CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This section showcases the outcomes of collecting data and applying statistical analyses. Tables and
graphs are employed to summarize all the analyzed data, and the research findings will be interpreted
as well.

Table 1:

Indicators
f %
Networking-Based Indicators 52 89.65%
Cryptographic Techniques 40 68.966%
Secure Coding Practices 41 70.69%
Secure Operating System 36 62.069%
Malware Understanding 43 74.138%
Table 1 presents various cybersecurity indicators and their respective frequencies and
percentages. The data suggests that Networking-Based Indicators have the highest frequency (f
= 52), constituting 89.65% of the total. Cryptographic Techniques follow with a frequency of 40
(68.966%), Secure Coding Practices with 41 (70.69%), Secure Operating System with 36
(62.069%), and Malware Understanding with 43 (74.138%). The frequency of familiarity is
associated with how information is presented verbally and visually, in line with Cybersecurity
Training principles (Johnson, 2001). In the digital age, where visual content is rapidly
disseminated, it's no surprise that a widely utilized tool in cybersecurity discussions, like Secure
Communication Platforms (Brown, 2018, p. 53), has become the most widely recognized
material.

Table 2:

Indicators
f %
Web Application Security 38 65.517%
Ethical Hacking and Penetration Testing 32 55.172%
Incident Response 44 75.862%
Compliance and Standards 35 60.345%
Training and Awareness 40 68.966%
Table 2 outlines cybersecurity indicators along with their frequencies and percentages.
Notably, Incident Response has the highest frequency (f = 44), representing 75.862%, followed
by Web Application Security (f = 38, 65.517%), Training and Awareness (f = 40, 68.966%),
Compliance and Standards (f = 35, 60.345%), and Ethical Hacking and Penetration Testing (f =
32, 55.172%). The data suggests a varying emphasis on different aspects of cybersecurity, with
Incident Response being a prominent focus.

Table 3:

Indicators
f %
Digital Forensics 38 65.517%
Cloud Security 41 70.69%
IoT Security 42 72.414%
Threat Intelligence 34 58.621%
Software Development Security 37 63.793%
The results provided in the table 3 represent findings from a survey checklist on various
cybersecurity indicators. Notably, Cloud Security stands out with 41 occurrences (70.69%),
closely followed by IoT Security with 42 instances (72.414%). Digital Forensics has a frequency
of 38 (65.517%), Software Development Security with 37 (63.793%), and Threat Intelligence
with 34 (58.621%). The recognition frequency relies on how information is presented verbally
and visually, aligning with principles in Networking Education and Cognitive Learning (NECL)
(Davis, 2016). In the digital epoch, where visual content proliferates, it's understandable that a
prominently employed tool in Network Security Protocols stands out as the most familiar
material.

Table 4:

Indicators
f %
Communication Protocols 38 65.517%
Risk Management and Policies 36 62.069%
Security Policies 39 67.241%
Ethical and Legal Implications 44 75.862%
Continuous Learning 34 58.621%
The survey checklist outcomes reveal diverse perspectives on cybersecurity indicators.
Particularly, Ethical and Legal Implications tops the list with a frequency of 44 (75.862%),
followed by Security Policies (f = 39, 67.241%), Communication Protocols (f = 38, 65.517%), Risk
Management and Policies (f = 36, 62.069%), and Continuous Learning (f = 34, 58.621%). These
results highlight the paramount importance of ethical and legal considerations in cybersecurity,
emphasizing the significance of security policies, communication protocols, and ongoing
learning in this domain. Recognition frequency is intricately connected to how information is
presented verbally and visually, aligning with principles in Cybersecurity Policy Education. In the
current digital security landscape, where visual content is ubiquitous, it's logical that a widely
employed tool in discussions surrounding cybersecurity policy, like Mechanisms for Controlling
Access (Anderson, 2018, p. 53), assumes prominence as the most familiar material.

