USE AND ANALYSIS OF THE “GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME” TO REDUCE DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR¹

Abstract

A recent study reported procedures (the "good behavior game") for reducing disruptive classroom behavior. Replication of the procedures of the "good behavior game" in two classrooms showed it to be an effective technique for reducing disruptive talking and out-of-seat behavior. Further experimental analysis indicated that the effective components of the game were division of the class into teams, consequences for a team winning the game, and criteria set for winning the game. Although disruptive behavior was markedly reduced by the game, the reductions were correlated with only slightly improved accuracy of academic performance in the one classroom where academic performance was measured.In the last few years, a number of published studies have been concerned with developing methods to reduce disruptive classroom behaviors. Most have involved the use of individual consequences for the behavior of the students in the classroom. In some of the studies, teachers were systematically trained to ignore or reprimand individual students when they were disruptive and to praise these individual students when they were engaged in non-disruptive or study behaviors (e

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

“…Barrish et al reported a substantial reduction in student disruptive behavior. Harris and Sherman (1973) replicated the GBG effectively diminishing disruptive behavior in a fifth and sixth grade classroom. The authors measured math scores during the game.…”

“…Within the group contingency literature several positive features have been documented (e.g., McLaughlin, 1974;Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996;Skinner, Skinner, Skinner, & Cashwell, 1999). Researchers have reported the procedures to be time-saving, inexpensive, effective, easy to learn and implement, and easy to manage in a classroom setting (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Grandy et al, 1973;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Packard, 1970). For example, one teacher involved in classroom research stated that initially the program took time from her teaching, however, once she adapted to the data recording and delivering consequences, the results were well worth the sacrifice (McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, & Conderman, 1969).…”

“…Other positive features have been reported in the group contingency literature. For example, group contingencies promote the group members' increased positive social cooperation, peer influence, and spontaneous peer tutoring (e.g., Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Hughs, 1992;Skinner et al, 1996). Finally, group contingencies are considered to be acceptable and fair by teachers (Elliott, & Turko, Gresham, 1987) and students (Goldberg & Shapiro, 1990).…”

“…First, some students may refuse to participate or find it reinforcing to sabotage the game (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Elliott et al, 1987). Additionally, researchers have documented student harassment while implementing group contingency interventions (e.g., Harris & Sherman, 1973). Skinner et al (1996) has suggested that several disadvantages accompany group contingency programs.…”

Levantamento sobre a utilização de jogos na Análise do Comportamento Aplicada

“…Um ano depois, outra replicação do Jogo Bom do Comportamento (Harris & Sherman, 1973) foi realizada. A situação experimental foi semelhante à do primeiro experimento (Barrish et al, 1969), a única mudança foi em relação à medida da variável dependente.…”