Improving Child Behaviour Management: An
Evaluation of the Good Behaviour Game in UK
Primary Schools
Authors:
Gail G. Chan, Project Manager
David R. Foxcroft, Academic Supervisor
Bernice Smurthwaite, Local Authority Supervisor
Lindsey Coombes, GBG Coach
Debby Allen, Project Management Committee
1
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project received financial support from the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
programme (KTP). KTP aims to help businesses to improve their competitiveness and
productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills that reside within
the UK Knowledge Base. This KTP was funded by the Technology Strategy Board along with
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and a matched contribution from
Oxfordshire County Council.
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) provided support and guidance to the project
through sharing, under license, their programme and materials for implementing the Good
Behaviour Game. Oxford Brookes University holds a licence from AIR to use their materials,
adapted for the UK context, for the implementation of the GBG as part of a programme of
work incorporating evaluation of the GBG in the UK.
CONTACT
Correspondence to:
Dr David Foxcroft
Bernice Smurthwaite
Professor of Public Health and Community
Psychology
Behaviour Inclusion Attendance Manager
(Interim), Behaviour Support Service
Faculty of Health and Life Science
Oxford Brookes University
Marston Campus
Jack Straws Lane
Oxford
OX3 0FL
Oxfordshire County Council
Windrush Court c/o Foxcombe Court
Abingdon Business Park
Wyndyke Furlong, Abingdon
Oxon
OX14 1DZ
Email:
[email protected]
Email:
[email protected]
2
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESEARCH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OGF
THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR GAME
INTRODUCTION
A knowledge transfer collaboration between
Oxford Brookes University and Oxfordshire
County Council focused on the feasibility for
local classrooms of an American based model
of behaviour management called the Good
Behaviour Game (GBG).
A total of six schools, ten classes and twelve
teachers across Oxfordshire took part in the
feasibility project to implement and evaluate
the GBG over one school year. Several
hundred pupils were involved, aged from 4 to
9 years.
Oxfordshire is one of the most affluent and
well educated areas in the UK, but it also has
pockets of significant deprivation and
vulnerable groups of children and young
people.
OVERVIEW OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR
GAME
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is an
evidence-based programme for younger
primary school children. The underlying
premise of the GBG is that pupils who are
grouped into teams in the classroom by
behaviour, learning and ability will encourage,
influence and help each other to “win” the
game and meet behavioural objectives. The
GBG encourages pupils to work through the
existing curriculum co-operatively and
efficiently.
The GBG is built around four central elements:
classroom rules, team membership,
monitoring of behaviour, and positive
reinforcement to individuals and the team.
The GBG provides teachers with a simple and
effective behaviour management system and,
importantly, allows them more time to teach.
It does not require any additional curriculum
time. We provide a draft logic model for the
GBG in Appendix 1.
Research from randomized trials in the US,
Belgium and the Netherlands has shown that
the GBG can reduce disruptive and aggressive
behaviour in classrooms, and improve
children’s ability to focus and produce more
work.
Importantly, just 1-2 years in a GBG class at
ages six and seven can lead to important
outcomes over the next 15 years: better
learning and educational outcomes; and
reduced bullying behaviour, antisocial and
violent behaviour, criminal activity, drug,
alcohol and mental health problems.
The GBG is most effective with those children
who are most at risk: young boys who exhibit
more aggressive and disruptive behaviours in
early childhood.
Cost-benefit analysis shows that, for every $1
spent on the GBG, there is $96 worth of
benefit to society through reduced health,
social and criminal justice system costs.
FEASIBILITY
This report provides an assessment of the
feasibility and acceptability of the GBG in
primary schools in Oxfordshire, U.K., using
qualitative and quantitative methods.
INTERVIEWS
Interviews with 22 teachers, head teachers
and coaches at the end of the project
assessed the feasibility and acceptability of
the GBG in primary schools. Interview
transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, and
five key themes were identified: (1) fitting it
in; (2) is it worth it; (3) sticking to the rules; (4)
independent learning; and (5) the importance
of coaching.
Overall, the GBG was perceived positively
across all groups. In spite of initial
reservations about participation in this
project, teachers typically said that the
3
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
experience was valuable for themselves and
their pupils in terms of skill development and
self-management.
A recurrent finding was the increased
independence of children and improvements
in their learning behaviours.
A concern raised by head teachers was the
cost of implementation and longer term
sustainability across the school.
TEACHER OBSERVATION OF CLASSROOM
ADAPTATION - REVISED (TOCA-R)
The TOCA-R is a validated measure of child
social adaptation and behaviour. It comprises
nine sub-scales (Emotional Regulation, Social
Competence, Pro-social Behaviour, Authority
Acceptance, Hyperactive / Impulsive,
Attention / Concentration, Academic
Readiness, Social Isolation, and Teacherstudent Relationship), as well as one item
asking about the child’s overall behaviour in
the last 3-weeks.
In a before-after analysis, without a control
group, there were highly significant statistical
differences between the scores on all TOCA-R
measures from time 1 (beginning of the year)
to time 2 (end of the year). These statistically
significant differences indicate improvements
in classroom social adaptation and behaviour
over the GBG implementation year.
GAME AND PROBE DATA
Data collected routinely as part of the GBG
implementation are the number of rule
infractions during a game (game data) and the
number of rule infractions when the game is
not being played (probe data).
Over the course of the implementation year,
rule infractions during the game (game data)
remained fairly constant, at around 5
infractions in each class per game. Outside the
game (probe data) there was a steady
decrease in the average number of
infractions, from around 20 infractions in each
class per probe at the beginning of the year,
to around 5 infractions in each class at the
end of the implementation year. This
indicates that class behaviour improved over
the course of the year, when the game was
not being played.
This finding is consistent with the GBG
mechanism of effect where behavioural
impacts during the game are gradually
transferred to non-game settings, indicating
that children are internalising rules for
behaviour.
GBG UK IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
A cost model was developed based on costs
incurred during the implementation project,
and recommendations from key stakeholders.
Based on an optimal level of training and
coaching support, the cost for 1 teacher with
25-30 pupils for the initial GBG year is
estimated at £3704. This is divided into two
types of costs: requisite costs (£2497) and
variable delivery or implementation costs
(£1207). These figures reflect GBG start-up
costs; in subsequent years the costs would be
much lower: over 5-years we estimate a cost
of £55 per pupil; over 10-years this comes
down to £43 per pupil.
CONCLUSION
The GBG is new to the U.K., and the findings
from this feasibility work have shown that the
GBG can be successfully implemented in UK
primary school classes.
Further scientific work should be undertaken
to provide independent replication of GBG
effectiveness for student learning and
attainment, and for behavioural, social and
health outcomes, in the U.K.
A short (10-minute) video of the GBG from
this feasibility project can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=jnXRW
YYYIec (short URL: http://bit.ly/zhPRVT)
4
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
INTRODUCTION
“If a child is not motivated to learn and engage early on in life, the more
likely it is that when the child becomes an adult, he or she will fail in
social and economic life. The longer society waits to intervene…the more
costly it is to remediate...” (Heckman, 2008)
Children with early behavioural problems are at risk of rejection by peers, conflict with
authority figures and the failure to thrive and achieve both socially and academically.
Colman et al., (2009) suggests that ‘good social, emotional and psychological health helps
protect young people against emotional and behavioural problems, violence and crime,
teenage pregnancy and the misuse of drugs and alcohol’.
Linked to this, important longer-term economic and social benefits can be gained from the
introduction of effective classroom behaviour management strategies that address problem
behaviour and result in reduced smoking, mental health problems, delinquency and
criminality, increased academic achievement and productivity, higher rates of graduation
and lower rates of school failure and drop-out (Dolan et al. 1993; Kellam et al. 2008; Wilcox
et al. 2008).
With increasing pressures placed on schools, administrators, and teachers regarding pupil
achievement, pupil behaviour is increasingly under the spotlight (Ofsted, 2011). Sternberg &
Williams (2002) suggest that pupils are coming to school with less school readiness, preacademic and behavioural skills. In a study by Merret and Wheldall (1978), over 50% of UK
teachers polled reported discontentment and concern about the amount of disruptive
behaviour in their classroom, yet they lacked the knowledge of classroom behaviour
management theories and strategies to address and improve behaviour.
Challenging behaviour in schools is a major reason for stress among teachers, and the ability
to manage pupils in a classroom is a critical factor in any educational setting (Friedman,
1995; MacBeath et al, 2004). Even though a classroom free of disruptive behaviour does not
ensure academic gains, order is generally a prerequisite for effective instruction (Carpenter
& McKeeHiggins, 1996). Teaching and learning time is lost to all pupils if teachers cannot
adequately deal with behaviour in the classroom.
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is an evidence-based programme for younger primary
school children. It is a team based classroom behaviour management programme that aims
to improve child behaviour and learning as well as improve upon existing teacher practices.
The GBG attempts to address the issue of “children knowing how to behave like pupils – for
some children, they do not know what that means and need to be taught. It is not intuitive,
parents do not necessarily understand it and teachers are not always being trained to deal
with it” (Kellam et al., 2011).
5
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
The underlying premise of the GBG is that pupils who are grouped into teams in the
classroom by behaviour, learning and ability will encourage, influence and help each other
to “win” the game and meet behavioural objectives. The GBG therefore provides teachers
with a simple and effective behaviour management system and, essentially, allows them
more time to teach. There is no additional curriculum time needed for the GBG, rather it
encourages pupils to work through the existing curriculum co-operatively and efficiently.
The GBG is a programme that has been proven to work in the United States (US) and at its
very core, it is about creating opportunities for success and positive learning environments
for children and teachers.
OVERVIEW OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR GAME
The GBG was first developed over four decades ago in response to a need to help teachers
manage their classrooms more effectively. It was designed to reduce disruptive classroom
behaviour through a game involving competition for privileges accessible in nearly all
classrooms (Barrish, Saunders & Wolf, 1969). According to Kellam et al. (2011), the GBG
increases a teacher’s precision and consistency in instructing primary school pupils in
appropriate classroom behaviour. It promotes the following of rules, pro-social behaviour,
and peer concern for classmates by rewarding teams for maintaining behaviour standards.
Since it is a management strategy rather than a curriculum, the GBG is seamlessly integrated
into the curriculum and no additional teaching time is required. The GBG is built around four
core elements: classroom rules, team membership, monitoring of behaviour, and positive
reinforcement to individuals and the group. These elements are fundamental to helping
children learn to work together, create positive learning environments and monitor their
own behaviour as well the behaviour of classmates.
CLASSROOM RULES
GBG implementation begins with the teacher instructing pupils on four class rules:
1. We will work quietly
2. We will be polite to others
3. We will get out of seats with permission
4. We will follow directions
For example, ‘work quietly’ could be defined as ―talking at or below a voice level specified
by the teacher (e.g. whisper or outside voice) or the absence of whistling, clicking, singing,
yelling, or other noises. These rules are precisely described and posted where they can be
6
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
seen by all children. There is an A1 poster sized version provided and all children have a
small laminated version for their desk areas as well. Prior to implementation, teachers
model expected behaviours, explain and define rules, and help children to understand how
the rules apply across various teaching settings and formats.
TEAM MEMBERSHIP
The game is based on group contingencies and the goal is that all teams and thus all pupils
in the classroom will work together, behave well and win. It is hoped that the team
membership or structure will give children who exhibit anti-social behaviours (e.g.
aggressive-disruptive or shy /solitary) the opportunity to interact with and learn from
positive role models while the game is being played. Children are placed into teams of four
to seven pupils, heterogeneous in behaviour and learning and balanced across gender.
MONITORING OF BEHAVIOUR
During the game, the teacher records occurrences of rule-breaking for each team on the
scoreboard that is visible to all children in the class. At the end of the game, the teacher
enthusiastically announces and praises all winning teams (i.e. teams with four or fewer rule
infractions). It is important to note that the teacher only addresses the winning teams.
During this phase of the game, there is no mention of teams who have lost. Teams do not
compete against one another per se, but they naturally use the peer group to shape their
own team members’ behaviour. Pupils on the winning team(s) receive a reward or engage in
a rewarding activity.
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
There are several types of positive reinforcement within the GBG. Teachers use social
reinforcement (i.e. smiling, announcing winning teams, etc.) and praise of specific
behaviours that should be repeated. Consistent with group reinforcement contingencies, it
is important that children also learn to help and reinforce each other so that the entire
group can benefit as well. When first playing the GBG, teachers are encouraged to use
tangible rewards such as badges or stickers as a way to engage children in behaving
appropriately. As the school year continues the rewards should become more intrinsic and
natural to the classroom setting (i.e. extra computer privileges or golden time). The goal in
regards to reinforcement and behaviour is to teach children to work harder and longer
without immediate reinforcement.
SETTING UP THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GAME
Prior to the start of the game, teachers set up conditions that support positive pupil
behaviour, including deciding when to play the game, assigning appropriate work tasks to
pupils, and clarifying expectations in terms of pupil behaviours. It is imperative that the time
when the GBG is played is meaningful in terms of learning. Teachers should carefully
consider what work is appropriate for pupils to complete both independently and
accurately. It is important that teachers do not assume pupils know the proper behaviour
7
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
for each situation, especially in the early school years. The assignment or task selected
should be one that the pupil is familiar with, but has not yet mastered. Teachers can then
allocate their attention to observing and monitoring pupils’ behaviour, and providing
feedback.
To play the game, the teacher splits the class into teams of four to seven pupils, with equal
numbers of boys and girls and also behaviour and learning attributes distributed equally
between groups. The teacher initiates the start of the game by providing an independent
work task, reviewing the class rules, setting a timer, and announcing the start of the game.
As children work, the teacher quietly observes and places marks (i.e. tally marks) next to a
team’s name whenever a team member breaks a rule. Whenever a rule is broken, the
teacher follows a specific verbal protocol referred to as ‘Check, Comment, Praise’.