Table 5:
STATEMENT MEAN INTERPRETATION
Incorporating Realistic Cyber 4.10 Agree
Scenarios (e.g., Realistic scenarios
like simulating a phishing attack on a
corporate network)
Utilizing Gamification Elements (e.g., 4.05 Agree
Points, badges, and rewards for
completing cybersecurity challenges)
Providing Hands-on Practical Labs 4.12 Agree
(e.g., Virtual labs for practicing
firewall configuration)
Offering Personalized Learning Paths 4.15 Agree
(e.g., Tailoring content based on
students' skill levels and interests)
Emphasizing Ethical and Legal 4.13 Agree
Aspects (e.g., Teaching the legal
implications of hacking and ethical
hacking practices)
Ensuring Accessibility for All 4.18 Agree
Students (e.g., Providing closed
captions for video content for students
with hearing impairments)
Collaborative Group Projects (e.g., 4.03 Agree
Assigning group tasks like securing a
mock company's network)
Continuous Feedback and Assessment 4.08 Agree
(e.g., Regular quizzes and feedback on
students' progress)
Industry Partnerships and Networking 4.06 Agree
(e.g., Partnering with cybersecurity
companies for guest lectures and
internships)
Keeping Curriculum Current (e.g., 4.36 Agree
Regularly updating course content to
reflect the latest cybersecurity threats)
The program improved my 4.22 Agree
understanding of cybersecurity
concepts. (e.g., I now grasp complex
concepts like encryption and network
security)
The program was engaging and 4 Agree
enjoyable due to its interactive
elements. (e.g., I found the
 cybersecurity challenges and games
highly engaging)
My ability to identify and respond to 3.81 Agree
cyber threats has increased. (e.g., I
can now spot phishing emails and
know how to respond)
I feel more confident in my 3.98 Agree
cybersecurity skills after completing
the program.
The program enhanced my resilience 4.05 Agree
to real-world cyber threats.
Weighted Mean 4.09 Agree
Table 5 demonstrates favorable outcomes in the cybersecurity education domain, with
unanimous agreement observed for each question proposing an ideal outcome. The overall
mean value (M = 4.09), interpreted as "Agree," indicates a positive inclination towards
understanding and retaining cybersecurity concepts when incorporating elements like realistic
cyber scenarios, gamification, practical labs, and personalized learning paths. This positive
interpretation aligns with established cybersecurity educational theories, such as Johnson's
foundational concepts in Cybersecurity Education and the Cybersecurity Learning (Johnson,
2015). The selection, construction, and utilization of control procedures at the learners'
discretion, influenced by the Information Processing Theory (Lee, 2013), contribute to the
overall effectiveness of the program. Noteworthy is the role of keeping curriculum current, with
the highest average value in the study, this observation aligns with findings from (Mitnick,
2014) book, where substantial vocabulary gain was noted through maintaining curriculum
relevance. In a parallel vein, the current study reveals positive outcomes in understanding key
cybersecurity concepts.

Table 6:
STATEMENT MEAN INTERPRETATIO
N
I am highly satisfied with the level of interactivity in the program. (e.g., 4.12 Agree
The interactive elements greatly contributed to my satisfaction)
The gamification aspects of the program were effective in motivating 4.13 Agree
me. (e.g., The point system and leaderboards motivated me to excel)
I would highly recommend this program to other ICT students. 4.05 Agree
I believe the benefits of this program will have a lasting impact on my 4.22 Agree
future career. (e.g., I see this program as a solid foundation for my
career in cybersecurity
This program significantly improved my overall cybersecurity 4.22 Agree
awareness. (e.g., I am now highly aware of various cybersecurity
threats and best practices)
The program really helps me grasp cybersecurity concepts better. (e.g., 3.93 Agree
I now have a deep understanding of concepts like encryption and
malware analysis)
 The program motivates me to learn more about cybersecurity. 4.22 Agree
I believe the interactive program is more useful for gaining practical 3.93 Agree
cybersecurity skills. (e.g., I've acquired practical skills like network
penetration testing through the interactive components)
The gamified program makes cybersecurity learning more enjoyable. 4.05 Agree
The interactive program provides a well-rounded understanding of 4.15 Agree
cybersecurity topics. (e.g., I now have a comprehensive knowledge of
various cybersecurity domains)
The gamified program effectively adapts to my individual learning 4.13 Agree
preferences.
Prior experience in cybersecurity positively influences my performance 4.18 Agree
in the interactive program.
The interactive program is more effective for advanced cybersecurity 4.06 Agree
learners
The gamified program caters to the needs of beginners in cybersecurity 4.10 Agree
education. (e.g., It provides a gentle introduction for newcomers to the
field)
I believe that both the interactive and gamified programs contribute 4.36 Agree
effectively to my cybersecurity education. (e.g., Both programs offer a
well-rounded cybersecurity education experience)
Weighted Mean 3.84 Agree
Table 6 reflects positive responses from participants regarding a cybersecurity education
program. The average values per statement, with a weighted mean of 3.84, collectively convey
agreement on the program's efficacy. This average aligns with a positive interpretation, indicating that
participants perceive the program as valuable for their understanding of cybersecurity. Highlighting
participants' agreement and suggesting their capacity to comprehend and retain cybersecurity concepts.
Aligned with cybersecurity learning principles, participants in this study recognize the significance of
varied materials, supporting the notion that diverse resources aid in the comprehension and retention
of cybersecurity information. Notably, a well-rounded cybersecurity education, acknowledged for their
high average value, facilitate focused learning on specific tasks, in line with the idea that diverse learning
experiences involving multiple sensory organs contribute to improved learning outcomes in
cybersecurity (Travis, 2018). In summary, participants' favorable responses, consistent with established
cybersecurity education principles and prior research, affirm the program's effectiveness in enhancing
understanding, specifically in retaining essential cybersecurity concepts. The amalgamation of varied
learning materials and adaptable control procedures emerges as key elements contributing to the
program's success in the cybersecurity domain.