volved in the implementation of the Good Behavior Game. First, the teacher establishes the behavioral expectations. Second, the teacher determines the criteria for winning the game. Finally, the teacher teaches the students about the rules of the game. The students in the classroom are then divided into two teams who compete with one another in exhibiting positive behavior during a designated time period. The teacher monitors the performance of the students by making a mark against the team that breaks the rules. Depending on the number of marks and the teachers' criteria for winning, the team with the best behavior can earn various rewards.
For example, in their 1969 study, Barrish et al. (1969) evaluated the Good Behavior Game with fourth graders who exhibited extremely disruptive behavior during most of the class period. In this study, both teams were given tremendous incentive to succeed due to the criteria for winning. First, the team with the lowest number of marks was given various rewards such as a free time, victory tags and stars on their charts. Second, both teams were considered to be winners if they earned less than six marks at the end of the day or 20 marks by the end of the week. This game proved to be effective immediate by reducing the rate of classroom disruption from 19 percent to ten percent within an hour on the first day (in Embry, 2002).
Apart from 14 small-scale studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of the Good Behavior Game in a wide variety of school settings and grade levels, a large randomized trial involving 864 first grade students from 19 Baltimore Public Schools over a six-year period was conducted. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term effects of the Good Behavior Game, which was utilized in first and second grade. The researchers, Dolan and other Johns Hopkins scientists, found that the Good Behavior Game was successful in reducing the rate of aggressi...