At the beginning of the school year, the game is played for approximately 10 minutes, three
times a week. By the end of the year, the game is played for 30 – 40 minutes every day
(more than one game a day can be played – i.e. one 20 minute game and one 15 minute
game), with the criterion for winning remaining four or fewer marks. By the end of the year,
the game is played at various times throughout the day and during various activities. In
short, the protocol evolves over the course of the year, moving from being played at regular
intervals and predictable times, with tangible, immediate rewards to being more
unpredictable in intervals and times of day with intangible, deferred rewards.
We have drafted a logic model for the Good Behaviour Game, and this is presented in
Appendix 1.
RESEARCH BASE FOR THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR GAME
The Good Behaviour Game was initially used in a Year 5 class to address disruptive
behaviour (Barrish, Saunders & Wolf, 1969). The programme utilised peer competition and
group rewards (i.e. privileges) to achieve reductions in out-of-seat and talking-out
behaviours. Pupils were divided into two teams and received points for rule infractions.
Teams with fewer than five points at the end of a pre-set amount of time earned a class
privilege. Daily and weekly prizes could be won and both teams could win concurrently. The
results from this initial study reported significant and consistent decreases in out-of-seat
and talking-out behaviours. Since this first study, the GBG has been used with various
populations across several different settings and has addressed numerous target behaviours
(see Tingstrom et al., 2006 for a review).
Early research around the game concentrated on replications, understanding the
mechanisms of effectiveness and extending the results to new populations and contexts
(Mackenzie, Lurye & Kellam, 2008). While these trials often involved small samples and
short follow-up periods, they did set the foundation for the next stage of prevention
research on the GBG.
8
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
There is a substantial body of empirical evidence from the US over many years supporting
the GBG as an effective team based classroom behaviour management strategy (e.g.
Barrish, Saunders & Wolf, 1969; Kellam, Brown et al. 1983; Ialongo, Poduska et al., 2001).
Research trials from the US, Belgium and the Netherlands (Kellam et al., 2008; van Lier,
Muthén, van der Sar & Crijnen, 2004; van Lier, Verhulst, van der Ende & Crijnen, 2003)
showed a positive impact with on-task behaviours and in reducing disruptive and aggressive
behaviour in classrooms. Over the longer-term and into young adulthood, participation in
GBG classrooms led to a reduction in bullying behaviour, antisocial and violent behaviour,
criminal activity, drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems, particularly with
those children who are most at risk -- young boys who exhibit more aggressive and
disruptive behaviours in early childhood (Kellam et al., 2008).
The seminal work by Dr. Sheppard Kellam and colleagues was part of a long-term research
partnership between the Baltimore City public school system and Johns Hopkins University,
(see Kellam, Reid & Balster, 2008 for an overview). From three generations of randomised
controlled field studies in the US, it was found that the GBG had a significant and meaningful
impact on young people, especially males, from childhood through to young adulthood
(aged 19-21). These studies showed significant and important reductions in a broad set of
problem outcomes: when followed up into early adulthood (i.e. 19-21) participants showed
50% lower rates of lifetime illicit drug abuse/dependence, were 59% less likely to smoke 10
or more cigarettes per day, and had a 35% lower rate of lifetime alcohol abuse/dependence.
(Kellam et al., 2008; Kellam et al., 2011). These findings were particularly strong for males
who, at an early age, were identified as more aggressive or disruptive: amongst the boys
identified as most at risk, 29% who played the GBG reported drug use disorders by early
adulthood, compared with 83% of controls. (Kellam et al., 2008; Kellam et al., 2011)
GBG children also showed improvements in educational attainment. For example, compared
with a control group, GBG participants scored higher in reading and in maths with gains
approximately equivalent to one additional year of academic progress. They were 36% less
likely to have received special education services at some points in primary and secondary
school. They were 21% more likely to have completed their secondary education and 62%
more likely to be attending university. (Kellam et al., 2008; Kellam et al., 2011)
Furthermore, in relation to cost effectiveness, Aos et al. (2004) conducted a study that
investigated the medium to longer-term potential benefits of the GBG for individuals and
broader society in the US. Although not directly transferable to the UK, their cost benefit
analysis does give an indication of potential impact from a financial perspective. When
benefits were monetised, the GBG returned $25.92 per $1.00 spent on the programme (for
just some outcomes). The average saving per pupil was $196, and the GBG was the least
costly to implement of six child development interventions, had the second best cost
effectiveness ratio, and had the strongest evidence base over the longer-term. In today’s
economic and political climate, it is increasingly important to invest in interventions that are
both informed by evidence and cost effective. In a recent update to the 2004 cost-benefit
analysis, Aos et al (2011) report that, taking account of the most recent scientific evidence,
the GBG shows a return of $96 for every $1 spent on the programme.
9
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PARTNERSHIP -- BACKGROUND TO THE FEASIBILITY PROJECT
In January 2010, Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford Brookes University began working
together on a project to improve child behaviour management in primary school classes. It
was supported by a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) grant, which is a UK-wide
programme enabling organisations to improve their productivity and performance through
the better use of knowledge, technology and skills that reside within the UK Knowledge
Base. This project was jointly funded by the Council and the KTP programme
(www.ktponline.org.uk; www.innovateuk.org). KTP includes grants from the Technology
Strategy Board and 17 other funding organisations; in this case part of the grant was
provided by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
The Council as a whole has broad and far reaching corporate objectives, including improving
educational achievement and the skill base, tackling social exclusion, improving economic
well-being, and reducing health and social inequalities. The Children, Young People and
Families (CYPF) directorate has lead responsibility for planning and commissioning services
for children and young people in Oxfordshire. The Council aims to deliver better longer-term
outcomes for vulnerable groups of children through earlier intervention using evidence
informed approaches. This project also complemented the strategic aims of the University
to develop research, links with local organisations and stakeholders, and to develop
knowledge transfer projects. The Faculty of Health and Life Science in particular, were
interested in prevention science as a strategic growth area. The KTP was an excellent
opportunity to adapt, test and roll-out the American based classroom management
programme as it was directly relevant to the aims and therefore to the strategy of both
organisations as a whole.
This collaboration has focused on the feasibility of using the GBG model developed by the
American Institutes for Research (AIR). They are a not for profit organisation and one of the
largest behavioural and social science research organisations in the United States and
internationally. Their overriding goal is to use the best science available to bring the most
effective ideas and approaches to enhancing everyday life. Brookes and AIR have
established a strong working relationship and AIR provided training, mentoring and
consultation services to the UK team. A licensing arrangement was also established for the
use of the AIR training materials and implementation process.
It is also important to note that the implementation of the GBG, based on the AIR model,
comprised two distinct parts: i) the game components and procedures and ii) the coaching
and support approach. At the time this project began, there were several services available
to schools that addressed pupil behaviour management. Many of these services were
delivered through the Council’s Behaviour and Support Team. Part of what made the GBG
distinct from other programmes already offered through the Council was the coaching and
mentoring support that was an integral part of the GBG as a package. Teachers received
training not only in implementation practices but also regular structured support from
Coaches who had extensive knowledge and expertise in behaviour management
approaches. Over the course of one academic school year, teachers received a minimum of
10
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
12 one-and-a-half-hour visits. The goal was 16 visits but due to time constraints the average
was 14 fortnightly visits.
The feasibility project involved working with 6 primary schools, 10 classrooms and 12
teachers across all the major hubs in Oxfordshire (North, Central and South). The GBG was
implemented for one academic school year in 10 classrooms (Years 1-4) with diverse needs
which are representative of characteristics of the wider Oxfordshire population (i.e. ranging
from high needs, high pupil turnover and significant behavioural challenges to more
advantaged and relatively affluent communities). Although Oxfordshire is one of the most
affluent and well educated areas of the UK, it also has pockets of significant deprivation and
vulnerable groups of children and young people.
11
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
EVALUATION APPROACH
As a feasibility project, our main objective was to determine the acceptability and utility of
the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) as a management strategy in UK school systems. As part of
the evaluation, we conducted qualitative interviews with teachers, head teachers and other
senior staff who were involved in the project both as consumers and potential purchasers.
Due to resource and developmental constraints (Bracken & Nagle, 2007), interviews with
pupils regarding their impressions and experiences were not conducted. We did engage in
some informal question and answer sessions over the course of the school year with a
selection of pupils and incorporated those responses into the film project and other
dissemination opportunities including media and training events and newsletters.
We also collected quantitative data in the form of scores from the validated Teacher
Observation of Classroom Adaptations - Revised (TOCA-R) where teachers were asked to
rate each child’s behaviour and performance during the previous 3 weeks on core tasks in
the classroom (Dolan, Kellam, Brown, et al., 1993). TOCA-R scales were completed by
teachers for each child in their class at the beginning of the school year and again at the end
of the school year.
A core component of the GBG is monitoring of behaviour. There are two primary pieces of
information that are collected as part of the GBG implementation: the number of rule
infractions during a game (game data) and the number of rule infractions when the game is
not being played (probe data). Game and probe data are used by coaches and teachers over
the course of the GBG implementation phases to reflect on teacher performance, and to
consider additional strategies and improvements to be used by teachers.
A cost model was developed based on the work completed in the KTP project in
Oxfordshire. The figures were calculated in consultation with Oxford Brookes University and
Oxfordshire County Council. The majority of the figures represent actual costs incurred over
the project with some amendments based on lessons learned and feedback from the project
manager, teachers, head teachers and coaches.
The project manager, who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the feasibility
project, as well as being the senior UK based GBG trainer and coach, kept a log of benefits
and challenges of the project, and this log forms the basis for a section on the project team’s
reflections of the project.
In the early stages of the project, we were awarded additional funding from the Research
and Business Development Office (RBDO) at Oxford Brookes University to fund a film
project. The purpose was to document this innovative project in its pilot year in Oxfordshire
primary schools. We received informed written consent at the University, Council, school
and individual level where appropriate.
12
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
The qualitative evaluation comprised 22 semi-structured interviews with 12 primary school
teachers, 6 head teachers and 4 coaches who participated in the feasibility project. The
semi-structured interviews were digitally recorded, ranged from 10 to 65 minutes and
typically lasted 30-40 minutes. The interviews were conducted in a relaxed and informal
manner and each group were asked between 7-14 questions that covered a broad range of
topics related to their participation in the project (see interview schedules in Appendix 2).
Initial and follow-up questions on these topics were adapted to the individual. For example,
they were asked about their first impressions, challenges, and parent feedback and pupil
response regarding the programme. Audio files were transcribed, checked against the
original recording for accuracy and then entered into the qualitative software package
MAXqda2 for systematic coding and analysis (MAXQDA10, undated).
As we were working with vulnerable children and young people, we acknowledged and
accepted responsibility for the ethical conduct of our work and ensured that safeguarding
and other appropriate provisions for scrutiny were in place including multi-levels of consent
from the local authority, school and university. Furthermore, all staff involved in this project
were appropriately vetted and trained according to local authority and school requirements,
including enhanced CRB disclosures.
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
The implementation of the game took place over one academic school year from September
2010 through to July 2011. A total of six schools across Oxfordshire participated. Four
schools were from partnerships in the North, one from the South and one from the central
area. One school was in Special Measures having failed an Ofsted inspection. School sizes
ranged from 82 to 350 pupils, with an average of 219. Children were also primarily of White
British descent.
There were a total of 10 classes and 12 teachers who ranged in age and experience. All
teachers were female and ranged in age from 22-54 years of age (mean age = 35)1. The year
groups taught ranged from 1 – 4, with three year 1/2 classes, three year 3 / 4 classes, two
year 3 classes and two year 4 classes. One school had two classes with a job share, and thus
over the course of the school year one class had three different teachers and the other class
had two (one teacher went on maternity leave in December 2010). On average, teachers
had been in the teaching profession for 8 years with a range from 1 – 21 years. Of the 11
teachers that responded, the average number of years at their current school was 3 with a
range of 1 – 6 years.
A total of 6 head teachers / deputy head teachers (H/DH) and 4 coaches were interviewed.
The head teachers ranged in age from 36-58 years with a mean of 49 years2. The average
1
One teacher chose not to provide this information
2
Data is based on 5 respondents – one H/DH chose not to provide this information
13
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
number of years spent in teaching was 19, with a range from 10-30 years. The majority of
H/DH’s had been at their current schools for 4 years (range = 3-6) and had been in senior
management for nearly 8 years (range = 3-13). The coaches ranged in age from 27 to 56
years, with a mean of 43 years. Their background and teaching experiences spanned several
areas including mental health, psychology and education (i.e. primary, secondary, university
and special education). All of the coaches had attained third level qualifications ranging
from bachelor to doctorate degrees and had been actively working in their respective fields
for 11-34 years (mean = 21).
Interviewees were recruited on the basis of participation in the feasibility project. Twenty
one women and one man were interviewed by an independent interviewer who worked for
the Council but was not associated with the project. One teacher was excluded as she had
gone on maternity leave two months into the project. All interviews were held on school
premises (i.e. staff room, library, office, etc.) and audio recorded. Some interviews were also
video recorded as there was a separate film project also taking place. Written informed
consent was acquired at the beginning of the project and again prior to the interview itself.
Thematic analysis was used (Braun & Clarke, 2006), beginning with the project manager
independently reading the transcripts and generating initial codes for emergent ideas about
the organisation of the data. Each transcript was read on several occasions and coded to
identify recurrent themes and patterns. Initial themes across transcripts were recombined
and revised using a process of continuous comparison. Participants were given pseudonyms
to protect their anonymity.
RESULTS
Because of their central role in the implementation of the GBG, teachers’ perspectives
formed the most substantive component of this section. However, the experiences of other
key stakeholders and in particular head teachers and coaches have been added where
appropriate. Specific feedback about the GBG training, and a summary of feedback from
GBG coaches, can be found in Appendix 3.
