Instructions: Summarize one of the articles assigned for the topic of the week using the format below.
- Article reference using APA format (5 points):
- Summarize the purpose of the study (at least 3 sentences – 10 points):
- What/who are the subjects and setting (at least 4 sentences – 10 points):
- What experimental design did the authors use?(at least 2 sentences – 10 points):
- Summarize the results of the study? (at least 4 sentences- 10 points):
- What are your criticisms of the study? What is a possible future direction for the research? In other words, what should come next if you were going to conduct the next study? (at least 5 sentences- 5 points):
AN EVALUATION OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME IN
KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS
JEANNE M. DONALDSON AND TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
TANGALA KROUS AND SUSAN DOWNS
DAVENPORT, IOWA, SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND
KERRI P. BERARD
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
The good behavior game (GBG) is a classwide group contingency that involves dividing the class
into two teams, creating simple rules, and arranging contingencies for breaking or following
those rules. Five kindergarten teachers and classrooms participated in this evaluation of the
GBG. Disruptive behavior markedly decreased in all five classrooms as a result of the
intervention. This study extends the GBG literature by systematically replicating the effects of
the GBG with the youngest group of students to date.
Key words: group contingencies, classroom management, disruptive behavior
_______________________________________________________________________________
Implementation of individualized behavior
plans in large general education classrooms can
be extremely difficult for teachers, creating a
need for classwide behavior-management strategies that are easy for teachers to implement and
effective for most students. One classwide
behavior-management strategy that has been
primarily implemented and evaluated for first
through fifth grade children is the good
behavior game (GBG). Because of its simplicity
and evidence of long-term effects (Kellam et al.,
2008; Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, &
Ialongo, 1994), the GBG has been termed a
‘‘behavioral vaccine’’ (Embry, 2002). The GBG
is even recommended by the Surgeon General
as a Promising Program for prevention of youth
violence (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2001).
The GBG is an interdependent group
contingency that involves dividing the class
into teams, creating simple rules, and arranging
contingencies for breaking or following those
rules. Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969)
conducted the first empirical evaluation of the
GBG in one fourth-grade classroom. Out-ofseat and talking-out responses were substantially
reduced as a result of the intervention. Several
studies have since evaluated the GBG and
modifications of the GBG (see Tingstrom,
Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006, for a
review). Replication of the GBG with students
younger than first grade would provide important information on the generality of the
procedure because kindergarten represents the
entry level of schooling for many children.
Experience with the GBG may establish
histories of appropriate behavior and rule
following when entering school. Presumably,
such effects could have longer term implications, and some evidence exists to support that
Address correspondence to Timothy R. Vollmer,
Department of Psychology, University of Florida, P.O.
Box 112250, Gainesville, Florida 32611 (e-mail: [email protected]
ufl.edu).
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605
This study was funded by the Davenport Community
School District in Davenport, Iowa. We would like to
thank the principals and teachers at the three schools in
which the study was conducted.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2011, 44, 605–609 NUMBER 3 (FALL 2011)
605
notion (Embry, 2002). Thus, the purpose of
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a
modification of the GBG on the disruptive
behavior of kindergarten students.
METHOD
Participants and Settings
Five kindergarten teachers at three elementary schools in an Iowa public school district
volunteered to participate as implementers. The
classes were general education classrooms with
15 to 22 students each, totaling 98 students.
Overall, the classrooms were 53% female and
69% white, 12% black, 9% Hispanic, 8%
biracial, 1% Asian, and 1% American Indian.
All sessions occurred in the teachers’ classrooms
during group instruction. During group instruction, students were expected to sit on a
carpet in front of the teacher. Group instruction
occurred at least twice per day in each classroom
(typically for reading and math) and varied in
duration from approximately 10 to 35 min.
Target Responses, Data Collection, and
Interobserver Agreement
Target responses and response definitions
were developed by the experimenters in close
collaboration with the teachers. Students were
considered to be out of seat if they were not
sitting with their legs crossed on their spot on
the carpet and facing forward. Students were
considered to be talking out of turn if they made
any vocalization without being called on by the
teacher, unless the teacher indicated that all
students could call out answers. Students were
considered to be touching another student if their
hands or feet made contact with another
student.
