Donaldson, Jeanne M., Lozy, Erica D., Galjour, Mallorie. (2021). Journal of Behavioral Education v30 n1 p22-36. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1287530
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 the detailed study findings from this review, please see Single Study Review (findings for Good Behavior Game)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 100% |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in two general education preschool classrooms in one public preschool center in southeast Louisiana.
Participants included 39 students in two preschool classrooms in one school. Each class was taught by one teacher. All students were Black (100%) and 54% of the students were female. The study authors did not provide other demographic information.
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 researcher led the initial Good Behavior Game sessions while the teacher led typical classroom instruction, such as story time or phonics instruction. Before each session, the researcher divided the class into two teams based on seating location, stated the rules, explained the criterion for winning, and described the rewards. The rules required students to stay in their spot, wait their turn to speak, and keep their hands to themselves. When they broke a rule, the researcher announced the rule they had broken and added a sticker to a white foam board at the front of the class next to the team’s name. At the end of each session, teams with six or fewer rule violations earned a reward, such as stamps, scented lip balm, or stickers. After the first several sessions, teachers began to implement the game while teaching the class lesson. Teachers conducted sessions once or twice per day, for 3 to 4 days per week during morning whole-group activities. Sessions typically lasted an average of 11 minutes.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, teachers used typical instructional activities, such as reviewing the calendar and weather, identifying shapes and colors, reading a book, or leading phonics instruction. Teachers responded to disruptive behavior as they normally would, by either ignoring, reprimanding, or commenting on the behavior. If a student demonstrated repeated disruptive behavior, the teacher could require the student to sit next to the paraprofessional in the class. Members of the research team were present during the baseline sessions and sat in front or to the side of the class so they could conduct observations.
The researchers led initial Good Behavior Game sessions, but eventually teachers implemented the game while teaching the class lesson. The study authors do not report any support for implementation.
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