In general there were many positive comments about the GBG in terms of the benefits to
pupils:
“Their behaviour has improved a lot. We have people come into a class and say ‘wow
that’s a different class now’ (Amy)
“As the year went on, everyone kept noticing your class is totally different. Everyone
said: ‘I can’t believe how great you are’. They’d walk through and they’d be like: ‘Are
there children in here? Everyone’s in their seats. How is everybody working so hard
now?’ And the kids are very aware that they are different children. And I think that
they’ve realised now that they are different children and now: ‘Look at me, I’m
changed, I’m different. I’m good now’ ” (Katy)
14
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
The results from the qualitative interviews have been organised under five main themes:
1.0 Fitting it in
2.0 Is it worth it?
3.0 Sticking to the rules
4.0 Independent learning
5.0 The importance of coaching
Sub-themes were also identified in relation to the main themes (see Table 1)
Table 1. Themes and sub-themes from the teacher interview sessions.
Themes
1.0 Fitting in
2.0 Is it worth it?
3.0 Sticking to the rules
4.0 Independent learning
5.0 The importance of coaching
Sub-themes
1.1 Implementation workload
1.2 Differences with usual practice
1.3 Time involved in playing the GBG
1.4 Integrating the GBG with other teaching
1.5 Preparation to play the game
1.6 Ability of pupils
1.7 Lack of teacher-pupil interaction
2.1 Added burden
2.2 Developmental stage of pupils
2.3 Changes to teaching practice
2.4 A good investment
2.5 Willingness to pay
3.1 The “inflexibility” of the rules
3.2 Following the CCP protocol
3.3 The value of positive reinforcement
4.1 Learning can be enjoyable
4.2 Improved behaviour
4.3 Working in a team
4.4 Self-directed learning
5.1 The need for support
5.2 Time for reflection
5.3 Frustration with coaching
5.4 The value of objective feedback
15
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
1.0 FITTING IT IN
The challenge to implementing the GBG in teaching practice was a rich theme in terms of
informants’ comments. Seven sub-themes were identified in relation to the main theme:
1.1 Implementation workload
1.2 Differences with usual practice
1.3 Time involved in playing the GBG
1.4 Integrating the GBG with other teaching
1.5 Preparation to play the game
1.6 Ability of pupils
1.7 Lack of teacher-pupil interaction
1.1 IMPLEMENTATION WORKLOAD
Many of the informants’ comments focused on issues to do with incorporating the GBG into
their teaching practice. One teacher felt overwhelmed by what she had learned through the
GBG training and what was needed to implement the GBG in practice:
“It was…too much information, and I couldn’t take it in the first day back on an inset,
and we were bombarded. I felt bombarded” (Nicole)
Similarly a coach felt that the amount of time needed to support GBG implementation was
daunting:
“The workload was a bit of a challenge, and I think that, as a commitment, it was, a
challenge to arrange coaching sessions, to visit and find out what was going on, but
you know, we managed to do that. I think, you know, that with any sort of
programme like this, when it’s introduced, as part of a research project as well, that
there’s a fairly heavy workload that it goes with that. You need to meet with other
people and compare notes and do those sorts of things...” (Ringo, Coach)
A head teacher commented about the resource issues involved with implementing the GBG:
“My only difficultly was that I had lots of part time staff, because we have maternity
leaves, which made it difficult in the two classes we were using…my first impression
[of the game] was it’s going to take a bit of getting used to, but we’ll go with it”
(Dana, School D)
16
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Most teachers appreciated the value of the information collected and used in the project,
but had some concerns about the amount of it and frequency it had to be gathered. Some
teachers found the data collection quite problematic and were unsure of the purpose of
doing it. On the other hand, some teachers had no concerns about it and felt that it was a
very useful tool and resource that informed their practice.
“...what the data has made me look at, is stepping back and actually doing probes
rather than playing the game. And actually seeing that children are on task, and
actually looking at their learning behaviours, and seeing that, you know, in a
classroom where, I might expect some children to, if they were left independently, to
not be able to focus and get on with their work. And actually, they are.” (Christina)
“I don’t think it was too much of a problem, I think it was manageable. I mean, it’s
like the probes and kind of the observation notes and the progress reports. So yeah, I
think they were quite, it was definitely manageable within the timeframe that we
had” (Paul, Coach)“
“I think the amount of data we collected was perhaps unnecessary. I think perhaps
slightly less would have been sufficient. I understand that…the data is very
important. However, if was to be rolled out as a permanent fixture in the future,
perhaps less data would be – make it more manageable.” (Brittany)
“Well I would say that the huge amount of paperwork… I’m not a paper person. I do
understand why it was needed in terms of the research, but I know that it did affect
some of the teachers’ delivery actually, in terms of being able to keep up regularly
with the scoring, and also doing what they call probes, and they weren’t kept up to
date either, so it became a bit of a challenge” (John, Coach)
1.2 DIFFERENCES WITH USUAL PRACTICE
Two other teachers thought that GBG was different to their usual teaching practice and
would therefore be difficult to apply.
“I was slightly dubious about what we were being asked to do really. It was just
quite, it was such a different idea, and it was different to the behaviour management
that I would usually do in the classroom. So initially I was a bit, taken aback by it…”
(Jennifer)
“I was very sceptical, because I was thinking: ‘Hmmm, how will this work?’ because I
have to have something proved to me first, not first, but I’m very sceptical until I can
see the evidence…“ (Nicole)
1.3 TIME INVOLVED IN PLAYING THE GBG
Many teachers struggled to implement the recommended times for playing the GBG over
the year. At the start of the year, the recommended time for playing the game is 10
17
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
minutes, three times a week. As the year progresses, the game time is increased to 30-40
minutes once a day, every day. Two teachers reflected:
“I’ve only played it for 15-20 minutes, although this week I’ve played it for about 3035 minutes per day, only this week” (Aretha)
“We pretty much did play it every day, there might have been an odd exception but
we played it every day as far as I remember. I’m not sure we’ve ever got up to forty
minutes...we’re tending to do it about twenty minutes. We started on ten and then
we built it up to about twenty” (Norah)
One challenge that emerged for all the teachers was the frequency and duration of the
games in the latter part of the year. All teachers expressed concerns about this aspect of
the game and these seemed to focus on the length of time not directly teaching and
interacting with children and the implication resulting from that.
“I do find it too hard for me not to have interaction with the children for forty
minutes – it’s too much. Certainly, with the core subjects, I couldn’t do it. So I’m
playing the game a couple of times a week for about twenty, thirty minutes,
depending on the activity” (Florence)
“We’ve stuck to the 15 minutes [for playing the game]…it cuts into a lesson so much
that I can’t work with a group, or a TA can’t work with a little group, and in the
limited amount of time that we have with them in school, that has been tricky”
(Janelle)
“I think five days a week, that number of hours that you’re taking away, that you’re
putting children in the game, I think it’s a bit unrealistic…” (Katy)
“I don’t think it needs to be played for 40 minutes…I think that’s too long
personally…” (Amy)
1.4 INTEGRATING THE GBG WITH OTHER TEACHING
Sometimes other aspects of teaching made it difficult for teachers to implement the GBG:
“I’ve found, for example if you have a day out, or if you have PPA [Planning,
Preparation and Assessment], or if something’s going on in school, you can’t do it,
bank holidays all those types of things. So …sometimes I’ve only played it once or
twice a week because if I’ve been out on a course, or if we’ve had something else
going on in school which is quite likely. It disrupts everything and sometimes I find
the task you want to do doesn’t always lend itself to the good behaviour game,
although I know it should…it’s not always appropriate to play it in every activity you
do” (Amy)
Alongside their concerns, teachers also emphasised the successes that they had experienced
in integrating the GBG into their work. Their comments were often reflections of changes in
18
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
their attitude from where they started to where they are now in terms of their own
behaviour and the behaviour of their pupils:
“Initially I thought: ‘Oh my goodness, how am I going to do that for 30-40 minutes
every day?’ Whereas [before], we started off doing 10 minutes three times a week,
and then we went to the Booster day (teacher training day), and they were like: ‘By
June, you’d be expected to do it’ and we were like ‘No that’s impossible’. But now it’s
‘yes it is possible’, and I do, I have managed to achieve daily, most weeks, not every
week, but on the whole overall, 30 minutes a day which I might split up into two 15
minute slots….”(Nicole)
“I’ve gone from, initially saying: ‘How am I going to fit this in this day? How am I
going to? Oh, well we haven’t played it this morning, so we’ll have to play it this
afternoon, because I’m supposed to play it one time a day’. I’ve gone from that, to
easily, not even thinking about fitting it in, on both of my teaching days. So it
naturally fits in” (Christina)
1.5 PREPARATION TO PLAY THE GAME
Two teachers commented that the timing of the training sessions made implementation of
the GBG difficult (they would have preferred for the training to be earlier in the year). Due
to various constraints within the feasibility project, the training occurred mid-September,
which is later than recommended by the programme developers.
“I think initially we should have had training like, straight away… so the training was
late and we started the game quite late. It wasn’t until November that we started
learning the game, and then it was Christmas, and it was all sort of a rush to get it
fitted in…” (Jennifer)
Fitting the GBG in to existing work schedules was not just an issue for teachers in the study
schools. The model of GBG implementation relied heavily on coaches who also had to
adjust their workloads to support schools. One coach remarked:
“It worked very well. The PM [project manager] had really prepared us, and provided
us the coaching folder, that gave us all the relevant information. Again, had I really
taken it on board in October, I probably would have been a lot clearer about what the
expectation was, but I was able to diary the times” (John, Coach)
1.6 ABILITY OF PUPILS
Other challenges to fitting the GBG into teaching practice resulted from the age and ability
groupings of pupils. The GBG was originally designed for children in year 2 (grade 1) in the
US. During the pilot project, it was not possible to recruit only year 2 classes. Consequently,
the study included a range of year 1/2 classes, year 3/4 classes and some year 3 and year 4
classes. All three of the year 1/2 teachers expressed concern about the Year 1 pupils in
terms of their developmental age and ability to fully understand the game and its
19
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
procedures. Teachers also voiced concerns about finding opportunities to play the game
that did not interfere with required lessons:
“Sometimes incorporating it into different activities, finding opportunities to play the
game is difficult because not all situations will lend themselves to it. I found that
particularly in Math’s work, they do need to be more ability grouped, especially as
they span from children who are working actually at a Foundation level - even though
they are Year 1 - right through to some very bright Year 2 children. I’ve found the
GBG doesn’t lend itself to that situation so well” (Eliza)
“Having Year 1s and 2s…it’s very challenging when they need your help…that is a
very difficult thing for very tiny children because they need you” (Aretha)
“I find that sometimes very young children can work for a short period of time, but
then they either need the teacher to give some kind of input or else their attention
and concentration has wandered” (Eliza)
“My children are quite young, they were just turning five, some of them coming into
my class and I think the understanding of the rules initially was quite tricky, so there
was lots of trying to role-play and trying to give examples of actually what the
behaviours were we were looking for” (Jennifer)
A head teacher concurred with these comments and suggested that the demands of the
game needed to be matched with the needs of pupils:
“Fitting it into daily routines for two teachers, seemed to be a bit more difficult then
we initially thought. So it was trying to match the needs of the program and match
the needs of the class and how there could be a happy medium between the two…”
(Bella, School B)
1.7 LACK OF TEACHER-PUPIL INTERACTION
Much of the apprehension expressed revolved around the length of time not directly
teaching and interacting with children and the implications resulting from that. The
criticisms and concerns about the lack of interaction with pupils during the game and the
missed teaching opportunities are related to the protocol of the game, which suggests
minimal pupil-teacher interaction during the game to encourage independence in the longer
term. Some teachers in the study identified this as one of the most challenging aspects of
game implementation:
“I think the thing that I find hardest when I’m playing the game is the lack of
interaction between the teacher and child, and children. Because I think there’s
always such a pressure, that the curriculum is so full, and there is so much to do, that
time spent, when you are not actually interacting or teaching, is very, very difficult to
accept in a way. I know that I am fostering behaviour, but [pause] it’s this, it’s
especially with the very small children, there is always so much that I could be doing
with them, [laughs] and also, they find it very hard sometimes to go for long periods
without interaction with the teacher” (Eliza)
20
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“Well first of all, from my point of view as a teacher, my job is to be with children all
the time, and constantly support. And the idea of just letting them sit there, and be
silent, seemed, and for me not to have any interaction with them, I thought it was
crazy. And it fit maybe some other school systems, but it wasn’t going to fit with
ours. Because that was ridiculous, because my job is to support, and it was taking me
away from that, and I didn’t like it. Definitely, definitely negative” (Katy)
“It’s great that the children can be independent, and I know my class can be
independent for forty minutes, that’s not a problem, but I think the teacher is such an
invaluable resource that for the teacher not to be involved in direct teaching of, say
six children who are in a guided group for forty minutes, is too much” (Florence)
Whilst refraining from interaction with pupils is contrary to teacher training and instinct, it is
important to note that there is a rationale to this part of the protocol. Teachers rarely get
the opportunity to observe children directly for specific skill development and acquisition.
The daily curriculum is packed with activities and assessments and the need to support
children across various areas. Teachers are busy and multi-tasking during the school day.
The game provides an opportunity for teachers to focus solely on behaviour and learning
and children’s mastery of a task. Some teachers in the study acknowledged the positive
impact of observation, but remained conflicted about what they perceived as missed
teaching opportunities:
“I think the teacher is such an invaluable resource that for the teacher not to be
involved in direct teaching of, say six children who are in a guided group for forty
minutes, is too much” (Florence)
“In schools I think we’re used to doing, you do your main input and then do the
guided teaching with the group and the fact that we obviously couldn’t interact with
the children at all during the time the game is being played, that was a bit of a
concern cause it’s almost, went contrary to what we’re normally used to doing, but
as we have gone along it has had an impact” (Paula)
Some participants made recommendations for changes in the process of the game. These
focused primarily around the frequency and duration of game time, which has been
previously discussed above. Overall, the teachers did not recommend any major revisions
to the model but rather expressed concerns about specific aspects of the model that could
be amended.