During baseline and teacher implementation
phases, an observer collected data on the
frequency of each of the three target responses
for all individuals in the class (individual
student data were not isolated) using a
computer program designed for data collection
in real time. During experimenter implementation (described below), the observer served as
the implementer and scored behavior by writing
hatch marks on a dry-erase board that was
visible to the students.
A second observer recorded data during 35%
of sessions for Teacher 1, 15% for Teachers 2
and 3, 20% for Teacher 4, and 11% for
Teacher 5. Total agreement scores were calculated by dividing the smaller total score by the
larger total score and multiplying by 100%.
Total agreement was used (rather than intervalby-interval methods) because total scores were
the only data collected by one observer during
sessions in which an experimenter was implementing the GBG (and having a total of three
additional adults in the room was viewed as too
obtrusive, too impractical, or both). Mean total
agreement was 84% (range, 60% to 94%), 92%
(range, 82% to 97%), 80% (range, 56% to
100%), 81% (range, 56% to 95%), and 86%
(range, 67% to 98%) for Teachers 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5, respectively. The lower scores were
considerably lower than most scores and were
obtained during baseline when extremely high
rates of disruptive behavior occurred.
Design and Procedure
A nonconcurrent multiple baseline design
across classrooms was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the GBG.
Baseline. During baseline, the teacher instructed the class as usual, and students were
allowed to sit in spots of their choosing. The
students were not told what the observer was
recording and received no feedback from the
observer.
Good behavior game. Each class was divided
into two teams by the teacher. Teachers were
asked to divide the teams in such a way that
both teams were equally likely to win. That is,
students whose behavior the teachers had
already identified as problematic were evenly
divided between the two teams. Prior to starting
the game, the students were assigned spots on
the carpet, and an experimenter explained to the
class the rules of the game, how to win, and the
606 JEANNE M. DONALDSON et al.
reward for the winning teams. Immediately
before playing the game each session, the
children were reminded of the rules and the
reward for the winners. The rules of the GBG
were to sit with legs crossed, to speak only when
called on or when the teacher indicated that
everyone could respond, and to keep hands and
feet to oneself. A team won the game by having
fewer points than the other team, or both teams
won if they both met a set criterion selected by
the teacher that was at least an 80% reduction
from baseline (no more than 15 points for
Teacher 1; 10 points for Teachers 2, 4, and 5;
and 5 points for Teacher 3). Rewards were
selected by each teacher and included snacks
(e.g., cheese crackers, yogurt snacks, fruit
snacks), stickers, small toys, extra recess, and
extra free time.
Initially, an experimenter implemented the
GBG while the teacher continued the lesson.
Eventually, the teacher implemented the game
while teaching the lesson (recall that all baseline
sessions were conducted by the teacher). Scores
were posted on a dry-erase board next to the
teacher in a location that was visible to all
students. When a student broke a rule, the
teacher stated the rule and which team was in
violation (e.g., ‘‘Team 1 needs to raise a hand to
talk’’) and made a hatch mark on the dry-erase
board. The GBG was played every time the class
came to the carpet for group instruction.
Follow-up data were collected in Teacher 3’s
classroom 1 month after the experimenter left
the classroom.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1 shows the rate (responses per
minute) of disruptive responses for all students
in each class. During baseline, relatively high
and stable levels of disruptive behavior were
observed in all classrooms (Ms 5 13, 5, 4, 7,
and 8 responses per minute for Teachers 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5, respectively). Disruptive behavior
decreased in all classrooms following implementation of the GBG (Ms 5 2, 1, 1, 2, and 1
responses per minute for Teachers 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5, respectively). A new student entered
Teacher 2’s classroom and initially refused to
play the GBG the day Teacher 2 began
implementing the GBG herself. The new
student gradually began to join the class for
group instruction and eventually played the
GBG successfully. Teacher implementation of
the GBG was monitored during every session to
ensure that the rules and rewards were stated
and rewards were provided to the winning
teams contingent on meeting the criteria for
earning the rewards. Treatment integrity data
were collected while the teachers implemented
the GBG and were calculated by comparing the
teachers’ total number of hatch marks to the
total instances of disruptive behavior recorded
by an observer. Treatment integrity averaged
60% across all five classrooms. Although
teachers’ implementation integrity was lower
than what might be hoped, it is important to
note that these levels were enough to maintain
the intervention effects. The students did have a
history of playing the GBG with an experimenter before the teachers began playing the
GBG, which may have been necessary for the
GBG to be so effective when treatment integrity
declined. One area for future research could
involve systematically evaluating the effects of
changes in treatment integrity on the effectiveness of the GBG.
Teachers easily transitioned to playing the
GBG in their classrooms while teaching without
compromising the effectiveness of the GBG.
These results were similar to those produced
with older children (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969;
Harris & Sherman, 1973) and provide further
evidence that the GBG is a simple and effective
classroom-management technique. Also, because some of the classrooms participated in
the study for several months, the longer term
effectiveness of the GBG was demonstrated. In
fact, after several weeks of exposure to the GBG,
Teachers 2, 3, 4, and 5 asked the students to
vote on whether they would like to play the
GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 607
Figure 1. Total rate of disruptive behavior, including out of seat, talking out of turn, and touching, across sessions
for each classroom. Teacher implementation of the GBG began after the dashed vertical line. Unique features in the data
for Teachers 2 and 3 are indicated by arrows.
608 JEANNE M. DONALDSON et al.
GBG for the rest of the year. Of the students in
classrooms that participated in the social
validity assessment (students for Teachers 2, 3,
4, and 5), 78% voted to continue playing the
GBG for the rest of the year. Some students
even played the GBG during free time; one or
two students played as teachers and provided
hatch marks for students who were breaking the
rules. Data collection continued in Teacher 1’s
classroom until the end of the year, so her
classroom was not asked if they wanted to
continue to play. Teachers 2, 3, 4, and 5 also
implemented the GBG for the remainder of the
school year, independent of participation in this
study. All teachers continued to play the GBG
the following school year.
The GBG could be conceptualized as a type
of differential reinforcement of low rates of
responding schedule in which reinforcers are
delivered contingent on the occurrence of fewer
than a particular number of responses within a
specified time period (Dietz & Repp, 1973).
However, reinforcer assessments were not
conducted to determine whether the rewards
provided would actually function as reinforcers
for any specific behavior for any or all of the
children in the classrooms. Also, the GBG
includes several components, making it difficult
to determine which of the basic principles
underlie its effectiveness. Rewards may have
functioned as reinforcers for appropriate behavior, hatch marks may have functioned as
punishers for disruptive behavior, and social
praise or scolding from teammates could also
have functioned as reinforcers or punishers.
One limitation that should be addressed in
future research is that data on individuals’
responses were not isolated. Data on the change
in behavior of each individual student could be
important, but because there were 15 to 22
students in each classroom, collecting data on
each individual student was not feasible.
Although the low rates of disruptive behavior
during the GBG make it likely that all or most
students who were engaging in disruptive
behavior during baseline responded to the
intervention, the extent to which the GBG
changed the behavior of each individual student
is unknown. Another area for future research is
to evaluate the effects of the GBG on academic
performance. Because the GBG is typically
played during instructional time, a decrease in
disruptive behavior during this time suggests
that the students should have fewer distractions
from the lesson (e.g., the class is quieter so the
teacher can be heard). Further support would be
provided for the use of the GBG if academic
improvements were demonstrated as a result.
REFERENCES
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M. S., & Wolf, M. M. (1969).
Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior
in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2,
119–124.
Dietz, S. M., & Repp, A. C. (1973). Decreasing classroom
misbehavior through the use of DRL schedules of
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6,
457–463.
Embry, D. D. (2002). The good behavior game: A best
practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5,
273–297.
Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis
of the ‘‘good behavior game’’ to reduce disruptive
classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 6, 405–417.
Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N.
S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., et al. (2008). Effects of a
universal classroom behavior management program in
first and second grades on young adult behavioral,
psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 95S, S5–S28.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., &
Ialongo, N. (1994). The effect of the level of
aggression in the first grade classroom on the course
and malleability of aggressive behavior in middle
school. Development and Psychopathology, 10,
165–185.
Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski,
S. M. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969–2002.
Behavior Modification, 30, 225–253.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001).
Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General.
Rockville, MD: Author.
Received April 27, 2010
Final acceptance September 27, 2010
Action Editor, Michael Kelley
GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME 609
