Sewell, Alexandra (2020). Educational Psychology in Practice, v36 n1 p93-109 2020. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1244852
Reviewed: March 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.
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.
| Asian | 33% | |
| White | 67% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
This study took place in one classroom in a mainstream primary school in an urban area of the United Kingdom.
Participants included 27 students in one grade 4 classroom. The study presented classroom-level findings and separate findings for one focal student in the classroom. The classroom had one teacher and one teaching assistant. Most students were White (66%) and about 33% were Asian. Fifty-eight percent were female, and 19% received special education services. The focal student was male, had low levels of positive social engagement, and was classified as having special educational needs. The study did not clarify if these students had individualized education programs or received special education services.
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, the whole class was on one team. The classroom teacher and teacher assistant implemented Good Behavior Game an average of 31 minutes each day for 10 days during group work that focused on literacy and math skills. Before the first session, the teacher and researcher described Good Behavior Game rules and target social behaviors, including positive behavior toward one another, working as a team, and supporting one’s peers. The teacher displayed these target behaviors on the walls of the classroom. Students then role-played the target behaviors while the teacher and researcher provided feedback and answered questions. At the beginning of each session, the teacher reminded the students of the rules and target behaviors. The teacher awarded points on a board at the front of the class and verbally praised students each time they observed a target behavior. At the end of each session, the students won a reward if the class scored more points than a criterion set for each session based on the students’ previous behavior. The reward was five marbles for the class marble jar, which related to classroom-level rewards, such as a trip to the zoo or theme park.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher instructed their classroom in their typical manner with no additional reinforcement for positive social interactions, aside from typical positive verbal statements. Students could earn class marbles for staying on task, but not for demonstrating the target social behaviors from Good Behavior Game. Sessions took place during group work that focused on literacy and math skills.
The researcher provided the class teacher with a 60-minute training, during after-school hours, which included a description of the intervention, supporting research, implementation instructions, and a written script to lead each session. The teacher also observed the researcher play the game in a different class. During Good Behavior Game sessions, the researcher provided informal feedback to the teacher.
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.
Sewell, A. (2016). Young social beings: An investigation into the social interactions and relationships of a year five class [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Birmingham]. UBIRA E Theses. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/7049/13/Sewell16ApEd%26ChildPsyD_Vol_1.pdf.
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