Alyssa Wingate

Segment A
Is the Good Behavior Game an effective class-wide behavior management technique for an
elementary class?
Segment B Introduction/Rationale
Teachers spend countless hours preparing lessons, creating tests, and grading homework.
While each of these aspects directly influences student learning, one feature of the classroom that
arguably affects learning just as equally is classroom management. Disruptive student behavior is an
issue that every teacher has had to face in one form or another and the manner in which the teacher
addresses that behavior is very important. It is crucial for a teacher to manage his or her classroom
by controlling troublesome behavior because disruptions can directly impact the learning
environment. Teachers must utilize effective classroom management plans to ensure a successful
classroom. One behavior management plan that has been used in several classrooms is called the
Good Behavior Game (Elswick & Casey, 2011). This study will attempt to determine if the Good
Behavior Game is an effective, practical class-wide behavior management plan.
This study is important because, according to Elswick and Casey (2011) of the University of
Memphis, a classroom that is not properly managed can disrupt student learning opportunities and
lead to more frequent and offensive class disruptions. Disorderly behavior is a major issue within the
classroom and one that should be handled in the most effective manner: teachers reported that
disruptive classroom behaviors were the largest problem within the school and classroom and their
lack of knowledge and training on how to decrease these disruptive classroom behaviors were
preventing academic achievement for all learners (Elswick & Casey, 2011, p. 36). It is vital that

teachers implement effective techniques for managing disruptive behaviors to ensure students are in
an environment that is most conducive to learning.
Segment C Literature Review
According to Rosenberg and Jackman (2003), difficulty managing a classroom has become one
of the largest concerns within the educational system. Teachers often report that classroom
interruptions stemming from disruptive student behavior is one of the most persistent problems
within the classroom. Data collected from school districts has shown that removal from the classroom
and office referral rates are exceptionally high. Instructors find themselves spending much more time
than they should disciplining their students rather than teaching (Bru, 2009). Bru explained that
discipline problems lead to several other issues within the classroom; exceptional teachers can be
driven to other careers, or the quality of teaching may decrease because of the time spent
disciplining which in turn leads to lower student academic achievement.
Because poor classroom management can affect student learning, it is crucial that teachers
learn proper strategies to control disruptive behavior. Ruiz-Olivares, Pino & Herruzo (2010) explain
why behavior invention is necessary:
Disruptive behavior can waste a great deal of teaching time in the classroom, leading to
feelings of frustration in teachers and an increase in academic failure among pupils. Prior
research indicates that intervening in these kinds of behaviors improves the classroom
atmosphere and facilitates the learning process. (p. 1046)
Some teachers rely on ineffective discipline techniques that do not correct the behavior problems and
therefore cause the learning environment to be less productive (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). Rather
than having a clear management technique in place, these teachers may turn to reactive and
aversive strategies (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007, p. 86). When instructors discipline students by

reprimanding in a manner that is impulsive and insensitive, then the teachers risks worsening the
situation or behavior. Because teachers often use these unproductive strategies, it is important that
they know how to implement interventions that will lessen the disruptions. Lannie and McCurdy
(2007) explain that when the classroom becomes uncontrollable because the teacher does not have
the proper training to manage disruptive students, the teacher often resigns from the job.
As stated previously, disruptive behavior in the classroom has a major impact on student
learning. In a study conducted by Bru (2009), Norwegian students reported that disruptions by other
students hindered their learning experience. Of 2,352 pupils who participated in the research, 60%
of pupils agreed that they would have learned more if there was more peace to learn at school, and,
nearly 40% indicated that noisy classrooms hampered their ability to concentrate on school work
(Bru, 2009, p. 467). A large percentage of students believed their learning outcomes were reduced as
a result of distractions. Not only do the students believe that disruptions impact their learning, but
the Program for International Student Assessment also agree that poor classroom management
directly impacts learning outcomes. The results of this investigation reported that there was a
tendency for classes that reported high levels of disturbance to have lower average grades. The
results also suggest that those who have many behavior problems tend to have lower grades as well.
In order for students to have the best opportunity to learn, they deserve to be in a classroom
with a teacher who is able to manage the students. Bru (2009) explained that a research-supported
method for preventing disruptions is to set clear and distinct rules and monitor the students.
Rosenberg and Jackman (2003) conducted a study in which they monitored the occurrences of
disruptive behavior after implementing a school-wide behavior management system (p. 10). This
system was based on a model wherein school faculty and parents work together to create an
approach to discipline that will be utilized throughout the entire school. The process is known as PAR:
Prevent, Act, and Resolve. The group collaborates to construct a plan and strategies that address