“I think 30 minutes a day is more achievable than 40 minutes, but maybe have that
flexibility if you wanted to do it a little bit longer, and sometimes I have gone a little
but longer as well” (Nicole)
“I think that we’ve done it as [the game] often as we could, and in my three days, I’ve
usually managed to do it twice. So, I think that it needs to be done over a sustained
period during the week, on a regular basis rather, so that the children get the game,
and that it reinforces it continually, but perhaps daily is a little too unrealistic” (Eliza)
21
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“I think, that, as I became more familiar with the game, and more confident with the
game, I’ve found more opportunities when I could do it, rather than having to think
very hard about how to go about it, and how to fit it in. I became more confident at
slotting it in when I could. Also, as I became more familiar with using it across
different areas, it opened up more opportunities for me to use it” (Eliza)
2.0 IS IT WORTH IT?
Many of the participants asked the question that forms the basis of the second theme
during the course of the project: Did the benefits of implementing the project outweigh the
effort involved in delivering it? Five sub-themes were identified in their responses:
2.1 Added burden
2.2 Developmental stage of pupils
2.3 Changes to teaching practice
2.4 A good investment
2.5 Willingness to pay
2.1 ADDED BURDEN
A small group of teachers were initially apprehensive about the relevance of the game for
their pupils and whether it would merit the investment of time and resources:
“The first few weeks, I found I was planning a lesson, because I’ve got to do the GBG,
which, you get frustrated at and you’re cross at, ‘cause you’re thinking: ‘I just want to
teach, I just want to teach’. So it was an added burden” (Eliza)
2.2 DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE OF PUPILS
Other specific concerns reported revolved around the age and developmental stage of
children (e.g. year 1 pupils) and their behaviour:
“The children in my class had things like ADHD and that type of thing, so I was
thinking how the game would sort of develop for them ‘cause obviously they have
problems sitting in their seats for long periods of time, so how to adapt the game for
the children’s sort of needs if you like in the class and how it would sort of, work for
them” (Amy)
22
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“I didn’t think it would be that beneficial to the class that I have, as the children I
have don’t have any significant behavioural difficulties, whereas classes I’ve had
previously I felt would probably benefit a lot more” (Brittany)
“I was kind of concerned about the children who have behaviour issues, whether they
would find it a challenge by mentioning their name, personally by name and saying:
“Oh you know, you’ve broken rule number, whatever it is, you know, well done the
rest of you,” Would that make them feel worse than they already felt?” (Aretha)
“I thought that [blaming each other] would be a problem with the game…that they
would blame that person for breaking a rule” (Florence)
2.3 CHANGES TO TEACHING PRACTICE
On the other hand, some teachers said that the benefits of using the GBG outweighed the
disadvantages. Many of their reflections focused on the positive changes to their teaching
practice:
“I do think that a lot of schools will benefit from it actually. It’s a tool to stand back
and look at your own practice” (Christina)
“Sometimes it helps me…when they come in very lively, or particularly after a long 2
week break…to get them back into the routine...” (Paula)
“I have had to be really clear in my own instructions. It’s had quite an effect of how I
teach. I’ve realised that I have to make it really clear what they’ve got to do so that
they don’t need to ask me questions” (Norah)
“I’ve just realised how important it is to reward the good behaviour and notice it”
(Katy)
“It’s made me look at teaching certain subjects in a different way, not just in ability
groups, but, mixing them up” (Janelle)
“You started to use it as a strategy to help you in your teaching, rather than teaching
because of it” (Nicole)
“It has, I think it has, and as a teacher, I feel I’ve benefitted from the opportunity to
really look at how I group children, how I conduct things, because when you have
been teaching for quite a few years, you can slip into habits and routines, and it’s
nice to be able to have the opportunity to think about that afresh, and have fresh
input and look at new ideas. So that’s been fantastic” (Eliza)
2.4 A GOOD INVESTMENT
The consensus from the teachers is that the GBG would be a good investment for children
and teachers. Teacher’s found the experience very valuable and rewarding and reported
positively about their involvement in the project. The only reservation that emerged was in
23
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
relation to the current economic climate. For some schools, they are facing a decrease in
the number of teachers and support staff with the budget cuts. If given the choice between
losing a staff member and choosing to invest in the GBG, most teachers would be hard
pressed to choose the GBG. However, when asked if the GBG was good value for money,
the overwhelming consensus was positive.
“My personal choice would be, would be funding behaviour management, and
classroom management, and this is a very good way of doing that” (Brittany)
“I believe it would be an excellent use of funding because I would love to take on, well
not to take on, but to have the whole school follow the good behaviour game model,
and be implemented” (Nicole)
“I think it is and has been a valuable experience, and I think it is very good for the
children, and they do love it, so I still think actually there is a place for the funding for
the good behaviour game” (Aretha)
2.5 WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Another concern about the value of the programme concerned the costs involved in
implementing it. One head teacher was convinced about the cost-benefits of using the
GBG:
“Yes, if I had 10,000 pounds, and that’s what it cost, I would. And the reason I say
that is that I have not seen anything that matches this programme of intervention for
children and staff” (Ana, School A)
Another head teacher was also committed to the programme providing the implementation
model was different to that used during the project:
“If you were to hand me £1,000 now, I would say I would absolutely use it for the
good behaviour game. And I would tell you the year group it would be in and I would
tell you I would pretty much do it in the way it was done. I would want if I possibly
could to facilitate some of those rules and things happening a little bit more quickly
than they happened this year because I'd just want to see us getting to the stage
where the children's learning is impacting a little bit sooner” (Carla, School C)
Other head teachers were more qualified in what they would be prepared to invest in
implementing the GBG:
“Yes, I think [that would be a good investment of £1000] because it has worked,
we’ve seen it work in school…[but £3000], that might be a bit too steep…I think we
would look seriously into doing it if the cost was reasonable and we could afford it”
(Bella, School B)
“I think a thousand pounds yes, I could justify that and be part of our school
development plan, and I think a thousand pounds could be definitely spent on that
24
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
[GBG]… [But] I have to be honest in my present financial situation, with a £30,000
deficit, I couldn’t justify spending £3000” (Dana, School D)
“I think it helped that it was funded this year. I think that we were in a different
position probably from other schools, because of budget constraints and special
measures, so we wouldn't have taken it on if it hadn't been funded and we hadn't
been personally approached… We have an allocated amount money for behaviour
and that's quite a lot of money sunk into one pot, so I would want to know and be
assured that it would have the impact that it perhaps says it does” (Flora, School F)
3.0 STICKING TO THE RULES
There are some aspects of the GBG that can be adapted to the context that the teacher is
working in e.g. teaching topics, pupil rewards. However, for theoretical reasons and issues
relating to the fidelity of GBG implementation, a number of aspects of the game are
invariant i.e. the four rules, “Check, Comment, Praise (CCP)”. Three sub-themes were
identified from informants’ comments:
3.1 The “inflexibility” of the rules
3.2 Following the CCP protocol
3.3 The value of positive reinforcement
The GBG is often described as a simple and yet elegant team based classroom behaviour
management approach. Teachers receive 18 hours of group based training over the course
of a year that includes the theoretical underpinnings of GBG strategies prior to
implementation and the necessary building blocks for practical application in the classroom.
Part of the learning experience involves a specific protocol that includes a 6-10 week preimplementation schedule. Teachers are expected to teach children the rules, notify parents,
establish teams, and practice the game just prior to the official start or launch of the game.
3.1 THE “INFLEXIBILITY” OF THE RULES
Some elements of the game were more amenable to variation while others were less so.
For example, there were four class rules. It was expected that these four rules would be the
overriding rules in the classroom. Many schools had additional rules established which we
felt could be incorporated into the four class rules quite naturally. Part of the elegance of
the game is that the four class rules cover every eventuality and are designed to be easy to
remember and understood.
“…we were told that we had to stick to the rules very closely, I was worried about
breaking the rules myself, but when we began playing it, it soon became clear why
that was necessary for the consistency” (Janelle)
25
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
The rules and voice levels used as part of GBG implementation were extremely well received
by the teachers. These were not a core element of class teaching, but were introduced as
an additional resource to help with behaviour management in the classrooms. Research
from the US showed that these four rules covered every eventuality likely to arise in a
primary school class. The GBG rules are also broad enough that they would complement
any existing school rules.
Teachers were asked to spend the first three weeks teaching children about the class rules
through explanation, modelling and demonstration. It was critical that children understood
the rules initially and that they became part of the ongoing learning process, refining their
meaning as time went on. For example, rule 3: “getting out of your seats with permission”
may initially mean raising your hand and asking the teacher before you leave your seat.
Over time, children master that specific definition and associated behaviour, so the teacher
broadens the definition to include having all four legs of the chair on the ground at any time
(i.e. no swinging on the chairs). The form of the four rules remained consistent over the
duration of the project, but their scope in terms of defining what behaviours apply to each
rule varied.
“I’ve loved the class rules and voice level charts, they’ve been fantastic, and it’s really
useful to have a hook to hang any praise, any rewards, any sanctions on, even
outside of the Good Behaviour Game. So if the class isn’t following instructions, then
it’s useful to be able to refer back to that rule. And in terms of the voice levels,
walking around school, the children know I expect their voices to be turned off,
they’re very good now at showing me which voice level I would expect for different
activities outside of the Good Behaviour Game. So, my class tend to say if I ask them
what voice level do I want, they’re able to show me on their fingers, which I would
expect, so that’s been very useful” (Florence)
“I think the really nice thing about the rules is that they cover every eventuality really.
There’s nothing that they don’t cover” (Janelle)
“We found that they actually, they cover every situation. I can’t think of a time when
we haven’t been able to use one of those rules to cover a particular behaviour issue”
(Eliza)
“If I think about the things that are the most useful, it is the four rules, because for
children, when we start out in our classes in the beginning of the school year, we
spend a couple of days getting to make class rules together. So you talk about what
we expect in the class and the children generate their own rules. So, all of a sudden,
you’ve got this long list of rules that they’ve made at the front of a classroom. You
always try to turn it into these positive statements, so “We will walk through the
school,” “we will listen carefully.” and that kind of thing. But you’ve got loads and
loads and loads of them, and for children of seven and eight, it’s too many to
remember, whereas four, everything fits into four...” (Katy)
Teachers also recognised the utility of the rules when applied on a consistent basis.
Children were able to follow the rules exceptionally well, especially within a game format.
26
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
However, in order for children to generalise the rules, it was important for the rules to apply
both during and outside the game. Teachers needed to remind children that even though
the game was not being played, that the rules still applied across all situations.
“the one thing I have learned is that you need to actually keep to the rules of the
game, as your class rules. You need to actually have it embedded, and not just expect
to, once a day, just: “Oh, we’re going to play the game now. Right, these are the rules
for the game.” Because that does not work, you do actually need to actually use
those rules all the time, and not just when you’re playing the game.” (Christina)
3.2 FOLLOWING THE CCP PROTOCOL
Another component of the game that sparked some debate amongst teachers was the
‘check, comment, praise’ (CCP) protocol. Whenever a team member breaks a rule, the
recommended procedure is to announce the team that broke the rule and is getting a mark,
the specific child that broke the rule, name which rule was broken, and praise the rest of the
team (if applicable) and any other teams who were following the rule. For example:
“Team Dolphin gets a mark because Johnny broke rule number one ’We will work quietly’. I
like the way the rest of Team Dolphin and everyone else in the class is working quietly”
Teachers were encouraged to follow the CCP script with as little variation as possible. The
principle behind this is grounded in learning theory. Identification of a specific child who
has broken a rule was not meant to be punitive in any way. Rather, its purpose was to
provide a learning opportunity for the child and more generally, for the team. It is difficult
to correct or change problem behaviour if the specific problem is not clear. The purpose of
naming of a child overtly is to help them identify what behaviour they should not repeat.
More importantly, it is an opportunity for the child’s team to rally round to achieve
behavioural objectives together. The inflexibility of this component was challenging for
many teachers initially as it was counterintuitive and went seemed to go against much of
their teacher training:
“We’re very, very much as teachers taught throughout our entire training, to take an
idea and make it our own; this very specifically says: ‘don’t do that.’ And I can very,
very much see the reasoning behind that…from my personal point of view I would
have liked to change a few things [about the game], to suit my class…because it was
so, you know, prescribed. You do this, this, this and this [and] that I found it quite,
quite limiting” (Brittany)
“One of the things I find really hard is to stick to the script when you’re marking down
the marks. I found it incredibly difficult to say exactly what I’m supposed to say, I
keep adding bits or taking bits off or, because I think it’s just not natural as a teacher
to follow a very very prescribed script…it’s a small issue but I found it a little bit
challenging”(Norah)
27
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“It was getting used to the script and not only saying the words off [laughs] the
script, carrying it around… But yeah once you get into the hang of it and have the
script there as a reminder just in case, that’s helped” (Paula)
3.3 THE VALUE OF POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
Positive reinforcement is one of the core elements of the GBG. Within the game, there are
multiple opportunities to provide children with positive reinforcement. It is a critical
component for success and all teachers agreed that it was a necessary part of the game. All
teachers already used positive reinforcement with their pupils in some form. The game
provided a specific structure and schedule of reinforcement. There was a general consensus
that reinforcement through rewards, praise and other means was an important part of the
programme.
“They like the rewards, and I’m now trying to get some more intrinsic rewards…
‘cause we started off with stickers, we’re now using badges, so they have a different
colour badge for each day of the game, so they can earn up to 5 badges… they enjoy
having their stickers or their badges each game if they’ve won the game. They enjoy
the reward at the end of the week, having a special reward. It may be a bit of extra
golden time, or we have little treats that we can give them. They do like it, and I
think it just helps them, especially with reading or just giving them that focused time
(Aretha)
“I think without having that reward system they wouldn’t have that element of
competition [laughs] between themselves and, I don’t think it would work” (Paula)
“I think the fact that we’re giving prizes to children... I think it works really well, my
class love the game and the prizes, and you can see that their behaviour’s completely
changed because of that” (Amy)
4.0 INDEPENDENT LEARNING
One of the key objectives of the GBG is to develop greater independence and selfmanagement in pupils. However, this involves the teacher refraining from interacting with
pupils when the GBG is played. This was perhaps the most controversial aspect of
implementing the game for teachers and four sub-themes were identified:
4.1 Learning can be enjoyable
4.2 Improved behaviour
4.3 Working in a team
4.4 Self-directed learning
28
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Part of the procedure in the GBG is to limit teacher-pupil interaction during the game itself.
