No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Rating:
-
Meets WWC standards without reservations
because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Good Behavior Game.
General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention
mean
|
Comparison
mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement
index
|
Evidence
tier
|
|
Hodder Group Reading Test
|
Good Behavior Game vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
Full sample;
2,504 students
|
33.41
|
33.05
|
No
|
--
|
|
|
Hodder Group Reading Test
|
Good Behavior Game vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Full sample, 1-year follow-up;
3,084 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
27%
English language learners
-
Female: 47%
Male: 53%
-
Town, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
-
Race
| Other or unknown |
|
34% |
| White |
|
67% |
-
Ethnicity
| Other or unknown |
|
100% |
-
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) |
|
25% |
| No FRPL |
|
75% |
Setting
The study was conducted in 77 public primary schools across three regions of the United Kingdom: Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire, and the East Midlands.
Study sample
A total of 2,504 students in Year 3 and Year 4 classes (ages 7 to 8) were included in the study. UK primary schools Year 3 and Year 4 are equivalent to US grades 2 and 3, respectively. Approximately 47 percent of the students were female, 27 percent were English learners, 21 percent qualified for special education services, and 25 percent qualified for free or reduced price lunch. Thirty-three percent of students were ethnic minorities. The researchers randomly assigned 38 schools to the intervention group and 39 schools to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of playing the Good Behavior Game (GBG). The GBG is an intervention used to manage students’ behavior in the classroom. The intervention has several core components, including (1) establishing classroom rules, (2) team membership, (3) monitoring student behavior, and (4) implementing positive reinforcement. Teachers form teams of 3 to 7 students, aiming to achieve a balance across the teams among key factors such as behavior, academic ability, and gender. Students follow four rules: (1) we will work quietly, (2) we will be polite to others, (3) we will get out of our seats with permission, and (4) we will follow directions. Teachers monitor student behavior and record any violations of those rules. Teams win the GBG by having four or fewer violations by the end of the game. When they win the GBG they receive rewards that can either be small, tangible prizes or intangible rewards such as free time. Over the course of the intervention, which was implemented in classrooms for 2 years, teachers increased the frequency and duration of the game from 10 minutes 3 times per week to up to 30 minutes each day. Teachers in the intervention condition reported varying levels of intensity of the implementation.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction. The researchers found that teachers in comparison schools were using many GBG-like practices, including monitoring of student behavior and use of rewards for positive student behavior.
Support for implementation
Teachers who implemented the GBG condition participated in 2 days of training at the beginning of each of the 2 school years and received an additional day of refresher training several months later. GBG coaches visited classrooms to support teachers' implementation approximately once a month.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Ashworth, E., Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Hennessey, A. (2020). Game on—Complier average causal effect estimation reveals sleeper effects on academic attainment in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game. Prevention Science, 21(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01074-6
-
Hennessey, A., & Wigelsworth, M. (2017). Statistical analysis plan for Good Behaviour Game. Education Endowment Foundation. https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/documents/projects/Round_6_-_Good_Behaviour_Game_SAP.pdf?v=1630925833
-
Ashworth, Emma, Humphrey, Neil, Hennessey, Alexandra. (2020). Game Over? No Main or Subgroup Effects of the Good Behavior Game in a Randomized Trial in English Primary Schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness v13 n2 p298-321.
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
