Leaving the Caffeine behind: FOLLOW-UP

http://www.unc.edu/~asuaje/unitproject2.mp3

Carly's Follow-Up

Thanks for checking back in, everyone! Here is the follow-up on Carly’s experiment. I thought the results were intriguing. Take a listen, and let me know what you think!

The Results!

Experiment Introduction

Hey Mates! Here is one of the experiments that I asked a patron to complete to fulfill my own curiosity. I'll let her explain:

"As a tourist in Australia, I walked into Desmond's bar as an unsuspecting guinea pig. I was guaranteed free drinks during my next trip to Australia if I conducted this experiment while back home. Here is the info. Hey Desmond, start making those daiquiris! I'll be back on the island soon!
~ Carly"

I'm doing an experiment!

Better Internet Use: Follow-Up

http://www.unc.edu/~gmichael/MTGU2.mp3

Dropping the Pounds Update

Please listen to the following to find out how things went!

http://www.unc.edu/~caashley/Unitproject.mp3

Monitored Usage of Cussing

http://www.unc.edu/~jellend/Unit2.mp3

Leaving the Caffeine Behind

http://www.unc.edu/~asuaje/feeder.mp3

Better Internet Use: Study Overview

http://www.unc.edu/~gmichael/TilmanGriggPC2_2.mp3

Introduction for Monitored Usage of Cussing

http://www.unc.edu/~jellend/feeder2point2.mp3

Dropping the Pounds

http://www.unc.edu/~caashley/Feeder2.2.mp3

A Game for Good Behavior!

‘ello mates! So glad you stopped back in to see what’s cooking at Shark Biscuits! Well, once again I was sorting through some magazines and came across one I hadn’t picked up in a while. Behavior Modification. Sounds interesting, eh? Yeah, well, sort of. The articles are very informative, but they can take a bit of processing to really understand. Back on topic—so I found this article called “The Good Behavior Game.” It’s really interesting mates, so I want to share some of the information with you. But like I said, it’s a bit frothy on the vocab, so I’m going to take a whack at explaining some of the main points you have to know to understand the article. Then we can look at some case studies, variations, and finally see what researchers have to say about this method of teaching good behavior.

So first off, I should summarize what the good behavior game is exactly. By using the competitive nature bubbling in humans, teachers and researchers have been studying a way to harness that energy and channel it into something more productive. As school classrooms get bigger and bigger, it is more difficult for teachers to maintain a handle on each student. Therefore, disruptive behavior in the class can hinder how much or how well another tot is learning.
Throughout the article, authors refer to “three group-oriented contingences,” which is pretty much a lot of words to say “how we changed the experiment.” The 3 contingencies are independent, dependent, and interdependent. All of these are just different sets of rules for the good behavior game. Teachers use whichever works best for their class.

The independent contingency would sound like this in a classroom: “Whoever makes a 90% or higher on the end of chapter math test will be able to pick a prize from the treasure chest” (226). So, in order to get every student to work towards a target behavior (90% on test), they are all offered a similar reward, criteria, and (in other cases) consequences.
Third grader, Paige, may hear “If Meg, Steve, and Linda stay on their mats and don’t get up, then we will have a special snack after nap time” (226). Paige is likely to attempt persuading Meg, Steve, and Linda to keep their derrieres on the mats as a result of the dependent contingency. In this variation, every third grader has bet the whole barrel of monkeys on Meg, Steve, and Linda—if they do well then everyone is rewarded. But if they don’t, that special snack goes right out the window—as does the other students’ respect for the mischievous munchkins.

Option three is the interdependent contingency. Tapping her yardstick to her open palm, Mrs. Applebottom may say, “If the average grade on this weekend’s homework assignment is 85% or higher, we all will watch a movie Monday afternoon” (226). Now students are not reliant on a select few. They are not reliant on just their own work. Now everyone is reliant on everyone else’s work in order to reap the benefits of a lazy Monday afternoon in class.
So the 3 contingencies of the good behavior game are what, class? Independent? Yes. Dependent? Yes. Interdependent? Ding-ding-ding—we have a winner! Now onto some case studies…

In this article, there are pages upon pages of charts accounting for the over 30 years worth of research that covers the good behavior game and its variations. There is one common implementation that this article describes. Researchers Barrish (1969), Bostow & Geiger (1976), Davies & White (2000), and many others have used the following strategy: class divided into two teams. Rules and behavior guidelines were posted. Marks were given for negative results. There were two ways to win. First, you could be the team with the lowest marks on your record. Or both teams could win if they stayed below a predetermined number of marks for the time period. According to the article, “The game was overwhelmingly successful and tattling decreased rapidly once the rule was instituted… in addition to talking, out-of-seat, and following directions in their GBG with second graders” (238). So far, so good.

As I mentioned before, there are more than just the already explained ways to play the behavior game. There are many notable variations that have yielded great results. However, for the sake of your sanity I will only review 2.

Robertshaw and Hiebert’s 1973 variation had a space age spin—something quite relevant for the time the study was conducted. With an astronaut theme, first graders were divided into teams and earned tokens for completed seatwork and good astronaut behavior (that included using good manners, working on assigned tasks, waiting patiently when raising hand for help, and carrying chairs to and from reading groups quietly). Each day the winning team’s colored spaceship on the bulletin board was moved closer toward the final destination-- the moon” (239). As spaceships orbited the chalkboard, behavior changes were observed in the classroom. Teachers and researchers saw increases in completed seatwork and decreases in inattentive behavior.

Swain’s 1982 Oral Hygiene Variation tested outside of the classroom behaviors. Once again, teams were formed (seeing a pattern here?), and first and second graders were encouraged to be the team who had the cleanest teeth. One day, 4 children were randomly selected from each of the two teams and oral hygiene was assessed. “The team with the lowest score (lower scores indicated better oral hygiene) on an oral hygiene index won the game. The names of winning team members were posted and each team member received a sticker. Children were also praised for low scores and received feedback regarding areas of their teeth not brushed well” (240). The results? An overwhelming removal of plaque as oral hygiene improved considerably.
So what do the researchers who are writing this article have to say in conclusion, you ask? Well, they make note that even though research of the Good Behavior Game has been going on for over 30 years, there is still much more that can be explored. They recommend studying with different age groups, different cultures, and with meeker students in mind (249). Overall, the researchers argue that the GBG is “an effective behavior management procedure for use in the classroom and other academic settings” (250).

Here is my question mate: should I implement a Good Behavior Game around 3 a.m. for my rowdy bar-dwellers? Maybe an astronaut theme? What about a get out of my bar theme? Yeah? I like it too.


Tingstrom, Daniel H., Heather E. Sterling-Turner, and Susan M. Wilczynski. “The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002.” Behavior Modification. Vol. 30, No. 2 (March 2006): 225-253. Sage Journals Online. E-Journal Finder. UNC- Chapel Hill Libraries. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 18 February 2006.