The teacher is meant to use the time during the game to observe behaviour and identify
where children may need more support. It is important to note that while interaction is not
encouraged, there are special circumstances that arise that require a teacher’s attention
(i.e. if a child is very upset or becomes aggressive). The rationale behind limiting interaction
with pupils during the game is to encourage greater independence and self-management. It
is critical that the teacher selects an activity that the child has not yet mastered, but one
that they are relatively close to mastering. Selecting an activity that is new and unfamiliar
to the child is not appropriate or functional to playing the GBG. It is desirable that children
are challenged, but also that they have success as they develop greater independence.
Judgements regarding pupils’ development as independent learners were made by the
teachers and coaches as pupils were not interviewed as part of the research study. Within
this theme, a clear point of interest that emerged concerned pupil skill development and
general improvements in their behaviour. Aspects of this included, but were not limited to,
improved behaviour, teamwork and self-directed learning.
4.1 LEARNING CAN BE ENJOYABLE
Teachers overall impression of pupil enjoyment from playing the GBG was very positive.
Despite some initial concerns about applicability and relevance, the general feedback from
observation and pupil response was extremely upbeat. Children commented that they
loved playing the game, requested to play it and listed it as one of their favourite activities
to do. This feedback was consistent across all teachers and classes.
“They’re really excited about playing it, and yeah, absolutely love it” (Brittany)
“They like it, definitely. When I say, ‘We’re playing the game’ they’re all pleased.
They will remind me if we haven’t played it” (Norah)
“They enjoy it. I mean they request to play it now, which is very nice” (Jennifer)
“They listed it as one of their favourite activities to do” (Nicole)
A parent observed:
“That the children come home, quite excited, and quite pleased that they’re playing
this game” (Christina)
4.2 IMPROVED BEHAVIOUR
The majority of teachers expressed enthusiasm about the skill development of their pupils
as a result of playing the GBG. For some, it was unexpected and yet exciting. However, one
common concern that emerged from playing the game at the beginning of the school year
was the lack of awareness and caring for others that pupils demonstrated. Because one of
the core elements of the game is team membership, seeing pupils work together to achieve
goals was very satisfying to the teachers.
29
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“This is what I really liked, the peer behaviour, managing everybody’s behaviour as a
team. So, it’s very much ‘we’re a team, if one of us is behaving badly we’re all, going
to suffer as a result of that, because we won’t be able to work as hard etc.’ and
children were able to manage each other’s behaviour very easily” (Brittany)
“There’s less just random movement, you know, wandering off to get a pencil and
just having a chat…I think they’re just a bit more sensible really. They’re making
better choices (Jennifer)
“There are a couple of pupils who I would have thought would be more high profile,
who last year were on my radar as Deputy Head, who haven't been…there has been
that sort of calming effect in the sense of they know how to play the game, they
know what they're doing, they know the expectations involved in it…[and] they work
better together now than at the beginning of the year” (Deputy Head teacher Flora,
School F)
Three teachers reported that parents had noticed changes in pupils’ behaviour too:
“When I’ve had some parent helpers in, actually playing the game, and they cannot
believe the fact that children can sit quietly, focused, without the noise level. Just
goes. And they can do it at that age. So they are very impressed” (Christina)
“…They [the parents] notice the difference. When my class used to come in in the
morning, it was like a herd of rhinos come in through the door at 9:00 in the morning.
And now, honestly, my children they go, they hang up their coats, they come back,
they sit down, and they just get on. I don’t even need to tell them what to do, they
just do it. And parents can see it. They’re just like ‘Crikey, they’re all right this
morning, aren’t they?’ Yes they are. [Laughs]” (Katy)
“At first, when we introduced the game and sent the letters out, they were really
noticing different things and, and they would say things like: “Oh, he’s much more
polite at home,” and “he’s sitting.” There was a child who wouldn’t really sit down for
his dinner, he was up and about all the time, and his mum said “Oh, he’s sitting down
now and not wandering off all the time” (Janelle)
4.3 WORKING IN A TEAM
Some teachers noticed that pupils worked more as a team:
“[My class] didn’t come across as being able to share, being able to help each other,
they were just: ‘Oh, well I’m going to do this”. Whereas now they’re like; ‘Oh, come
on, come on. Do this’. Or they encourage each other if somebody hasn’t got it,
they’ll help each other more now…and that has been lovely to see” (Nicole)
“it has worked really well, because it’s meant that the more able have helped the less
able, and it’s kind of given the less able a bit of boost as well cause they’re not in
their own group all the time” (Janelle)
30
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“It’s the way in which they communicate with each other. So they’ll use the language
of the GBG. If they’re supposed to be silent, then they’ll do this [makes a gesture of
index finger to mouth] and this means quiet…and you’ll see them doing this across
the table...just to remind each other, and that’s what’s great about the GBG. It’s
developing that support network, if you like, within their own groups, it’s not just
about ‘me,’ as an individual, it’s about ‘us’ working together. And it is lovely to see,
and it does make you smile when you see it” (Head teacher Ana, School A)
“It really made sure that they listened to what they had to do for their task, and it
also meant that they worked well independently, they weren’t asking me for answers
all the time, and they started asking people on their team to help them if they were
stuck, or looking out for people on their team. If they saw someone was struggling,
they would help them” (Janelle)
“I think the big change that I observed was in prosocial behaviour, so an increase in
teamwork, and a lot of the children, when I arrived in the classroom, and it was the
teacher’s experiences as well, were very quiet and didn’t play with each other, they
didn’t interact. They put up their hands and asked the teacher for help. They were
not looking for help from each other at all. So we worked quite a lot on trying to
bring in some strategies, where they, each child had to ask two other peers before
they could ask the teacher. Doing strategies like that as part of the game that were
really really helpful. And I think that was one of the nicest things to see.” (George,
Coach)
4.4 SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING
Some teachers reported that pupils were working in a more self-directed way:
“They can work more independently. What we've particularly noticed is the children
can settle more quickly to the task. They can work much more independently. There
can be the right level of noise in the classroom to facilitate all of that happening. And
I think there is an intrinsic motivation in the children to actually be able to
concentrate for that length of time” (Head teacher Carla, School C)
“We did a little questionnaire with them and they said the most things that they
enjoyed is that they help each other, that they’re working independently. So it was
quite interesting that they actually recognise it. It was quite surprising” (Paula)
“I’ve noticed an improvement just generally as a class there you know, just their
attention and they come in the morning and they can manage themselves and very
much taking responsibility” (Brittany)
“I think the greater sort of impacts have been on children’s approach to learning,
their attitudes” (Head teacher Edna, School E)
It is important that the game is played during an activity that involves some component of
independent work. Initially, the activities that are most conducive to learning how to play
the game include worksheets, reading, writing or art activities. One of the strengths of the
31
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
game is that it is designed to fit naturally within the existing curriculum. There should not
be any additional teaching time required – that is, a teacher should not feel that they need
to create an activity outside their normal lesson plan so that they can play the game.
However, finding activities as pupils met criteria was challenging for some teachers initially.
The challenge was to find activities where each child had an independent component that
they were responsible for.
Independent activities were not limited to worksheets and solitary assignments.
Independent activities could take place in pairs or small groups as well, as long as there was
an independent component. For example, the game could be played during a group based
activity where children had to create a poster about Egyptian mummies. Each child would
be responsible for a different component but would also need to work together to reach the
end goal of a poster. Once teachers understood this concept of independent contribution,
finding activities and times to play the game became easier.
“I’ve tried to play it in sort of a range of different subjects, I’ve done it in PE and I’ve
actually played it outside with the children before, and I’ve done it in a variety of sort
of non-core activities and lots more sort of the creative-curriculum type activities…”
(Amy)
“I think it can definitely be used in any setting. And we have in fact tried applying the
game in all different settings, and not just the classroom you know, outside, in PE etc.
and it’s worked you know, really absolutely fine” (Brittany)
“Yeah definitely, because it’s a different environment. In PE, the children see, it
sometimes ‘I’m not in a classroom I don’t need to transfer those rules over,’ so it
would be quite nice to see it within that setting as well” (Paula)
5.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF COACHING
Coaching of teachers was a key element in the GBG implementation model adopted for this
feasibility project. Part of what made this programme unique from other available
behaviour management interventions was the professional development and support
provided to teachers. Over the course of an academic school year, each teacher received
fortnightly coaching or mentoring. Coaches observed and worked with the teacher on a 1:1
basis for an hour in the classroom and then spent an additional 30 minutes discussing areas
for improvement but also reinforcing the areas that were successful. Coaches spent a
significant amount of time in the beginning of the school year establishing rapport and
building a trust based relationship with the teachers. Four sub-themes were developed in
informants’ comments about the importance of coaching:
5.1 The need for support
32
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
5.2 Time for reflection
5.3 Frustration with coaching
5.4 The value of objective feedback
5.1 THE NEED FOR SUPPORT
It is very important to provide the expertise around behaviour management strategies and
game implementation but equally, it was important to individualise the coaching to meet
the needs of each teacher.
“The coaching I’ve had has been amazing, it’s been incredible, and I couldn’t have
done the game without the support of the coach…the coach, is your critical friend, so
it’s very important, and you get these strategies to support you so you know,
and…it’s somebody coming in with a fresh eye and can say: “Oh, that’s not going so
well, but however why not try this?” And that at the beginning of the year really
helped me” (Nicole)
“It’s been incredibly supportive, I’ve never at any time felt judged in any way and it’s
fantastic when you have somebody that you don’t know coming into your classroom
and watching how you’re actually teaching, it’s incredibly important not to feel
judged and to feel that somebody is there to support you rather than assess what
you’re doing. And my experience of the coaching has been that it has been very
supporting, there have always been suggestions, and [Coach’s name] has always
been very very positive about reinforcing the good things and lots of praise. [laughs]
like children, we all like praise and reinforcement, and there’s been so much of that,
so it’s been fantastic” (Eliza)
“I also think having [the coach] there, which I’m sure, again you know, she’s been in
contact with me this week and it’s been great: “Anything I can help you with?” And of
course that’s just a great chestnut to have that, isn’t it? “Fantastic, I know you’re
there” (Aretha)
5.2 TIME FOR REFLECTION
Several teachers commented that having time for reflection was an important component
of the coaching process:
“With the coaching sessions…we have had time to reflect, so we don’t always realise
the actual impact there but looking back and talking to my coach through the data
that’s there and just looking back at both the probes and the games and the number
of marks the children have received and seeing how actually, yes it is decreasing
along with the amount of time, has been quite useful to see” (Paula)
33
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
“The coach is able to be that external voice, no preconceived ideas about your class,
about the year group and so on, they can ask the pertinent questions to really get
you thinking about that child, that team, or a group of children in your class”
(Florence)
“It made me reflect on how the class was doing, whereas probably without [the
coach] coming in, I would’ve just gone through the game and just kept playing it
rather than stopping... Discussing it with someone really makes you think about what
they need to do next and reflect on their progress so far” (Janelle)
“I think, initially, I started off just using the GBG in a limited number of curriculum
areas. I think, as I was encouraged to broaden that, to take on different experiences
and different, different curriculum areas to use the game in. That’s been very useful”
(Eliza)
5.3 FRUSTRATION WITH COACHING
The feedback from teachers regarding improvements that could be made in terms of the
coaching model revolved primarily around time and skill development. The coaching model
involved fortnightly visits to schools over the course of the academic school year. Typically,
teachers require more support initially and less frequent support as they master the
elements of game implementation. Having said that, the level of support required varies
with each teacher. Some of the criticism from the teachers focused on this issue. Other
areas that teachers identified as challenging included time management and frustration
with behaviour change in pupils.
“I think that it’s very useful when you’re learning how…to implement the good
behaviour game… I think there needs to be a point that perhaps when you’re scoring
a certain level…then I don’t feel it would probably be necessary anymore… it would
probably be best used on somebody that perhaps needs it more” (Brittany)
“I can only see it from an NQT’s [Newly Qualified Teacher] point of view, because
we’ve got to do so much, we’re learning so much all at once, so I think it has been
quite tricky to fit things in…with planning and trying to put a game in and to find time
to see [the coach]. It can be quite, overwhelming” (Jennifer)
“The only thing I found slightly frustrating is, I was asking the coaches lots of
questions, you know, how could I do this better? How could I? I was still quite
worried about how noisy they were as soon as we finished the game and I just didn’t
feel I was getting many answers. They were saying, just keep playing the game and
you’ll see a difference and I think, I don’t know, maybe I was being unfair, but I sort
of felt I wanted an answer, I wanted them to solve the problem” (Norah)
5.4 THE VALUE OF OBJECTIVE FEEDBACK
There was a general consensus that coaching was a necessary part of successful game
implementation. Teachers valued the support and objectivity of the coach. There was an
34
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
appreciation for the expertise involved, having someone monitor progress and feedback
about the areas that could be improved upon but also the areas that have been successful.
“Unless you are coached, and unless you are supported, it’s very hard to keep to the
actual rules, you tend to tweak things, you tend to change things. And I do think it’s
important for, the way the game is designed, to keep the integrity of playing the
game. And I don’t think you would do that unless you were coached to do that”
(Christina)
“I think it’s really, I think it’s really valuable. I can imagine if you kept playing the
game and people weren’t coming to watch occasionally, you would get into quite bad
habits because you let things slip” (Norah)
“I do think for somebody like me, I need somebody to come in and say: “Can I make
sure you’re doing it? Can I pop into the class and just see that it’s no track?”
Because otherwise, if I know somebody’s not going to bother, then I’m not going to
either” (Katy)
“if you’ve got someone coming in, ‘right, you’re doing the right thing’ and then
asking, and then giving you, to make it even better, we can always learn something,
so giving you that reassurance and then pushing you on further, is obviously always
helpful” (Brittany)
35
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
TEACHER OBSERVATION OF CLASSROOM ADAPTATION - REVISED (TOCA-R)
The Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation (TOCA) scales were originally developed
in the 1970s (Kellam et al., 1975) to assess the social adaptive classroom behaviours of firstgrade students, as observed by their teachers. A major revision to the original TOCA was
made for a series of prevention field trials in Baltimore in the 1990s (TOCA-R; WerthamerLarsson, Kellam, & Wheeler, 1991). As with the original version, the TOCA-R was
administered by a trained evaluator in an interview with the class teacher.
