RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER ATTENTION AND THE “GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME” IN MODIFYING DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR¹

Abstract

A variety of behavioral procedures have been employed in recent years to modify disruptive classroom behavior. Such methods have been developed with the belief that curtailing disruptive behavior would strengthen positive classroom performance. In this study, two procedures, the good behavior game and the teacher-attention method, were compared to determine short-run effectiveness. Four teachers (two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade) implemented both methods in their classrooms over a five-week period. Presentation of methods was alternated in a counterbalanced design to control for order effects. Each of the four classrooms consisted of 25 students. A time-sampling procedure was used to record the presence or absence of disruptive behavior within 15-second intervals. Disruptive behavior was defined as any talking-out or out-of-seat behavior without permission. The results indicated that both procedures were effective in modifying disruptive classroom behavior, but that the-good behavior game reduced disruptive behavior significantly better than the teacher-attention method. In addition, all teachers preferred the game to the teacher-attention procedure. This reaction seemed related to the effort involved in initiating the two activities. The good behavior game required less effort on the teacher's part. However, use of the game alone raises certain ethical considerations. One such issue involves abuse of peer pressure. Also, there is a possibility that negative rules may tend to promote resentment. Positively stated rules would ameliorate that problem. Another relates to the possibility that some teachers might be carried away by the ease of the game's implementation to the extent that behavior control becomes the primary objective in the classroom. As a result, one might consider use of the game to maximize short-term change, but then phase out this procedure in favor of another method (e.g., teacher attention) for long-run effects.

The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002

“…The majority of GBG investigations have focused on decreasing disruptive student behaviors such as talking, out-of-seat, name calling, cursing, and verbal/physical aggression (Barrish et al, 1969;Bostow & Geiger, 1976;Davies & White;Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Hegerle et al, 1979;Johnson et al, 1978;Kosiec, Czernicki, & McLaughlin, 1986;Medland & Stachnik, 1972;Phillips & Christie, 1986;Saigh & Umar, 1983;Salend et al, 1989;Warner, Miller, & Cohen, 1977;Webster, 1989). Most studies have involved dividing a class into teams (most typically 2 or 3), after which team names were clearly posted.…”

“…The primary participants in GBG studies have consisted of students in first through sixth grades (Barrish et al, 1969;Bostow & Geiger, 1976;Darch & Thorpe, 1977;Darveaux, 1984;Davies & White;Fishbein & Wasik, 1981;Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Johnson et al, 1978;Kosiec et al, 1986;Maloney & Hopkins, 1973;Medland & Stachnik, 1972;Patrick et al, 1998;Robertshaw & Hiebert, 1973;Saigh & Umar, 1983;Warner et al, 1977). However, the GBG has also been used successfully with preschoolers (Swiezy et al, 1992), as well as with adolescents (Phillips & Christie, 1986;Salend et al, 1989) and adults (Lutzker & White-Blackburn, 1979).…”

Levantamento sobre a utilização de jogos na Análise do Comportamento Aplicada

“…Foram estabelecidas contingências de competição (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Swain, Allard & Holborn, 1982;Warner, Miller & Cohen, 1977) ou cooperação (e.g., Fishbein & Wasik, 1981) entre os participantes das pesquisas, de forma que torna possível afirmar que tais elementos estavam presentes em alguns dos trabalhos.…”

Revisión de la técnica “El juego del buen comportamiento”

“…Otros trabajos han centrado sus esfuerzos en comparar el JBC con otro tipo de técnicas similares. En este sentido, destaca el trabajo realizado por Warner, et al (1977), Jos cuales pretendían comparar el JBC con otro procedimiento centrado en promover la atención hacia el profesor. Cuatro aulas con 25 niños cada una y su respectivo tutor fueron los sujetos implicados en dicha intervención.…”