Kleinman, Kimberly E., Saigh, Philip A. (2011). Behavior Modification v35 n1 p95-105. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ909233
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.
| Black | 23% | |
| Other or unknown | 77% |
| Hispanic | 73% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 27% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 88% | |
| No FRPL | 12% |
The study took place in a grade 9 history class in one public high school in Harlem, New York City.
Participants included 26 students in one classroom in grade 9. Most students (73%) were Hispanic or Latino. Almost one-fourth (23%) were Black and the rest did not report their race. More than half (58%) were male, and 88% were enrolled in the free or reduced-price lunch program.
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 the class into two teams and rearranged their seats on opposite sides of the classroom. The teacher informed students they would have an opportunity to participate in a competition for prizes, and then described classroom expectations and rules related to talking, aggression, and moving around the classroom. The teacher displayed these expectations on the front wall of the class. During each session, the teacher read the list of expectations aloud and explained he would verbally identify any students who misbehaved. When students broke a rule, the teacher called out the misbehavior and added a check on the board under the relevant team. At the end of each session, the team with the fewest checkmarks won a piece of candy. At the end of the week, the team with the fewest marks received a pizza or cupcake party. Sessions took place over 2 weeks during history lessons that lasted 30 to 60 minutes.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher divided the classroom into the two teams used for Good Behavior Game and then instructed the classroom in the typical manner. The teacher displayed classroom expectations related to talking, aggression, and moving around the classroom on the front wall of the class and read them aloud at the beginning of each session. Rule violations were handled as usual, with verbal reprimands or expulsion from the classroom.
The researcher trained the teacher how to implement Good Behavior Game, but the details of the training are not provided.
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