article review
Trueblue
NewArticle2123newhomework.docx1
5
October 21, 2020
Signature Assignment
Introduction
There have been different researches conducted with the “Good Behavior Game,” some have been successful while others have had different challenges or limitations to the study. Firstly, it is important to understand that the GBG program is aimed at assisting children to demonstrate better attitude when in a school setting or a structured environment. Good Behaviour Game was first introduced by Harriet Barrish, Muriel Saunders and Mont Wolf in 1969 (Pennington & McComas, 2017) which was to create a positive behavior in children and reward them for following the set directions given and maintaining appropriate behavior (Pennington & McCommas, 2017).
It is important to note that the behaviors which help shape us into adulthood starts from the early years and as we mold ourselves it is vital to make sure that being social is and having strong self-confidence is important and will lower the insecurities that we encounter towards and during our adult years. My understanding of the GBG is that it is necessary to create a positive environment, maintain appropriate behavior towards and around others as well as also being able to socially communicate amongst your peers. In this research I will review different journals/articles which have illustrated various methods of the good behavior game from participants, subjects, methods and setting used in order to distinguish which setting would yield the best and effective results with the good behavior game.
Article 1
The first article reviewed was by Emily Groves and Jennifer Austin 2018. Their research of the GBG was based in two schools in South Wales to understand if GBG could evoke negative peer pressure in different settings. The class setting chosen was with kids who had severe behavioral problems from property disruption to aggression whilst some other participants were diagnosed with various types of disorder (Groves & Austin, 2018). The article reviewed stated and showed that GBG does work when it is implemented in a school setting to regulate the unwanted behaviours of a student (Groves & Austin, 2018). The partakers were aware of when the GBG will be implemented during the class session so the positive interaction increased and the negative behaviours such as curing reduced. It was also observed that when GBG was not being implemented negative behaviours were displayed (Groves & Austin, 2018). During the research the researchers found that GBG was a great way to have students display appropriate behaviour during class sessions and the negative peer pressure was reduced significantly whilst teachers also noticed students encouraging one another (Groves & Austin, 2018). The main purpose of the study was also to analyse what effect the GBG would bring to a classroom setting either positive or negative which proved to be more generated a positive outcome (Groves & Austin, 2018).
Article 2
The second article was a study based in Belgium which was conducted amongst 570 participants whose primary language was Dutch and were in grade from second to third grade (Geertje et al., 2011). The study was to explore if individual’s adaptation with on-task behavior changed and to observe the aggression development while being asked to participate in an activity and the final aspect of the study was to observe if the participants experienced any peer rejection (Geertje et al., 2011). The findings showed that intervention impact was seen with only children who had low-level on-task behavior baseline, they also found a decrease in aggression whilst GBG was being conducted which was not found amongst the controlled group participants (Geertje et al., 2011). The study disclosed that the effect of GBG depends mostly on the primary level of the on-task behavior and that enhancement in social relationships with peers may explain the decrease in aggression among low-on task children (Geertje et al., 2011).
Article 3
This research article was conducted in an alternative school setting for students with emotional and behavioral disorder (Rubow et al., 2018). Based on the intensity of the student’s behavioral diagnoses, the school had more staff available for the students to be available to deescalate conflicts (Rubow et al., 2018). The study was completed in two classroom settings in a title I, K-12 alternative learning center (ALC) for students with EBD, severe behavior problems, or both, participated in classroom 1 or 2 (Rubow et al., 2018). Based on the class division, reversal design was used for classroom 1 and a multiple baseline across settings design in classroom 2 (Rubow. et al., 2018). The students were given the rule of the game in their various teams and was instructed they should follow the rule to win the game and get a reward (Rubow et al., 2018). The result shows that the GBG was a great way for both classes to decrease their disruption, which is a description that the GBG does have a positive effect on the students (Rubow et al., 2018). When the GBG was not being implemented the behaviors was back at the base line and behaviors occurred more than when the GBG was being conducted (Rubow et al., 2018).
Article 4
This research of GBG took place in two preschool classrooms at the rural elementary school in west Texas (Wiskow et al., 2019). The participants were based on two class setting, class 1 had 17 students in total; 9 girls and 8 boys, for the second class it consisted of 16 subjects: 6 girls and 10 boys (Wiskow et al., 2019). Sessions were completed in the morning during the whole group period which is when they are on a carpet in the presence on the teacher and the whiteboard for communication (Wiskow et al., 2019). The finding shows that disruptions per minute for all students in class 1 and class 2 across each session shows the average disruptions per minute in each condition in class 1 and class 2 (Wiskow et al., 2019). The observers saw higher and differentiated levels of disruptive behavior during GBG no feedback and GBG visual feedback conditions relative to GBG vocal feedback and GBG no feedback and GBG visual feedback conditions (Wiskow et al., 2019).
Article 5
The research article by Pennington and McCommas 2017 was based on a study of three participants in a classroom setting (Pennington & McCommas, 2017). The method used in this setting was multiple baseline which produced result that the participants behavior was more positive when the GBG was being implemented, and when the GBG is not being conducted in the classroom the children’s behavior does not change. All three participants used during this study were diagnosed with behavioral disorder and were 8 years old (Pennington & McCommas, 2017). The participants were broken into groups and observations took place during the morning meeting and math session while they were in their various groups. The finding in the study showed that during the session when the GBG is not being implemented the participants did not follow on-task instructions, but when the GBG is being implemented their behavior decreases (Pennington & McCommas, 2017).
This article had various limitations which meant that the experiment could only be conducted on three participants in a classroom which affected the result because individuals respond to things differently based on the GBG. Another hurdle that the researchers faced was that it did not truly state what contingencies maintained the off-task behavior when it was at baseline which would have provided a more in-depth answer of the GBG. The last limitation the researchers had was not implementing the same type of subsequent activity that was implemented during the GBG.
The limitations from the Pennington and McComas made their research incomplete because if they had based their research on a larger participant, they might have found a different outcome in the results based on the test subjects. Also being clear and precise about different steps and procedures they would be implementing would have yield a better outcome if truly the GBG made a significant change with the participants.
Based on my findings from the Pennington and McComas research I found interest in several process to which the experiment had been carried out. What if more participants were included would the outcome be different? Would dividing the team by gender be a more interesting study? Would conducting my research on different ethnic group yield better findings? These were some of the questions that were crossing my mind whilst reading the article. The GBG is a game that I believe would improve the life of children and adults to become more structured and have a focus in life in order to be able to achieve. I would like to focus my research on completing the GBG based on gender orientation in a classroom setting.