Koth, Bradshaw & Leaf (2009) summarise the psychometric properties of the TOCA-R as
follows:
“The test–retest correlation, over a 4-month interval with different interviewers, was .75 or
higher for each subscale, and the alpha coefficient for each subscale exceeded .80 (Johns
Hopkins Prevention Intervention Research Center, 2006; Werthamer-Larsson et al., 1991).
The predictive validity of the TOCA-R has also been investigated. For example, high scores on
the Disruptive/Aggressive Behavior subscale in elementary school have been shown to be a
strong predictor of violence among adolescents (Petras, Chilcoat, Leaf, Ialongo, & Kellam,
2004) and criminality in young adults (Schaeffer et al., 2006; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo,
Poduska, & Kellam 2003).” (p. 16)
In this feasibility projects, the TOCA-R contained 55 specific items and 9 sub-scales
(Emotional Regulation, Social Competence, Pro-social Behaviour, Authority Acceptance,
Hyperactive / Impulsive, Attention / Concentration, Academic Readiness, Social Isolation,
and Teacher-student Relationship), as well as one item asking about the child’s overall
behaviour in the last 3-weeks.
Table 2 shows that there were highly significant statistical differences between the scores
on all TOCA-R subscales, overall behaviour rating, and combined TOCA-R score from the
beginning of the school year, before the implementation of the GBG (time 1) to the end of
the school year, after all GBG implementation phases (time 2). See Figures 1 and 2 for
boxplots depicting these changes over the school year.
These statistically significant differences indicate improvements in classroom adaptation
and behaviour, although without a control group it is not possible to conclude that the GBG
accounted for these changes. There are a number of possible alternative explanations,
including regression to the mean and improvements in teacher management and child
behaviour over the course of the year irrespective of the GBG. However, these changes in
adaptation and behaviour are consistent with changes in GBG classes seen in other studies.
36
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Table 2: TOCA-R subscales scores between time 1 and time 2, with parametric and nonparametric tests of significance
Range
Median
Mean
s.d.
T-test
(df=221)
Wilcoxon
Time 1
Time 2
4-23
4-23
8.0
6.0
8.87
7.65
4.82
4.17
5.598 *
9,869 *
Time 1
Time 2
8-48
8-48
19.0
15.0
20.50
17.14
9.62
8.84
7.750 *
14,322 *
Time 1
Time 2
3-16
3-16
5.0
4.0
5.93
4.93
3.00
2.59
6.021 *
8,307 *
Time 1
Time 2
12-66
12-54
15.0
14.0
20.42
18.61
11.15
9.15
3.400 *
9,853 *
Time 1
Time 2
5-30
5-30
9.0
7.0
10.72
9.16
6.13
5.43
5.958 *
8,509 *
Time 1
Time 2
5-30
5-30
13.5
12.0
14.10
12.42
6.84
6.12
5.763 *
11,567 *
Time 1
Time 2
5-30
5-30
10.0
9.0
11.99
10.37
6.35
5.33
6.380 *
11,226 *
Time 1
Time 2
4-21
4-23
7.0
6.0
8.27
6.93
4.02
3.30
6.799 *
10,182 *
13.5
11.0
16.54
13.87
8.13
6.88
6.826 *
11,050 *
2.0
2.0
2.12
1.82
1.12
0.94
5.136 *
4,745 *
88.5
75.5
100.79
87.22
43.78
37.34
7.376 *
18,333 *
TOCA-R scale
Emotional Regulation
Social Competence
Pro-social Behaviour
Authority Acceptance
Hyperactive / Impulsive
Attention / Concentration
Academic Readiness
Social Isolation
Teacher-student relationship
Time 1
9-41
Time 2
9-50
Overall behaviour in last 3 weeks
Time 1
1-5
Time 2
1-5
Combined TOCA-R score
Time 1 46-236
Time 2 46-232
* p<0.001
37
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Figure 1: Boxplots of TOCA-R subscale scores at time 1 and time 2
38
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Figure 2: Boxplots of Overall Behaviour Rating and Combined TOCA-R score at time 1 and time 2
39
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
GAME AND PROBE DATA
A core component of the GBG is monitoring of behaviour. There are two primary pieces of
information that are collected as part of the GBG implementation: the number of rule
infractions during a game (game data) and the number of rule infractions when the game is
not being played (probe data).
Game data represents the number of rule infractions incurred over a pre-determined time
period (e.g. 15 minutes). Teachers clearly state to their pupils that a game is about to start,
assigns an appropriate task, goes over the class rules, sets a timer, observes pupils and gives
out rewards to winning teams at the end of the allotted time. In contrast, a probe indicates
a less formal observation by the teacher of his or her class. There are no rewards, timers or
class rules reviewed. The teacher can remind pupils that the class rules still apply even
though there is no game being played.
The purpose of conducting a probe is to determine the level of skill generalisation that
children have acquired and for teachers to observe their pupils’ behaviour and learning
abilities when there is no direct knowledge or confirmation of an impending reward for
good behaviour. Probe data therefore indicates the extent to which classroom behaviour
improves outside of the relatively short game periods.
Game and probe data are used by coaches and teachers over the course of the GBG
implementation phases to reflect on teacher performance, and to consider additional
strategies and improvements to be used by teachers.
Figure 3 shows two trend lines for rule infarctions over the course of the GBG
implementation year in this feasibility project, one for game data and one for probe data.
The data used for the trend lines are the average number of rule infarctions per week for
each game or probe, and the trend lines have been smoothed using a 3-point moving
average to assist interpretation. Over the course of the implementation year, rule
infractions during the game (game data) remained fairly constant, at around 5 infractions in
each class per game. Outside the game (probe data) there was a steady decrease in the
average number of infractions, from around 20 infractions in each class per probe at the
beginning of the year, to around 5 infractions in each class at the end of the implementation
year. This indicates that class behaviour improved over the course of the year, when the
game was not being played. This is consistent with the GBG mechanism of effect where
behavioural impacts during the game are gradually generalised to non-game settings,
indicating that children are internalising rules for behaviour.
40
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Figure 3: Average Rule Infractions from Game and Probe Data: Trendlines over the GBG Implementation Year
Rule Infractions over the GBG implementation year (3-point moving average)
25
20
Game data
Probe data
Average 15
Number of
Rule
Infractions 10
per class
5
0
41
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
COST MODEL
A cost model was developed based on the work completed in the KTP project in
Oxfordshire. The figures were calculated in consultation with Oxford Brookes University and
Oxfordshire County Council. The majority of the figures represent actual costs incurred over
the project with some amendments based on lessons learned and feedback from the project
manager, teachers, head teachers and coaches.
We have provided a cost in terms of number of days chargeable and have included prices
where applicable. There are some costs that are not amenable to exact figures (e.g.
licensing).
The table below represents the potential cost for 1 teacher / class over an initial academic
school year, when the GBG is first introduced. This model is a representation of potential
costs based on our assessment and recommendation of the necessary components for
successful implementation of the GBG in primary school classes. We make certain
assumptions that include:
1. Each class has one teacher (i.e. not a job share) and 25-30 pupils
2. There is a UK based trainer qualified and able to deliver training to teachers and
coaches
3. There are a group of GBG Coaches already trained and available to support teachers
4. The salary of the senior GBG Trainer and Coach is based on £50K per year including
on-costs (national insurance and pension contributions)
5. GBG materials have been reproduced professionally by a print centre
6. Overheads for training and coaching organisations are not included
Cost of the GBG for 1 Teacher / Class (c. 30 children); initial year
Item
1. Coaching = 4 days
2. Set up = 1 day (half day
launch; half day school visit)
Requisite Costs
Cost
Notes
1. £900
1. To lead teacher training + provide
coaching support over academic school
year
2. Includes production of training manuals
2. £225
3. Teacher training = 5 days
(3 days + 2 day prep*)
3. £1125
4. Training manuals +
materials
4. £50
4. cost of printing
42
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
5. Venue for training events
(3 days total over the year)
5. £105
6. Travel to schools
6. £92
5. £700 per day including lunch; Pro-rata
per trainee (assumption 20 teachers per
training)
6. Based on 34p per mile
7. Licensing agreement
7. To be
negotiated
7. Will need to be negotiated with the
American Institutes for Research (AIR)
TOTAL = £2497
Item
Materials for game
Variable Implementation or Delivery Costs
Cost
Notes
1. Posters (4)
1. £30
1. 2 x A4 size; 2 x A2 size
2. Pupil booklets
2. £300
3. Desk copies of rules
3. £22
2. Comb bound with plastic front cover;
colour copied + double-sided (15pages)
3. A5; laminated + in colour
4. Game accessories
4. £15
5. Rewards
5. £100
4. Stamps, velcro + tokens for wall charts
/ posters
5. E.g. coloured stickers, badges, pencils
6. Teacher training (3 days)
6. £480
6. Based on £160 per day supply cover
7. 1:1 visit from GBG Coach
(approximately sixteen,
30 minute sessions or 1.5
days)
7. £260
7. Based on £160 per day + £100 per half
day supply cover
Teacher Costs
TOTAL = £1207
GRAND TOTAL FOR 1 TEACHER / CLASS = £3704
In subsequent years training and support costs are much lower. We have estimated that
over a five year period, using the above initial year costs and with occasional booster
training and coaching support for teachers, and for one teacher with 25 pupils a year, the
43
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
cost of the GBG is in the region of £55 per pupil. Over 10 years the cost falls to £43 per
pupil.
COST MODEL LIMITATIONS
During our pilot year, four of the six schools had a minimum of two classes participating in
the game (School A-D).3 One of those schools (School D) also had both classes with job
sharers (i.e. 2 teachers over a school year per class). The remaining 2 schools (School E and
F) had one teacher / one class participating in the game. The feedback received from our
teachers suggested that the experience was rated more positively by teachers in schools
with two classes, primarily due to the extra support received from a colleague.
This model also assumes that a UK based trainer and coaching team is readily available to
support teachers in implementation practices and via coaching. More specifically, the model
is based on the presumption that a person has been appointed to lead the work (i.e. project
manager or trainer etc.). A total of 4 coaches and one lead coach who is very near
completion of her trainer qualifications in accordance with AIR guidelines were trained
during the pilot project. Further training has begun with a new cohort and a plan to develop
a strong base of expertise in the UK is in progress.
It is important to clarify that the costs presented in the table above are not fixed and may
vary depending on the organisation delivering the training and coaching, licensing
agreements and economies of scale and sustainability factors such as training more than
one teacher or training a school based coach alongside the teacher for sustainability
reasons. We would be remiss to note that there are potential costs that may emerge. For
example, an additional cost to our pilot work that is not featured in the cost model
calculation is the consultancy fees paid to AIR to train the project manager who led the UK
coaching team. However, there are also costs that can be reduced (i.e. using a school’s
colour printer to produce some of the classroom materials) and savings that can be made by
training two teachers versus one in the medium to longer term.
It is our view that investment in this model can lead to longer-term sustainability and
behavioural expertise in schools in subsequent years. Costs can be separated into upfront
and on-going: upfront costs are liken to the requisite costs and are an investment into
expertise and sustainability. Some are predicted to decrease over time (i.e. training days
and travel expenses; coaching support – more intensive in the beginning and will inevitably
decrease over time as expertise develops; maintained for quality assurance purposes). Ongoing costs include but are not limited to new sets of materials annually (i.e. pupil booklets)
or supply cover for training or coaching updates.
3
School A = 2 classes / 2 teachers; School B = 2 classes / 2 teachers; School C = 2 classes / 2 teachers; School D
= 2 classes / 4 teachers (job sharers); School E = 1 class / 1 teacher; School F = 1 class / 1 teacher
44
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
PROJECT TEAM REFLECTIONS
In this section we provide a summary of the benefits and challenges that arose during the
lifespan of the project, as perceived by the project team. Some things can be considered
project specific versus universal, but overall none were insurmountable. Furthermore, we
can confidently say that the benefits have far outweighed the challenges that emerged.
Benefits
Nearly £30, 000 of additional funding
acquired over the course of the project
Challenges
Funding for unexpected project costs (i.e.
supply cover for teachers)
Promotional clip and film footage that can be Training model for coaches was not clearly
used for informational and training purposes defined at outset; more support would have
been beneficial
Profile raising activities such as advertorial in
University and local papers, BBC News report
and radio interview, website development
and notable mentions in important
government documents
Management of expectations across
stakeholders (i.e. teachers, schools,
university and local authority) was
challenging at times
Project manager received training from
American colleagues; provided training and
transferred knowledge to Oxfordshire
County Council
Consensus on (and development of) specific
GBG-UK model between project partners
has not yet been reached
Participation in annual conferences in the
local authority and academic settings
No funding secured as yet to support future
roll-out beyond Oxfordshire or large scale
research trial
Five of the six original pilot schools are
continuing with the GBG; five additional
schools have also signed up
Workload for the project manager was
substantial; revisit support system
Project manager has adapted all materials to
a high standard and in accordance with
licensing agreement
Wider dissemination to schools /
partnerships outside of Oxfordshire
Project manager has established a strong
relationship with head teachers, local
authority staff, university and American
colleagues
Expertise and sustainability factors -- new
cohorts being trained to deliver GBG but
delivery limited by number of trainers
available in the UK
45
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Benefits
Challenges
Feedback has been largely positive;
encouraging and constructive feedback that
will help in the development on the GBG
model
At least one grant submitted for
continuation of GBG post completion of
project
12 Teachers trained and 5 Coaches / mentors
after one year of implementation
Support and endorsement from the Council
and University
Licensing agreement remains intact for
another 3-4 years; AIR very excited to work
with both Brookes and the Council
46
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
GBG UK VIDEO PROJECT
In the early stages of the project, we were awarded additional funding from the Research
and Business Development Office (RBDO) at Oxford Brookes University to fund a film
project. The purpose was to document this innovative project in its pilot year in Oxfordshire
primary schools. We received informed written consent at the University, local authority,
school and individual level where appropriate. As we were working with primary school
classes, it was important to us to ensure the highest standard of ethical conduct was in
practice. We sent out information sheets and also clearly explained that participation was
voluntary and there was no pressure to be involved. We collected consent forms from
teachers and pupils.
