (2022, July 14). The case for the six-point likert scale. Employee Success
Software.
https://www.quantumworkplace.com/future-of-work/the-case-for-the-six-point-lik
ert-scale#:~:text=A%20six%2Dpoint%20scale%20encourages,helps%20account
%20for%20this%20reality.

University of Washington Bothell & Cascadia College Campus Library. (2020,

September 9). News: Fake news, misinformation, disinformation. Campus Library
| UW Bothell and Cascadia College.
https://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?g=345925&p=7772376
 Appendices

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Dear Participant,

Greetings of Peace!

We are a group of DIA students from the De La Salle College of Saint Benilde under the School
of Diplomacy and Governance. We are currently working on a research which examines the
differences of perception between the Millenials and Gen Z on misinformation on social media
platforms. Because our study would like to look into GPA students for Gen Z respondents, I am
inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached survey questionnaire.

The following questionnaire will require approximately ten to fifteen minutes of your time to
complete. There is no compensation for responding nor there is known risk. Copies of this
project will be provided to this institution, more specifically, to the Center for Instruction,
Research and Curriculum (CIRC)-Research. If you choose to participate in this project, please
answer all questions as honestly as possible and return the completed questionnaires to the
researchers on or before the final examination week (December 6 - 14). Participation is strictly
voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time.

The data collected will provide useful information regarding the prevalence of misinformation
online. Data will be processed in accordance with Republic Act No. 10173 likewise known as
the Data Privacy Act of 2012. All information will be treated with utmost confidentiality and for
this research purposes only. If you have any further questions about the study or your
participation in the study, you are welcome to contact us at sean
christian.dinglasan@benilde.edu.ph. Thank you for taking the time to assist us in our academic
endeavors.

Sincerely Yours,

Sean Christian Dinglasan

Trisha Kaye Tan
Hannah Jaye Que
Renz Mariano
 CONSENT FORM FOR THE CAPABLE STUDY PARTICIPANT

I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to
ask questions about it and any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.
I consent voluntarily to participate as a participant in this research.

Print Name of Participant__________________

Signature of Participant ___________________

Date ___________________________

Day/month/year

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear fellow Benildean:

We are students of QUANTYA (Quantitative Research Methods) of the School of Diplomacy

and Governance taking up AB Diplomacy and International Affairs. As part of the requirements
in this course, we need to conduct a survey on at least 33 students and 33 millennials regarding
the prevalence of misinformation on social media. We would like to solicit your help in the
completion of this statistical research project by being a respondent in this survey. We assure you
that all answers will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Thank you very much!

In Saint Benilde,

Group 9:
Sean Christian Dinglasan - Chief Learner (Leader)
Trisha Kaye Tan - V-Chief Learner (Co-Leader)
Hannah Jaye Que - Recorder (Secretary)
Renz Mariano - Prompter (Prodder)

Noted by: Emervic Gargoles-De Pedro

QUANTYA Professor
Student Section

ID Number:

Gender:

Birth Year:

A Questionnaire to Determine the Difference on the Perception of Governance and Public

Affairs Students and Millennials on Misinformation in Social Media

This questionnaire comprises numerous statements that assess your knowledge with and sensitivity to
social media disinformation. Please read each item carefully and consider how much you agree or
disagree with it by circling the number that corresponds to your rating, 1 being the lowest and 6 being the
greatest. For instance, if you STRONGLY AGREE, cross the number 6 after the phrase.

1--------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5---------------------6
Strongly Disagree Moderately Moderately Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1. I believe that I am able to differentiate between fake and credible sources.

1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
2. I make sure to check the name(s) of the publisher/author to see if it is a reputable and reliable
source.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
3. I make sure to understand the context and factuality of the news article I am reading.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
4. I am aware that fake news sites often try to disguise themselves as credible through image
manipulation.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
5. I believe that the media outlets that I obtain information from are credible sources.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
6. Published articles do not necessarily mean that they are credible sources of information.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
7. I find it important to correct false information to stop the spread.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
8. I make sure to report media content that contains false information.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
Millennials

Gender:

Birth Year:

A Questionnaire to Determine the Difference on the Perception of Governance and Public

Affairs Students and Millennials on Misinformation in Social Media

This questionnaire comprises numerous statements that assess your knowledge with and sensitivity to
social media disinformation. Please read each item carefully and consider how much you agree or
disagree with it by circling the number that corresponds to your rating, 1 being the lowest and 6 being the
greatest. For instance, if you STRONGLY AGREE, circle the number 6 after the phrase.

1--------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5---------------------6
Strongly Disagree Moderately Moderately Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1. I believe that I am able to differentiate between fake and credible sources.

1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
2. I make sure to check the name(s) of the publisher/author to see if it is a reputable and reliable
source.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
3. I make sure to understand the context and factuality of the news article I am reading.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
4. I am aware that fake news sites often try to disguise themselves as credible through image
manipulation.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
5. I believe that the media outlets that I obtain information from are credible sources.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
6. Published articles do not necessarily mean that they are credible sources of information.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
7. I find it important to correct false information to stop the spread.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
8. I make sure to report media content that contains false information.
1----------2---------3----------4-----------5----------6
Corrected Drafts
Reflection on Statistics Class Journey

● Sean Christian Dinglasan

This term has been full of challenges, especially that I am almost approaching my final
year into DLS-CSB. My experiences with this class and conducting research with my
groupmates, enabled me to better my social skills and adopt new research methods and apply it
to my future work, if the need arises. I liked the conduct of the professor, because she was very
accommodating to questions that me and my blockmates wanted to address, especially while me
and my group mates were conducting our research paper. So far, my experience with the research
paper has been great, with my members always responsive and able to cooperate in order to
finish our work on time. I hope that my group mates also learned something that they can use in
the future, during our time in this course.

● Trisha Kaye Tan

I have always thought of numbers and statistics as my weaknesses, particularly when it

comes to computations, data analysis, and formula-based problem solving. I am truly grateful for
my group members, who have helped me better understand computing formulas. I am certain
that, due to our exceptional cooperation, we were able to progress our paper and produce a
conclusion and recommendation notwithstanding the workload from other course subjects.
Supervising a research paper survey with an online modality is a challenge as well. To be able to
gather data, connections are needed. On the other hand, conducting a face-to-face survey is
another great experience, as it allows me to become objective with the queries in our survey.
Indeed, I cannot doubt that QUANTYA made me step out of my comfort zone and that every
component of the paper is crucial. I appreciate my professor's guidance and her openness to our
inquiries. Additionally, for building a safe environment in the synchronous classes for all of the
students' concerns, This term was indeed a challenge, but even so, I think it further developed my
capabilities, which I may utilize in my future endeavors.

● Hannah Jaye Que

My overall learning experience in QUANTYA was productive, but at the same time
challenging because of initial unfamiliarity with the various methods of analyzing collected data.
I have tried my best in understanding the lesson, participating in class, and answering the quizzes
whenever I can. I am also grateful to our professor for teaching us the concepts and methods in
the simplest way possible for us to understand them effectively. As for the research proper, I had
to exercise much patience throughout the whole endeavor. The most difficult part aside from
attempting to understand and use SPSS or PHStat had been the collection process given that
respondents may not always be willing to participate in the study due to certain factors, but I am
thankful for efforts of my group members who had conducted the survey onsite in order to get
the procedure done. I hope that I will be able to apply the learnings gained from this course in
my future profession and contribute substantial information to my chosen field.

● Renz Mariano

I can describe the course, QUANTYA, as nothing less than exhaustive. However, despite
this, the course has provided me with valuable knowledge and insight in the area of quantitative
research. Initially, my experience with the course proved to be very challenging. I have had a
very bad history with Mathematics; I was anxious of the thought of having to encounter
calculations, formulae, and data — numbers in general. However, thanks to my group mates, I
was able to confront that anxiety and push on through the academic requirement, regardless of
my proficiency in Mathematics. I would say that the course and the whole research process was
pressuring, but in a good way. It pushed me past the boundaries I set for myself and enabled me
to explore new areas of which I could definitely improve. Our professor, Ms. Emervic was a key
component to that experience. Her teaching approach to such a difficult and intimidating subject
was unique — it was warm, welcoming, and patient. Overall, the course was a learning
experience that I definitely appreciate.
Peer Evaluation

Name Roles & Rating Justification

Signature of
the Ratee

1. Sean Christian Leader 100% Chapter 1:

Dinglasan Statement of the Problem
Chapter 2:
Research Design
Processing of Data
Chapter 3:
Contributed and shared to all Parts
Chapter 4:
Contributed and shared to all Parts

2. Trisha Kaye Tan Co-leader 100% Chapter 1:

Introduction
Chapter 2:
Population and Sample
Chapter 3:
Contributed and shared to all Parts
Chapter 4:
Contributed and shared to all Parts

3. Hannah Jaye Que Secretary 100% Chapter 1:

Significance of the Study
Chapter 2:
Sampling and Data Gathering
Techniques
Processing of Data
Chapter 3:
Contributed and shared to all Parts
Chapter 4:
Contributed and shared to all Parts
4. Renz Mariano Prompter-Prod 100% Chapter 1:
der Significance of the Study
Chapter 2:
Instrument &
Questionnaire
Chapter 3:
Contributed and shared to all Parts
Chapter 4:
Contributed and shared to all Parts