Ford, W. B. (2017). (Publication No. 1046) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
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 | 95% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was conducted in four classrooms at one middle school in a medium-sized city in a southeastern state.
Participants included 66 students in one school across four classrooms and two teachers in grades 7 and 8. Most students in all four classrooms were Black (95%) and 5% did not report race. Five percent of students were Hispanic or Latino and 53% were female. Six percent of students received special education services for a specific learning disability. School administrators referred all four classrooms to the study for having high levels of off-task and disruptive behavior.
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, teachers assigned points to teams in ClassDojo, an internet application that allows teachers to provide real-time feedback to students. When the intervention sessions began, the teacher divided students into two teams and explained the game and its rules, which included sitting in one’s seat, working on assignments, and staying quiet. Every two minutes, the teacher would scan each team to see if students were engaged. If all the students in a team were engaged, the teacher would praise them and award a point in ClassDojo, an internet application that enables teachers to provide real-time feedback to students. At the end of each session, the team with the most points won a prize; the other team could earn a prize as well, if they exceeded a predetermined criterion. In two of the classrooms, the teachers’ projectors broke, prompting the researchers to implement later sessions of the intervention without ClassDojo; they instead marked team points on the white board. Teachers used Good Behavior Game once each day during normal class activities over 10 to 15 days in each classroom.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. During the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case designs for each classroom, teachers instructed class as they normally would and enforced existing classroom rules, such as requiring students to sit on their designated spot on the carpet, raise their hands before talking or getting up, and pay attention. Teachers did not go over classroom rules at the beginning of sessions, but they did remind students of the rules if violations occurred during the session. The baseline session ended when there was a decreasing or stable trend of academically engaged behavior. There were a total of 10 baseline/withdrawal sessions across 10 days for classrooms 1 and 2; 16 baseline/withdrawal sessions across 16 days for classroom 3; and 15 days for classroom 4.
During one training session, the researcher explained the rules of the Good Behavior Game and provided the teachers with a script and checklist for intervention integrity. The researcher demonstrated how to display ClassDojo on the board, turn on the notification device, and award points. The teachers then practiced each step, while the researcher provided feedback. The training continued until each teacher demonstrated 100 percent integrity. Throughout the study, the researcher assessed integrity and was available for support and questions. If integrity fell below 75 percent, the teacher would be retrained.
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