each step of the PAR process. The results of this study displayed a noticeable decrease in referrals to
the office and suspensions. Ten of the twelve schools that participated in this study saw a decrease
in suspensions and office referrals ranging from 3% to 57% (Rosenberg and Jackman, 2003, p. 17).
Although this study focused on an intervention that was implemented throughout the entire school, it
shows the positive effects that emerge as a result of an established behavior management plan.
Interventions which are planned collaborations targeting a specific problem are much needed in
classrooms that experience disruptions often. A specific intervention method can provide the support
needed by students with behavior problems in order to develop positive conduct.
The behavior management technique that is often implemented in single classrooms is the
Good Behavior Game (GBG) (Ruiz-Olivares, Pino & Herruzo, 2010). The game was created in 1969 by
Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf in an effort to find a procedure that improved student behavior in the
classroom (Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010). Since the onset of this technique, it has undergone several
studies to evaluate its effectiveness: a wide variety of studies have replicated the procedure,
confirming its efficacy and effectiveness in terms of decreasing disruptive behaviors (Ruiz-Olivares
et al., 2010, p. 1047). One particular study recently discovered the same results as previous studies,
but this treatment of the GBG varied somewhat in that it added in another behavior plan called the
Say-Do-Report correspondence (Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010). The authors reported significantly lower
numbers of disruptions following the implementation of this combined system. While these results
were very similar to previous studies conducted using the GBG, the authors noted a more significant
decrease in behavior incidents which they credit to the inclusion of the Say-Do-Report program.
Another study by Lannie and McCurdy (2007) implemented the GBG in an urban school setting
where discipline problems were an exceptionally larger issue than at most schools. The results of this
test supported those of previous tests. After implementing the game, teachers saw negative behavior
decrease and positive, on-task behavior increase. The authors concluded that this management

technique is effective even in the most disruptive classrooms. One teacher commented that the game
was especially effective because her classroom was quiet for the first time.
A concern that one may find with the GBG is the lack of praise that students receive while
playing the game. This method focuses attention on negative behavior by placing a tally mark for the
students to see when someone disrupts the class. In several cases, no praise is given for a specific
positive behavior. Several studies have been conducted on the importance of praising students for
proper behavior in order to reinforce that behavior (Thompson, Marchant, Anderson, Prater, & Gibb,
2012). One of these studies was conducted by Thompson et al. (2012) to evaluate student on-task
behavior after teachers had received training on behavior specific praise. The results indicated that
the students on-task behavior rate directly correlated to the teachers behavior specific praise rate.
As the teacher offered more praise, the students remained on task better. Concerning the GBG,
Lannie and McCurdy (2007) tallied the number of times one teacher praised his or her students.
Throughout sixteen sessions of the game, this teacher offered two praising statements. This seems
to contradict the findings of several studies that suggest praise improves behavior, but despite the
teachers lack of encouraging words, the class still saw a reduction in negative behavior. This
suggests that the GBG is still effective regardless of teacher praise; however, the Lannie and McCurdy
(2007) study was only based on one teacher. It would be quite simple for teachers to include words
of praise throughout the game.
The research for the effectiveness of the Good Behavior Game is overwhelmingly supportive.
Many studies have found a decrease in disruptive behavior allowing the teacher to better manage the
classroom after implementing this technique. Despite the games tendency to point out negative
behaviors rather than positive behaviors, it still achieves positive results. The amount of praise given
to students will inevitably vary depending on the teacher, and is a technique that could be
implemented into the game if the teacher felt it was necessary.

Segment D Description of Research Site

The school that will be studied is in rural southwestern Virginia. The population of the county
is 15,533 residents (Suburban Stats, n.d.). Ninety-five percent of the residents are Caucasian, 2%
are Hispanic, 2% are African American and 1% are of other ethnicities. The average household
income is $42,983 per year. Seventy-six percent are considered white collar and 23.3 % are labeled
blue collar. The school that this study will be conducted in is an elementary school with 300
students, grades kindergarten through fifth grade, with an average teacher-student ratio of one to
fifteen. (Great Schools, 2009). The school demographics resemble the county in that 90% of the
students are Caucasian, 5% are Hispanic and 5% are African American. Over half of the students,
53%, receive free or reduced lunch. The school has been accredited sporadically throughout the last
ten years and has had difficulty meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). They have met AYP two of
the last five years. Test scores within the school have been steadily falling and teachers believe that
is a result of the students being more difficult to manage than they have been in past years.
The particular classroom that will be the focus of the study is a fourth grade class of
seventeen students. Nine of the students are male and eight are female. Fourteen students are
Caucasian, two are Hispanic and one is African American. Ten of the students receive free or reduced
lunch. Four students have Individualized Education Plans (IEP). This particular fourth grade class
averages three office referrals per month. Each day, an average of six students has their names
written on the board for disruptive behavior. The teacher often has to stop teaching because of
student interruptions. The teacher considers several students in this class to be extremely disruptive.
The teacher of this fourth grade class feels she is not able to properly manage her classroom
because of the number of office referrals and the number of times each day she has to stop class to
discipline a student and write their names on the board. She is desperate to find a behavior
management plan to will drastically decrease the number of interruptions that occur on a daily basis.

