Flower, A., McKenna, J., Muething, C. S., Pedrotty Bryant, D., & Bryant, B. R. (2014). Behavior Modification, 38(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513507574.
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.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 82% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 18% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 90% | |
| No FRPL | 10% |
This study took place in two algebra classes in one public high school in a suburban school district in central Texas. Both classes took place in a resource room for students with high-incidence disabilities.
Participants included 17 students in two grade 9 classrooms taught by one teacher in one school. All participants had high-incidence disabilities and needed additional support in math. Most students were identified with a specific learning disability, some with intellectual disabilities, and others with other health impairments, mostly attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Most students were male and Hispanic or Latino. All were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. 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, the teacher divided each class into teams of three or four students and then reviewed Good Behavior Game procedures, class expectations, and rules, which included paying attention and completing teacher-assigned tasks. The teacher then gave fouls to teams when a student violated class expectations. The team with the fewest fouls each day won the game, as long as the number of fouls was below a certain criterion that was unknown to students until the end of the period. Both teams could win if they had the same number of fouls and were both below the criterion. The winning team or teams won a reward, such as a piece of candy or school supplies. Winning teams also earned a token they could use later for a larger reward for the whole class. There was a total of 10 sessions in each class, each lasting about 50 minutes, that took place during algebra instruction.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case designs, the teacher provided typical algebra instruction, which included asking students questions and providing one-on-one assistance. The teacher managed the classrooms in the typical manner, which included infrequent behavioral feedback. There were 7 or 8 sessions in each class, each lasting approximately 50 minutes.
The researchers trained the teacher on Good Behavior Game implementation in 30-minute, daily sessions over one week. The teacher worked with the researchers to develop classroom expectations and a plan for explaining expectations to students. At the end of the week, the researchers modeled the Good Behavior Game to the teacher.
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