The goal of the film project was to produce a short informational or promotional clip that
could be used at profile raising events around the GBG (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=jnXRWYYYIec) and also a longer DVD with more
detailed information around the procedures, practices and experiences of various
stakeholders. There are sections about each project partner (i.e. University, Council, KTP,
AIR), footage of teacher, head teacher and pupil perspectives, implementation, training and
mentoring opportunities. Over the course of the project, an extensive library of footage has
been collected that will visually tell a story about the elegance and simplicity of the GBG as a
successful behaviour management strategy.
Having the film footage based on Oxfordshire primary classrooms has been invaluable.
Previous GBG video material has been based on American pupils and schools and while
there are many similarities to the UK, it has been extremely helpful to have our UK based
team sharing their experiences directly. It is a versatile resource that we hope can and will
be used for informational, promotional and marketing purposes, as appropriate in the
future.
47
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
DISCUSSION
KEY FINDINGS
QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS
The findings from the qualitative interviews indicate that the Good Behaviour Game was
both feasible and acceptable to teachers and key stakeholders in the UK. Overall, reports
were positive especially in terms of improvements observed in pupil behaviour, satisfaction
with involvement in the project, personal development and support for the coaching model.
Most teachers reported initial reservations about the applicability and relevance of the
game to their pupils, but following training and coaching support, they were much more
positive about the impact for their children and for their own skill development. Many
teachers indicated an increase in pro-social behaviours such as sharing and team work,
greater interest in learning and positive changes in their attitudes towards learning.
Furthermore, teachers reported observing increased levels of independence, concentration
and general ‘good behaviour’. These findings were also echoed by senior and support staff
who observed differences in the children’s learning and behaviour as the year progressed.
There was a strong collective view that having a network of teachers implementing the
game was of great value, both personally and professionally. Closely related to this were the
benefits derived from the group training events which were also very highly rated. At the
training events, there were opportunities to network with other teachers and share ideas
and experiences. Not only did they receive training and support around implementation
practices, but teachers reported enjoying the structure and format of the training itself.
They indicated that it was interactive and struck a good balance between being informative
and applied. The interviews with the teachers also indicated that it was rare to receive
training specifically about behaviour management only.
Teachers also rated the coaching support highly. They indicated that while at times it was
stressful to try to organise visits alongside their very full daily schedules, having a coach or
‘critical friend’ was of enormous value. Many teachers reported how beneficial it was to
have someone to bounce ideas off and to give a fresh perspective on classroom matters.
Teachers reported good relationships with their coaches and often referred to greater levels
of confidence in classroom practices and, more generally, were appreciative that there was
someone who was available and more than willing to problem solve challenging issues with
them as they arose.
There were some criticisms that emerged though many of them faded as the year
progressed. Teachers reported some difficulty maintaining records of game and probe data,
though that varied from teacher to teacher. Some found it quite difficult to incorporate into
the routine of the game while others reported it was no problem at all. Teachers also
indicated that it was difficult to play the optimal number of games and probes as suggested
48
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
in the training manual (e.g. every day, at least once a day for 30-40 minutes). Very few
teachers were able to reach this level; only three teachers managed to meet this standard
for short periods of time towards the end of the year.
Overall, the findings from the head teacher interviews were positive. The majority planned
to take the GBG forward in some capacity the following school year and several of the head
teachers indicated they would be developing it school wide.
Similarly, the coaches reported generally positive feedback about their experiences. All of
the coaches reported a sense of pride in the progress their teachers made, especially with
some of the more challenging behaviours in the classroom. The most striking comments
from the coaches were the observed changes in the pupils. They all remarked on the
increase in independence, teamwork and interest in learning and how amazing it was to see.
TOCA-R
TOCA-R scales assessed teacher observations of pupil social adaptation to classroom work at
the beginning of the GBG adaptation year and then again at the end of the year. Analysis of
these observations showed that teachers indicated significant improvements in child
adaptation and behaviour over the GBG implementation year. These statistically significant
positive effects are consistent with the effects shown in other research. However, because
of the nature of the design in this feasibility project – a before-after design without a control
group – it is not possible to infer that the positive improvements in TOCA-R scale scores
were a direct result of GBG implementation. Alternative explanations include regression to
the mean, improvements over the school year that were not caused by the GBG, and a
potential response bias because teachers, as the TOCA-R observers, were not blinded to the
GBG implementation.
Future research should include the TOCA-R scales but should also include independent
observation of child classroom behaviours.
GAME AND PROBE DATA
The number of GBG rule infractions was recorded by teachers and by coaches several times
each week throughout the GBG implementation year, as they observed pupils working.
These observations occurred both during the specific periods when the game was being
played (game data) and also at other times of the school day when the game was not being
played (probe data). Analysis of game data over the course of the school year showed that
rule infractions were stable, with an average of 5 infractions per game in each class over the
school year. There was a different picture for probe data, with the number of infractions
reducing steadily over the course of the school year from around 20 per probe in each class
at the start of the year, to around 5 per probe in each class at the end of the year.
This analysis of game and probe data indicates that good behaviour during game periods,
where there are contingencies for rule infractions, transfers to other parts of the school day.
In line with expectations, pupils appeared to internalise behavioural expectations and
49
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
therefore showed positive social adaptation and behaviour as a consequence of GBG
implementation.
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
A cost model was developed based on actual expenses and lessons learned from the key
stakeholders. The cost for 1 Teacher with up to 30 pupils for one year was £3704. This was
based on optimal training and coaching support, along with actual expenses from the pilot
project. Costs were divided into two categories: requisite costs (£2497) and variable delivery
or implementation costs (£1207). The figures are by no means absolute but rather they
represent some of the likely costs that will emerge. It is also worth mentioning that some
costs can be adjusted. For example printing costs could be reduced if done ‘in-house’ as
opposed to outsourcing the work.
Over a five-year period, the estimated implementation cost for the GBG was £55 per pupil;
which came down to £45 per pupil over a 10-year period, assuming the same, trained,
teacher remained in post.
It is important to emphasize that all the project partners were keen to preserve and
maintain the highest level of fidelity and integrity with the GBG implementation whilst also
taking into consideration cost and affordability.
PROJECT TEAM REFLECTIONS
Several benefits and challenges arose during the lifespan of the project, as perceived by the
project team. Some of the challenges that emerged included the management of
expectations across the different stakeholders and finding the right balance where everyone
felt their needs were being addressed. Some things could be considered GBG specific, whilst
others related to aspects of the feasibility project. Overall, none of the challenges were
insurmountable.
GBG UK VIDEO PROJECT
The goal of the video project was to chronicle the pilot year in the UK and to develop a brief
promotional clip and a full length DVD that could be used for profile raising activities such as
conferences or workshops, fundraising and training events. The DVD has potential as a
marketing tool in the coming years as the GBG develops in the UK. Having the video clips
available and being able to share a range of activities that our UK based team experienced in
the initial year has added a level of credibility and authenticity that was not present when
using the American DVDs. Being able to show UK based consumers and clients speaking
about their first impressions, high and low points and impacts it has had on pupils and their
own teaching style will provide a useful resource.
50
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
CONCLUDING REMARKS
While the GBG is relatively new to the UK, it has a very strong evidence base in the US and is
an intervention that has been shown to work in a small number of well conducted
randomized controlled trials.
This KTP project has demonstrated that the GBG is both feasible and acceptable to UK based
primary school teachers and head teachers. Oxfordshire County Council has been very
pleased with the work and is rolling out the GBG through their Behaviour Support Service.
Oxford Brookes University is exploring ways to fund a larger scale research trial and begin
establishing UK based research evidence to support the effectiveness of the GBG as a
behaviour management strategy. The Council continues to work in collaboration with
Oxford Brookes University and with the American Institutes for Research, which is a
testament to the strength of this programme and the shared vision for helping children and
young people to reach their full potential.
51
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
REFERENCES
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M. & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and Costs of
Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Washington State Institute
for Public Policy: Olympia, WA, USA. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=0407-3901 (accessed June 2011)
Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake E., Pennucci, A., Lkima, T., Miller, M., Anderson, L., Mayfield, J. &
Burley, M. (2011) Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Outcomes. July 2011 Update. Washington State Institute for Public Policy:
Olympia, WA, USA. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=11-07-1201 (accessed
January 2012)
Kellam, S. G., Reid, J. & Balster, R. L. (Eds.). Effects of a Universal Classroom Behavior
Program in First and Second Grades on Young Adult Outcomes (2008). [Supplement].
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol 95, S1 – S 104) doi:10.1016/S03768716(08)00134-8.
Barrish, H., Saunders, M. and Wolf, M. (1969). Good Behavior Game: Effects of individual
contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis 2(2), 119–124.
Braken, B. A. (Ed.) & Nagle, R. J.(Ed.). (2007). Psychoeducational assessment of preschool
children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101.
Carpenter, S. L., McKee-Higgins, E. (1996). Behaviour management in inclusive classrooms.
Remedial and Special Education, 17, 195-203.
Colman, I., Murray, J., Abbott, R. A., Maughan, B., Kuh, D., Croudace, T. J. & Jones, P. B.
(2009). Outcomes of conduct problems in adolescence: 40 year follow-up of national
cohort. British Medical Journal, Vol. 338a2981. http://www.bmj.com/content
/338/bmj.a2981
Dolan, L. J. Et al. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive
interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 14(3), 317–345.
Friedman, I.A. (1995). Pupil behaviour patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Research 88 (5), pp. 281–289.
52
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of two first
grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder and mental health
service need and utilization in early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146-160.
Johns Hopkins Prevention Intervention Research Center (2006). The first generation of JHU
PIRC preventive intervention trials: Methods and measures. Retrieved February 19,
2009, from
http://www.jhsph.edu/prevention/Data/Cohort_1_and_2/Methods_and_Measures
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kellam, S. G. et al., (2011). The Good Behavior Game and the Future of Prevention and
Treatment. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, Vol 6 (1), 73-84.
Kellam, S.G., et al., (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program
in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social
outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl 1), S5–S28.
Kellam, S.G., Brown, C. H., Rubin, B.R. & Ensminger, M.E. (1983). Paths leading to teenage
psychiatric symptoms and substance abuse: developmental epidemiological studies
in Woodlawn. In Guze, SB. Earls, FJ., Barrett, JE., editors. Childhood Psychopathology
and Development. Raven Press; New York: 1983. p. 17-51.
Koth, K.W., Bradshaw, C.P. & Leaf, P.J. (2009) Teacher Observation of Classroom
Adaptation–Checklist: Development and Factor Structure. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counselling and Development 42(1): 15-30.
MacBeath, J., Oduro, G.K.T. & Waterhouse, J. (2004). Distributed Leadership. An
Unpublished Research Report Submitted to the National College For School
Leadership.
Mackenzie, A.C., Lurye, I. & Kellam, S.G. (2008). History and evolution of the Good
Behavior Game. Supplementary material for Kellam, S.G., et al., 2008. Effects of a
universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on
young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence 95(Suppl 1), S5–S28.
MAXQDA 10: The art of text analysis (undated). Retrieved on 1st December 2011 from
http://www.maxqda.com/download/manuals/MAX10_manual_eng.pdf.
Merrett, F. E., & Wheldall, K. (1978). Playing the game: A behavioural approach to classroom
management in the junior school. Educational Report.
53
Improving Child Behaviour Management: the Good Behaviour Game 2010-2012
Petras, H., Chilcoat, H. D., Leaf, P. J., Ialongo, N. S., & Kellam, S. G. (2004). Utility of TOCA-R
scores during the elementary school years in identifying later violence among
adolescent males. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(1), 88–96.
Raising behaviour standards (2011). Retrieved on 1st December 2011 from
http://ofstednews.ofsted.gov.uk/article/204.
Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Masyn, K. E., Hubbard, S., Poduska, J., et al. (2006).
A comparison of girls’ and boys’ aggressive-disruptive behavior trajectories across
elementary school: Prediction to young adult antisocial outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 500–510.
Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., & Kellam, S. (2003). Modeling growth in
boys’ aggressive behavior across elementary school: Links to later criminal
involvement, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Developmental
Psychology, 6, 1020–1035
Sternberg, R. J. & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational Psychology, Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The Good
Behavior Game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225-253.
van Lier, Pol A. C., Muthén, Bengt O., van der Sar, Ria M. & Crijnen, Alfons A. M. (2004).
Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: Impact of a universal
classroom based Intervention. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 72(3),
467---478.
van Lier, Pol A. C., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2003). Classes of
disruptive behavior in young elementary school children. Journal of Child Psychology
& Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 44, 377–387.
Webster-Stratton, C. & Hammond, M. (1997). Treating children with early onset conduct
problems: A comparison of child and parent training interventions. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 65 (1), 93-109.
Werthamer-Larsson, L., Kellam, S. G., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Effect of first-grade classroom
environment on child shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration
problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 585–602.
Wilcox, H. C et al. (2008). The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade
classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts. Drug and
Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl. 1), S60–S73.
54
APPENDIX 1: DRAFT LOGIC MODEL FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR GAME (GBG)
Programme Characteristics
Programme Processes
Immediate impacts
Short- and medium-term impacts
Longer-term health and social outcomes
Training
Teacher attends initial 2-day training and subsequent 1day booster session to understand programme theory,
basics and application in order to implement with
fidelity
Clear establishment and
understanding of four
simple class rules, against
which children can selfmonitor
Reduction of negative and
increases in positive
interactions with teachers
Into late childhood and early
adolescence:
Into youth, adolescence and adulthood:
Coaching
Coach visits teacher every 2-3 weeks for 90 minutes (60minute lesson observation; 30-minute feedback session)
to support quality of implementation over the initial
year, and less frequently in second year
…along with…
Eligible Classrooms
Primary (elementary) school classrooms with children in
years 2, 3 or 4 (U.S. Grades 1, 2 or 3) and between 15
and 30 children per class. Children are split into equal
sized teams balanced for gender, ability and behaviour
The Game
Teams compete to win the Good Behaviour Game (GBG)
by having less than five rule transgressions during the
game. There are four standard rules. Winning is
rewarded by tangible rewards initially (e.g. stickers)
building to less tangible rewards (e.g. more golden time)
Frequency and Intensity
The GBG is played 3 times a week initially, for 10
minutes each time. Over the initial year this builds to
playing every day and for 20 to 30 minutes each time,
and this continues into the second year.
…providing…
Positive reinforcement of
good behaviour, using
extrinsic reinforcers:
praise, attention, tangible
products, engagement in
desirable activities; and
moving over time to less
regular (intermittent)
reinforcement
…leading to…
Behaviour modification
and intrinsic
reinforcement so that
modified behaviour is
retained even after
external reinforcement is
removed (maintenance)
and will be exhibited in all
settings (generalization)
Less disruptive and aggressive
behaviour during lesson time
Consistent on-task behaviour,
during the game and
increasingly outside the game
Increased use of positive
reinforcement and monitoring
of behaviours
Increased social awareness
Increased pro-social behaviours
Better definition and
articulation of appropriate
behaviour inside and outside
classroom
Increased functional skills such
as following directions,
independent work and concern
for others
Improve literacy and numeracy
Increased academic achievement,
productivity and rates of school completion
Improve curriculum progress
Less likely to misuse alcohol and drugs
Decreased aggressive and disruptive
behaviours
Decreased smoking behaviours over life
course
Reduce externalising behaviours
Decreased rates of risky sexual behaviours
Reduce bullying
Lower rates of anti-social and conduct
disorders
Reduce social disengagement
Lower demand for SEN support
Increase on-task behaviours in and out
of school and across different activities
Establish more positive interactions with
peers
Reduce initiation into deviant and
antisocial behaviour, and substance use
Lower rates of criminality, truancy,
incarceration and imprisonment
Less likely to access mental health services
(i.e. reduced use of services for
behavioural, drug, emotional and school
learning problems)
Lower rates of suicidal ideation and
attempts
Provide a net benefit to Society
Reduce teacher stress
…resulting in…
…which will…
…with the result that…
55
APPENDIX 2. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS BY GROUP
GBG – UK EVALUATION QUESTIONS – TEACHERS
1.
Can you tell me about your first impressions of the GBG?
•
Did you have any initial concerns about its relevance to your class / students? If so,
what were these?
2.
What aspects of the GBG as a behaviour management strategy have you found
useful?
3.
What has been challenging about using the GBG in your class?
4.
What do students think about the GBG?
•
Can you give any examples?
5.
How have parents commented on the GBG or on their child’s behaviour?
6.
Could you see yourself applying the game in different settings? Do you think
anything is missing from the programme? Conversely, is there anything that could be left
out?
7.
What did you think about the training events?
•
How useful were they?
•
Could they have been improved in any way?
8.
A general concern raised has been the time taken to be involved with the GBG,
including preparation, training, coaching etc. What has this meant for you?
9.
What are your thoughts on the regular collection of game and probe data?
•
Was this useful – please explain or why or why not?
10. Can you talk about your experience with the Coaching provided?
•
Do you think it was an important part of the GBG implementation / support?
Can you say why or why not?
•
How useful would you find on-going coaching support into next year?
Is this essential for the maintenance of GBG in your classroom?
56
11.
Would you consider leading on the GBG in your school if it were offered next year?
(i.e. becoming a school based Coach or mentor to new GBG teachers etc.)
•
Can you say why or why not?
12. If your school had funding in its budget over the next few years to support other
teachers to be trained and coached for the GBG, do you think this would be a good use of
that funding, or are there other things you would prioritise over GBG?
Can you explain your thinking on this?
13. One of the goals of the GBG was to play the game in your classroom at least once a day,
every day for 30 – 40 minutes. Can you tell me about your impressions regarding this?
Have you been able to achieve this? Why or why not?
What would you recommend as a model going forward? (i.e. number of games / probes per
week)
14. Do you have any final thoughts you would like to add, that have not been covered
already?
GBG – UK EVALUATION QUESTIONS – HEAD TEACHERS (7)
1.
What prompted you to select the GBG programme for your school last year? Why
were you initially interested in piloting the GBG?
2.
What were your first impressions?
3.
How have other staff commented on the GBG?
4.
Have you noticed any changes in the behaviour of the pupils that have used the
GBG?
5.
Have you noticed any changes in the teacher’s behaviour?
6.
Tell us what you think about the GBG as a whole school strategy to address
behaviour and learning challenges. Would you be interested in developing the GBG whole
school?
7.
This is a different sort of question. Imagine you are back at the beginning of this
school year, but knowing what you know NOW about the GBG, and …
57
a.
If you had £1000 to use for improving behaviour and learning in a class in your
school would you use it to pay for GBG training and support, or would this money be better
used on something else?
•
If so, what….
b.
If you had £3000 to use for improving behaviour and learning in a class in your
school would you use it to pay for GBG training and support, or would this money be better
used on something else?
•
If so, what….
What would you pay for the GBG?
GBG – UK EVALUATION QUESTIONS – COACHES (9)
1.
What were your first impressions of the GBG?
2.
What are your thoughts on the training you received around the GBG? (i.e. Initial
Training, Booster etc.)
3.
Do you think there is anything missing from the programme or conversely is there
anything that could be left out?
4.
Tell us about your experience with the Coaching model. Discuss the positives and
negatives in relation to support, organisations, structure, workload, satisfaction, etc
5.
What kind of Coaching model do you think would work best in primary schools given
your experience this year?
6.
How manageable was the administration (i.e. paperwork) associated with Coaching?
7.
What was the best and worst part about your experience as a GBG Coach?
8.
Would you be interested in being a GBG Coach if you were offered a post with a
reasonable salary and benefits (i.e. mileage, salary fitting to your experience and
qualifications?) Why or why not?
9.
If you had to give your experience as a GBG Coach a rating, with 1 being dreadful and
10 being amazing, what rating would you give it and why?
58
APPENDIX 3. INTERVIEW FEEDBACK ABOUT TRAINING, AND BY COACHES
COMMENTS ABOUT GBG BASIC TRAINING
The feedback from the GBG training events was very positive. The content, structure and
format have been highly praised. The course materials were regarded as extremely useful
and teacher’s appreciated the utility of these resources both in application and for
reference purposes. Teachers valued the opportunity to receive behaviour management
training and the chance to discuss different strategies and approaches. Furthermore, the
ability to discuss concerns and have open conversations about any aspect of
implementation fostered an environment of trust and respect. Based on their responses,
the training events provided teachers with the opportunity to crystallise their applied
classroom experience with the new theoretical knowledge learned about the GBG.
“They were really good. I think it’s very, unfortunately, very unusual to get training in
behaviour management, solely and it’s been absolutely invaluable, absolutely
fantastic” (Brittany)
“It was really useful because they broke everything down really clearly in terms of the
research aspect of it or how the different elements of the good behaviour game
worked. “ (Paula)
“Carla Ford did the first training with Gail and they were so enthusiastic about it. It
was lovely and they weren’t just boring training events where you just sit down and
it’s PowerPoint, blah blah blah, look at the slide, you played little games as well and
they showed videos of how it worked in classrooms. So they gave us lots of ideas and
they were really supportive...” (Janelle)
“The training was really useful, I think probably one of the most useful bits was while
the first day was obviously really useful to explain how it was all being setup, and I
liked the return, the second time, because we got to watch video clips of other people
doing the game, and that was really useful…” (Norah)
“I think the training methods were superb, I think they were so useful, really useful.
They were very non-threatening, very informative, all the materials were very useful,
things that we could take away, the exercises, there was a good balance of listening
and looking and doing, so that was very good, so I really did find it incredibly useful.”
(Eliza)
Most of the comments regarding improvements revolved around having more training
events or opportunities for teachers to come together and continue conversations about
next steps. There were a few comments about possibly reducing the training days from two
to one day, but upon reflection it was unclear if that would be too overwhelming.
“It would have been nice to have one this end of the year, to meet all the candidates
together again and to have a proper, you know after a whole year of the program, a
59
proper reflection. And also to find out what people are planning to do next-steps
wise.” (Florence)
“The two, the initial two day training was very good, gave a really clear insight into
the game, we probably could have done it in one day, although I don’t know whether
that would be information overload and actually it’s quite useful to go home and
reflect on things, and then come back the following day.” (Florence)
“I think they were fantastic, exactly the way they were, the only thing I would say is if
there could be more, we had two and I would – it would have been even more helpful
if there had been three for example, one in each term would have been nice.”
(Brittany)
“I think the only thing that maybe we now need to maybe have a celebration event,
or at the end of the project, or the beginning of next term to get together and to see
how things have happened, you know, as we’ve rounded up. I think that would nice.”
(Nicole)
Interestingly many teachers commented on the importance and value of seeing the game
first hand. As part of the training experience, there was a role play exercise where teachers
pretended to be pupils and the trainer led the game. The purpose of the activity was for
teachers to see the game being implemented and to also gain insight into what a child might
experience as a pupil. Obviously the role play was quite informal but interestingly, many
teachers commented that they acquired a new appreciation for children in their classrooms.
For those who were playing compliant children, the teachers who were pretending to be
disruptive were very disruptive and the other teachers found it quite difficult to concentrate
on the task at hand.
“It’s difficult, because obviously we were the first schools in England doing it. So
that’s a bit difficult, but like, in the next one, yes you can see it on videos…where, if
they did it now, ‘cause they’ve got schools in England who’ve done it, I think it would
be really helpful for the next set of schools: ‘I don’t want you to watch it, I want you
to come and see it. Come and sit in and see what this is like’ (Katy)
“You’ve got to watch in a real class with real children. At the end of the day we don’t
want to see adults doing it or be doing it ourselves, we actually want to see what the
teachers are doing, see how the children are reacting, so I think it’d be better to sort
of watch the films of teachers doing it straight away rather than waiting to almost
the end of the year…But I think to see somebody else and obviously you could use the
filming that you’ve done of the teachers this year to maybe implement it next year to
help with that, ‘cause I know it was just starting off but I think that was helpful a lot,
it would have definitely have helped me” (Amy)
“I think the one I went to was very well managed, even to the point of we were
watching video clips of teachers in classrooms, which is very useful, however much
we don’t like to be filmed, or we don’t like to see ourselves, and [the Trainer]
managed that incredibly well, in that nobody watched themselves, we were split into
groups where we were watching other people, not ourselves, which made everybody
feel a little bit safer…” (Christina)
60
Some teachers found the exercise less useful and wanted to directly observe a game. As it
was the first year for the GBG in the UK, it was not possible to directly observe teachers
playing the game. However, we did have video clips from the American classrooms which
were quite useful. Also as part of the pilot project, we filmed several UK teachers in their
classroom implementing the game so that in future years, we can use this footage for
informational and training purposes.
Teachers would agree that a live observation of the game would be an incredibly valuable
experience. Part of the difficulty with the live observation is that not all teachers are
comfortable being observed. Over the course of the pilot project, only two teachers
volunteered to be filmed at the outset. Participation was totally voluntary and the medium
to longer terms benefits were explained to teachers repeatedly. The vast majority of
teachers agreed to be filmed towards the latter part of the school year so while it is an
invaluable opportunity, there can be drawbacks and it is important to strike the balance
between respecting a teachers’ anxiety and concerns about being observed but also
encouraging them to showcase what they have learned. Having piloted the GBG across 6
schools in Oxfordshire, it is more likely now that a live observation is possible in subsequent
years.
One of the clearest messages that came across in the interviews in terms of positive
feedback from the training events was the value of a network of colleagues. The training
events allowed teachers to come together to share ideas, concerns, challenges and
solutions to issues arising from the game implementation but also more broadly. Teaching
can be quite solitary in many ways on a day to day basis. More specifically, teachers do not
always have the opportunity to speak to other teachers about issue or concerns that come
up in the classroom. The training events provided a forum for the teachers to come
together and discuss openly and honestly all the things that were problematic but also
successful. It was an incredibly valuable experience for the teachers and that came across
very strongly in all the interviews.
“It was lovely to hear other people’s reticence and other peoples’ issues that they’d
overcome, and ideas about how to play it…so it was really important to share,
because it was as important to share other peoples’ misgivings and concerns as the
positive points” (Christina)
“It was really useful [to see] how it was working and the effects of it and also really
valuable to meet the other teachers and backgrounds of their children’s school, types
of children where they were all working, what year groups perhaps, so you compare
and again, the last one where we got together [booster] session]…to know how
people were getting on, and we had practiced playing the game, and we also got the
experience of getting our reward” (Aretha)
“It gave us the opportunity to be reflective, I think, which was nice, and be very
honest about what’s going well and actually what isn’t…we talked to each other a lot
in the school about the GBG, but again we’re like: ‘Are we actually doing this right?’
So it was nice to get together with the other teachers and share good practice”
(Jennifer)
61
“I think it’s just nice to be with the people who were going through what you’re going
through in any area of teaching, I think that’s important. It’s definitely useful to sort
of check up on each other.” (Katy)
FEEDBACK FROM COACHES
The coaches provided feedback on the experience of their involvement with the GBG.
Among the areas that were identified as positive were the benefits of additional training
and the support they received. Coaches felt that roles and responsibilities were clarified
and that they felt better prepared. Generally, coaches appreciated the research evidence
underpinning the GBG. Initially there was some concern about applicability of the model
and approach, however as the initial training progressed, coaches recognised the potential
of the GBG as a valuable tool and resource for behaviour management.
The concerns expressed by coaches related to the additional workload and administrative
responsibilities their involvement required; difficulty scheduling visits with teachers and the
need for more training during the initial phases of the project.
The views and experiences of the coaches will help inform future development of the GBG.
62