She has done all she knows to do in an attempt to better manage her classroom, and she is hopeful
that the GBG will drastically decrease the number of discipline problems.
Segment E - Research Design
The game occurred in three phases which lasted for 20 schools days each during one month.
Phase one took place in February, phase two in March, and phase three in April. Phase one took
place before the GBG began, phase two occurred during the game and phase three commenced
following the conclusion of the game. In the Good Behavior Game, the class was divided into two
even teams. The teacher then established three classroom rules that when violated, earned the
violators team a point. Discipline problems that were charted (the three classroom rules) were
talking without permission, leaving seat without permission, and rude/disrespectful behavior. All
violations were based on teacher discretion. Students were very familiar with these rules as they had
been in place since the beginning of the school year. At the end of each game period, if one or both
teams had a number of tally marks that was below an established criterion, then that team received
a prize that was previously agreed upon between each team and the teacher. The team with the
fewest points at the end of the week earned another reward that had already been established. Also,
as another incentive, the team with the fewest disruptions by the end of the entire game (the end of
the month) received a special prize. The game was played at a set time each day; in this case, thirty
minutes during English instruction. Elswick and Casey (2011) conducted a study of the GBG using a
similar research design.
The fourth grade teacher was hopeful that the Good Behavior Game would be the classroom
management system that finally helped her gain control of her classroom. This classroom was lucky
enough to have a student teacher in the classroom the semester of the study who charted the
number of disturbances. The student teacher tallied interruptions from the beginning of her research
to the end to see if the number of disruptions decreased. To do this, the student teacher kept track

of the number of discipline problems that occurred before, during, and after the completion of the
GBG.
The teacher began her research in the month of February and continued through April. It
consisted of three phases, each month being a different phase. Phase one lasted twenty school days
in February, phase two consisted of twenty school days in March, and phase three was twenty school
days in April.
Phase one began on the first school day of February. The students were not aware that the
research was being conducted in an attempt to not alter their behavior in any way. At this point in
the study, the GBG had not begun, but rather the student teacher simply charted disruptions each
day for thirty minutes during twenty days of reading class to establish a baseline number that could
be compared to numbers established after completion of the game.
On the first school day of March, the second phase began. At this time students were
introduced to the Good Behavior Game. Before reading class began, the teacher read a prompt to the
students that explained the rules and rewards of the game (see Appendix A). After introducing the
game, the teacher worked with the class to establish rewards and criteria for receiving the agreed
upon rewards. This particular class decided that no more than three charted disruptions (four or
more) resulted in no reward for a particular team for that game session. Four became the magic
number, or the number at which the team lost its reward. A reward chart was created to remind
students of the prizes for good behavior (see Appendix B). Each session that a team finished under
the magic number, individual members of the team received their choice of one piece of candy, an
eraser, or a sticker. The reward for the team with the fewest interruptions at the end of the week
was ten extra minutes of recreation on Friday. Finally, the team who had the fewest charted tallies by
the games completion at the end of the month, each received a homework pass.

After twenty days of the GBG in March, phase three began in April. On the first school day of
April, the teacher reminded the students that the game would not be played anymore, but that she
still expected them to be on their best behavior. The student teacher charted disruptions in the same
way she did during phase one. After the completion of phase three, Mrs. Bolt compared the results of
each month to determine if the outcomes suggested that the GBG decreased the number of
classroom interruptions.
The months February through April were chosen for this study because by that time the school
year was halfway over and the students were very familiar with the expectations. Also, there were no
significant interruptions, such as Christmas break, that might alter student behavior. The student
teacher was able to keep the chart which minimized distractions that may have been caused by the
teachers attempt to tally the data.
Segment F Graphic to Display Data Analysis and Findings

Total Number of Disruptions

90
80
70
60
50
40

84
62

30
20

22

10
0
Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 1 Number of Disruptive Behaviors Before Good Behavior Game

