Rodriguez, Billie Jo. (2010). ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED518158
Reviewed: January 2023
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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Good Behavior Game Intervention Report (516 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 95% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in two Kindergarten classrooms in one school in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
Participants included 22 kindergarten students from two classrooms who were divided into five reading groups and instructed by five instructional assistants. The study authors reported nearly all students were White and about half were male, but did not report the exact proportions. No students were English learners.
The Good Behavior Game is a classroom management strategy that promotes students collaborating together to create a positive learning environment. Students are placed into teams and are rewarded for demonstrating appropriate behaviors and not violating classroom rules. In this study, instructional assistants implemented Good Behavior Game in small reading groups of four or five students while using the Scott Foresman Early Reading intervention. The assistant explained the rules of the game, provided examples of desired behaviors, and practiced role-plays of the desired behaviors with the students. The rules included keeping eyes on the teacher and following directions. In each session, the assistants provided verbal praise and smiley faces when a student displayed appropriate behavior or when most students exhibited good behavior. At the end of each session, the assistant told students the number of smiley faces they needed to receive a reward, such as a sticker or extra time to spend drawing. If the students did not earn the reward, the instructional assistant would remind students of the rules. If the students met the criterion each day of the week, they earned an additional reward on Friday, such as a pencil, eraser, or toy.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline phases of the multiple baseline designs, instructional assistants provided reading instruction in small groups using the Scott Foresman Early Reading intervention and were told to respond to student behavior as they typically would. Students received stamps for good behavior, which they could trade for a pencil, eraser, or toy.
Researchers provided one 60-minute professional development session to show the instructional assistants the routines of the Good Behavior Game, provide examples of implementation, allow assistants to practice implementation and receive feedback, and allow for questions and answers. Instructional assistants also received 2 weeks of coaching support and short check-ins once a week, with their implementation coach.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube