Implementation of the Good Behavior Game in Classrooms for Children with Delinquent Behavior

Abstract

2016-03-21T19:08:36

Effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school

“…The current study replicated research showing the efficacy of the GBG for reducing disruptive classroom behavior in an ALC for students with EBD. Our results are consistent with prior research, suggesting the GBG is effective for reducing disruptive classroom behavior with students who have EBD in alternative educational placements (Groves & Austin, ; Joslyn et al, ; Salend et al, ; Sy et al, ). We extended prior research by showing how staff interactions with students changed during the GBG by measuring praise and reprimand statements made by teachers and paraprofessionals.…”

“…However, there has not been an empirical evaluation of the effects of the GBG on student–teacher interactions with this population. Salend et al () found that an individualized variation of the GBG was successful in reducing disruption in classrooms in a residential setting for adolescents who were “severely emotionally disturbed.” Joslyn et al () used the GBG to decrease disruption in second‐ through sixth‐grade classrooms in an alternative school for students with EBD and delinquent behavior. Sy, Gratz, and Donaldson () examined different variables that may influence the efficacy of the GBG with students in an alternative school.…”

“…Originally described by Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969), the GBG is a class-wide interdependent group contingency in which (a) classroom rules are developed, (b) students are assigned to teams and monitored for rule violations, (c) teams are given demerits if any student on the team violates a rule, and (d) rewards are provided to all students on the team if the team scores below a predetermined demerit limit. The GBG has been successfully implemented across a range of student ages from kindergarten (Donaldson, Vollmer, Krous, Downs, & Berard, 2011) to high school (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014;Kleinman & Saigh, 2011;Salend, Reynolds, & Coyle, 1989;Tingstrom et al, 2006), and in a variety of school settings, including general education classrooms (Barrish et al, 1969;Pennington & McComas, 2017), special education classrooms (Breeman et al, 2015;Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Groves & Austin, 2017;Joslyn, Vollmer, & Hernández, 2014), libraries (Fishbein & Wasik, 1981), cafeterias (McCurdy, Lannie, & Barnabas, 2009), and recreational facilities (Galbraith & Normand, 2017). In addition, longitudinal studies have indicated that the GBG could have long-term effects on students, such as reduced rates of substance-use disorders, smoking, antisocial behavior, incarceration, suicidal ideation, and use of mental health services at the ages of 19-21 (Kellam et al, 2011).…”

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

“…However, poor treatment integrity did not appear to have an adverse effect the efficacy of the GBG. These results are similar to those of other researchers who demonstrated a treatment effect even when treatment integrity was low (Donaldson et al, ; Joslyn, Vollmer, & Hernández, ; Sy, Gratz, & Donaldson, ).…”

The Good Behavior Game: A brief review

“…First, the GBG has been extended to undergraduate (Cheatham, Ozga, St. Peter, Mesches, & Owsiany, 2017) and preschool students (e.g., Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2019). Second, the GBG's effectiveness has recently been demonstrated with a broader array of student populations, including those with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and histories of delinquency in alternativeeducation environments (e.g., Groves & Austin, 2017;Joslyn, Vollmer, & Hernández, 2014). Finally, the GBG has recently been shown to improve previously unexplored behaviors (e.g., undergraduate class participation and physical activity; Cheatham et al, 2017;Galbraith & Normand, 2017).…”