30 minutes during reading class for the month of February (20 days)

Day

Talking
without
permission

lll

llll

ll

ll

Rude/Disrespectful
Behavior

Total
Disruptions

ll

ll

ll
lll

ll
l

l
l
ll
ll

ll

ll

ll

10

lll

5
6
7

11
12
13
14

Leaving seat

ll

llll
l

l
l

ll
l

l
ll

16

l
ll

18

l
ll

19
20

3
5
3

lll
llll

17

ll
lll

15

l
l

lll
l

5
4

Disruptions by Friday:
Week 1 __25__

Week 2 __20___

Week 3 __18___

Week 4 __21___

Total ___84___

Phase 1 Total Weekly Disruptions

30

25

20

15
25
10

20

21
18

0
Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Phase 2 Number of Disruptive Behaviors During Good Behavior Game

30 minutes during reading class for the month of March (20 days)

Day

Talking
without
permission

Leaving seat

Rude/Disrespectful
Behavior

Total
Disruptions

ll

ll

ll

ll

4
5

ll
ll

lll
l
lll

3
4
5

ll
llll

llll

ll

10

ll

11
12
13
14

lll
l
l

l
lll

3
4

3
3

l
l

ll

1
3
1

ll

18

ll
llll

17

15
16

19

20
Disruptions by Friday:
Week 1 __22___

Week 2 __20___

Week 3 __14___

Week 4 ___6___

Total __62__

Phase 2 Total Weekly Disruptions

25

20

15

10

22
20
14

5
6
0
Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Phase 3 Number of Disruptive Behaviors After Good Behavior Game

30 minutes during reading class for the month of April (20 days)
Talking
without
permission

Day

Leaving seat

Rude/Disrespectful
Behavior

Total
Disruptions
0

1
0

1
2

ll

10

11
12

l
l

2
1
0

13

14

15

16

17

18

l
ll

19
20

l
l

Disruptions by Friday:
Week 1 __4___

Week 2 ___6___

Week 3 ___4___

Week 4 ___6___

Total __20___

Phase 3 Total Weekly Disruptions

7
6
5
4
3
2

6
4

6
4

1
0
Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Segment G Findings and Implications

The findings of this study supported the premise that the Good Behavior Game is an effective
classroom management system. As displayed in the graphs, the number of disruptive behaviors
dramatically decreased from phase one to phase three. In phase one, the time before the game
began, there was a total of 84 disruptions within the thirty minute, twenty day collection of data.
During phase two, throughout the game, the data showed a total of 62 disruptions, a decrease of 22
incidences. Finally, phase three saw a drastically lower number at 22 charted interruptions. Phase
one to phase two had a percent change of 26.19%. This means that from month one to month two,
the number of interruptions during the established time period decrease by 26. 19%. Phase two to
phase three saw a 64.52% decrease in the number of tallied disturbances. There was a stunning
73.81% decrease from phase one to phase three. These figures indicate that the number of student
disruptions decreased as a result of the Good Behavior Game.
The implications of this study are extremely helpful to teachers who are having difficulty
managing their classrooms. Time spent disciplining students is time spent away from teaching. It is
crucial that teachers make the best use of the time they have with their students to ensure their
students receive the best possible education.
Segment H Limitations of Study
Despite measures being taken to create the most accurate research possible, some limitations
were presented. The most apparent limitation was the size of the study. Only one class with one
teacher was examined. Had the treatment taken place throughout several other classrooms
conducted by other teachers, results may have varied. The size of the class may have also affected
the results. The class was a relatively small one compared to most public schools. Bigger classes may
not have responded to the GBG in the same manner. Also, the study was only conducted in a school

in a rural area rather than examining an urban area as well. Students of different cultural
backgrounds may react differently to the game. Finally, the students were all in the fourth grade.
Older or younger grades may have resulted in a different outcome as well.
Segment I - Suggestions for Further Study
This research study was conducted with a very limited sample size that could cause the data
to be skewed. Another treatment of the GBG could involve more students. The study could be
conducted amidst multiple classes or classes with larger numbers of students. One should also study
the effects of the GBG on different grade levels, older or younger. Another suggestion is to
implement the game at the beginning of the school year for a certain length of time, such as a month
or two. The researcher could then analyze how long the class remains in control reflecting the lasting
effects of the game on student behavior. An alternative to this is conducting the game throughout
the entire school year. This could motivate students to maintain good behavior because of the
incentives available.
Abstract
One of the major issues for teachers in the classroom is behavior management. Teachers
often report that disruptions in the classroom take away from instructional time. This study explored
a behavior management system that helps the teacher maintain control of his or her classroom. The
Good Behavior Game is a behavior modification game that keeps track of bad behavior and rewards
nondisruptive behavior at the end of the game. It conditions students to limit disruptive behavior.
Results from this study showed a decrease in the number of disruptions after playing the Good
Behavior Game. The results suggest that the Good Behavior Game is an effective classroom
management tool.

