Lynne, Shauna, Radley, Keith C., Dart, Evan H., Tingstrom, Daniel H., Barry, Christopher T., Lum, John D. K. (2017). Psychology in the Schools v54 n9 p1049-1063. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156664
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.
| Black | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| White | 95% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 62% | |
| No FRPL | 38% |
This study was conducted in three classrooms in one rural public school serving grades K–8 in the southwestern United States. The three classrooms were recommended for study inclusion by school administrators because students displayed higher levels of inappropriate classroom behavior than other classrooms at the school.
Participants included 65 students in one first grade and two fourth grade classrooms taught by three teachers. School administrators referred the classrooms for study inclusion due to high levels of inappropriate behavior. Across the three classrooms, 51% of students were male, 95% were White, 3% were Black, and 2% did not report race. Two percent were Hispanic or Latino and 20% received special education services. Across the entire school, 62% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
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, students in each class were split into teams, ranging from three to six students, based on the seating chart. Teachers explained and posted the classroom rules, which included remaining in seats, focusing eyes on the teacher or assignment, and using only task-relevant materials. Teachers told students their team would receive a point if all members displayed good behavior. Teachers used an interactive whiteboard and the ClassDojo program to display team names and points earned. ClassDojo is an internet application that enables teachers to provide real-time feedback to students. At the end of each session, the teacher announced which team(s) had met the predetermined criterion and distributed the reward for that day, such as candy. Ten to 12 intervention sessions lasted 20 minutes and took place during normal class activities.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case designs, teachers used usual classroom activities and routines. The baseline and withdrawal phases for each of the single case designs in the study consisted of five sessions each lasting 20 minutes.
The three classroom teachers received one 15 minute implementation training from the primary researcher prior to the first intervention phase. The training included an introduction of the Good Behavior Game and a script to introduce the game to the class. The teacher and researcher also discussed which student behaviors were relevant, created classroom rules for the game, and discussed the criterion for teams to receive a reward. Teachers were also trained on using ClassDojo to track points.
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