GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Program Overview
Staff at the American Institutes for Research (AIR), Center for Integrating Education and Prevention Research in Schools, have been partnering with the Baltimore City Public School System since1984 to rigorously test a method for classroom behavior management, the Good Behavior Game (GBG). Three rigorous randomized field trails have demonstrated GBG’s short- and long-term effectiveness, including follow-up data from the participants at 19-21 years of age. It has been named a promising program by Blueprints for Prevention and is a Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) Model Program.
GBG, as tested in Baltimore, is a highly articulated classroom-based behavior strategy for first-graders built around four core elements integrating: 1) classroom rules, 2) team membership, 3) monitoring of behavior, and 4) positive reinforcement to individuals and teams. These elements are central to the task of helping children learn to work together to create a positive learning environment by self-monitoring their behavior as well as the behavior of classmates. GBG is embedded in a framework of classroom organization, management, and instruction. It was developed by a teacher at the University of Kansas more than 35 years ago. Since GBG is a management strategy rather than a curriculum, it lends itself to seamless integration within the existing curriculum and does not require additional classroom time. GBG is easily aligned with other school based programming for prevention and services, e.g. Positive Behavior Supports (PBS).
To play GBG, the teacher breaks the classroom into teams of 4-7 students, heterogeneous for behavior, learning, and gender. The teacher identifies a set time and duration for GBG and puts the game in motion by announcing it to the class. Whenever a rule has been broken, the teacher immediately identifies the behavior that constituted the rule-breaking (e.g. “Team 1 gets a check because Nancy is out of her seat without permission.”); praises the other teams for following the rules (e.g. “I like how Teams 2 and 3 are working quietly.”); and places a check mark next to the team’s name on the chart. At the end of the GBG, each team with four or fewer checkmarks receives a reward. Teachers do not punish individual students for misbehavior. As students become socialized into the role of student, the rewards become less tangible, and GBG is played more frequently and for longer periods of time. The average classroom plays GBG for 10 minutes, three times per week.
Invest in Kids’ Role in GBG
The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) has reviewed hundreds of programs from across the world and “blessed” only 11 as model programs (Nurse-Family Partnership and The Incredible Years being the only two early childhood programs on that list), meaning they’ve met extremely rigorous research requirements and produced substantial longitudinal outcomes around reduced juvenile delinquency and justice system involvement. One of the programs on their “promising” program list is Good Behavior Game. It is considered promising because CSPV feels the program needs to have another randomized, controlled trial done before it meets their standards. CSPV received a grant from Robert Wood Johnson to conduct such a randomized trial and then approached IIK and asked us to partner with them and AIR on this research trial. .
To that end, Invest in Kids has hired two coaches who are working with the 18 intervention classrooms, visiting them every other week for 90 minutes. Seventeen of the teachers are in Adams County school districts and the remaining teachers are in the Denver Public Schools.
Evidence of Effectiveness of GBG
Through End of First Grade
- Reduced aggression Dolan et al. (1993). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317-345.
- More on-task behavior Brown (1993). American Journal Community Psychology, 21, 635-664.
By Middle School
- Reduced aggression Kellam et al. (1994). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-281. Kellam et al. (1998). Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.
- Reduced smoking initiation Kellam & Anthony (1998). American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1490-1495.
Young Adult Outcomes (age 19-21)
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2008: 95S: Effects of a universal classroom based behavior program in first and second grades on young adult outcomes. Five full-length papers and an editorial: Kellam et al.; Poduska et al.; Petras et al.; Brown et al.
| Selected Outcomes at Young Adulthood, age 19-21 |
GBG
Classrooms |
Standard
Program Classrooms |
Risk Reduction |
Use of school-based services for problems with behavior, emotions, or drugs or alcohol
* Males highly aggressive, disruptive in first grade |
17%
|
33% |
48% |
Lifetime illicit drug abuse/dependence disorder
* All males
* Males highly aggressive, disruptive in first grade |
19%
29% |
38%
83% |
50%
65% |
Lifetime alcohol abuse/dependence disorder
* All males and females |
13% |
20% |
35% |
Smoking 10 or more cigarettes a day regularly
* All males
* Males highly aggressive, disruptive in first grade |
7%
0% |
17%
40% |
59%
100% |
Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
* All males and females
* Males highly aggressive, disruptive in first grade |
17%
41% |
25%
86% |
32%
52% |