Appendix A
Teacher Prompt
Today we will begin playing a game called the Good Behavior Game. We will play the game for
thirty minutes each day during reading class for twenty days. Here are the rules of the game:
You will be divided into two teams. When I say, The Good Behavior Game has started, I will expect
each of you to be on your best behavior. I will make a list of rules that should not be broken. Each
time a rule is broken, that student will earn their team a tally mark on our chart (display chart). Tally
marks are not good. You do not want to break a rule and give your team a tally mark. Our student
teacher will keep track of any broken rules and make a mark for your team if you break a rule. At the
end of the thirty minute game, your team will win a prize if your team has three tally marks or less. If
your team has four tally marks, you do not win a prize. The team who has the least number of tally
marks by Friday will win another prize. The team with the least number of tallies by the end of the
month wins an even bigger prize. Now Im going to tell you the three rules that will cause your team
to receive a mark on the chart.
1. Talking without permission this includes talking to a friend when you are not supposed to, calling
out an answer when you should raise your hand, interrupting the teacher or other students. Our
student teacher and I will make the final decision if you are talking without permission.
2. Leaving your seat without permission this includes leaving your seat for any reason that does not
include using a tissue, coming to see me, or activities that allow you to move around the room.
3. Rude or disrespectful behavior this includes name-calling, hitting, or any other behavior that is
considered inappropriate.
Now lets decide what kind of rewards we think we would like to have. (Proceed to establish rewards,
choose teams, and begin game).
**Note Students will be very familiar with these rules. The rules will not have changed since the
beginning of school.

Appendix B

Reward Chart
Reward for 3 tallies
or less each day
Your choice of candy, sticker, or eraser

Reward for the least

tallies at the end of
the week
10 extra minutes of recess

Reward for the least

tallies at the end of
the game

Homework Pass

References
Bru, E., (2009). Academic outcomes in school classes with markedly disruptive pupils. Social

Psychology of Education, 12 (4), 461-479. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=a974c867-68d0-4758-a0ddb46e908082cf%40sessionmgr114&vid=7&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%
3d#db=ehh&AN=45234715
Elswick, S., & Casey, L. B., (2012). The Good Behavior Game Is No Longer Just an Effective
Intervention for Students: An Examination of the Reciprocal Effects on Teacher Behaviors.

Beyond Behavior, 21 (1), 36. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=28041e11-5df5-484b-bcb6371ac8f69198%40sessionmgr10&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=
ehh&AN=79627010
How Many People Live in Grayson County, Virginia for 2012 and 2013. Suburban Stats (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://suburbanstats.org/
Independence Elementary School Great Schools (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.greatschools.org/virginia/independence/749-Independence-ElementarySchool/?tab=demographics
Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L., (2007) Preventing Disruptive Behavior in the Urban Classroom:
Effects of the Good Behavior Game on Student and Teacher Behavior. Education and

Treatment of Children, 30 (1), 85-98. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=f180af79-9fc0-42b0-96df24909fd8a962%40sessionmgr115&hid=116&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db
=ehh&AN=24622753

Rosenberg, M. S., & Jackman, L. A., (2003). Development, Implementation, and Sustainability of
Comprehensive School-Wide Behavior Management Systems. Intervention in School & Clinic,

39 (1), 10-21. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=94a5989efaba-4b8f-9f1e4b44d2d61bf1%40sessionmgr115&hid=15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=

ehh&AN=10598976
Ruiz-Olivares, R., Pino, M. J., & Herruzo, J., (2010). Reduction of Disruptive Behaviors Using an
Intervention Based on the Good Behavior Game and the Say-Do-Report Correspondence.

Psychology in Schools, 47 (10), 1046-1058. Retrieved from

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=f180af79-9fc0-42b0-96df24909fd8a962%40sessionmgr115&hid=116&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db
=ehh&AN=55048605
Thompson, M. T., Marchant, M., Anderson, D., Prater, M. A., & Gibb, G., (2012). Effects of Tiered
Training on General Educators' Use of Specific Praise. Education & Treatment of Children, 35

(4), 521-546. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=5c13b3fcae1f-48ed-9871916c81b0a538%40sessionmgr115&hid=7&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e

hh&AN=80194879