Good Behaviour Game (GBG) - group-contingent positive reinforcement of children's prosocial behaviour
At a glance
Country of origin
- USA
Level(s) of intervention
- Environmental prevention,
- Universal prevention
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is a classroom-based behaviour management strategy for elementary school that teachers use along with a school’s standard instructional curriculum. GBG uses a classroom-wide game format, with teams and rewards, to socialise children to the role of student and reduce aggressive, disruptive classroom behaviour, which is a risk factor for adolescent and adult illicit drug abuse, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, antisocial personality disorder, and violent and criminal behaviour. In GBG classrooms, the teacher assigns all children to teams that are balanced with regard to gender; aggressive, disruptive behaviour; and shy, socially isolated behaviour. Basic rules of student behaviour in the classroom are displayed and reviewed. When GBG is played, each team is rewarded if team members commit a total of four or fewer infractions of the classroom rules during a game period.
During the first weeks of the intervention, GBG is played three times a week for 10 minutes each time, during periods of the day when the classroom environment is less structured and the students are working independently of the teacher. Game periods are increased in length and frequency at regular intervals; by mid-year, the game may be played every day. Initially, the teacher announces the start of a game period and gives rewards at the conclusion of the game. Later, the teacher defers rewards until the end of the school day or week. Over time, GBG is played at different times of the day, during different activities and in different locations; the game evolves from being highly predictable in timing and occurrence with immediate reinforcement to being unpredictable with delayed reinforcement, so that children learn that good behaviour is expected at all times and in all places.
In addition to the original classroom-based game where students are reinforced for their mutual success in withholding inappropriate behaviour, the PAX Good Behaviour Game (PAX GBG) is another manualised GBG version. In PAX GBG, evidence-based kernels (e.g., PAX Quiet, PAX Voices, Timer, PAX Stix, Granny’s Wacky Prizes, PAX Tootle Notes) are added and the game is played daily within the school curriculum. There are four categories of kernels based on their effect: antecedent, relational, physiological and reinforcement. The teachers in the PAX GBG schools received 3 days of training and are regularly supported by mentors over a 1-year period.
Keywords
No dataLinks to this programme in other registries
Implementation Experiences
Read the experiences of people who have implemented this programme.Contact details
AIR version of GBG
Kellam Sheppard
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
United States of America
Phone: +1 (410) 614-0680
Email: kellam[a]jhsph.edu
Website: www.air.org/focus-area/education/?id=127
PAX version of GBG
Dennis Embry
PAXIS Institute
United States of America
Phone: +1 (520) 299-6770
Email: dde[a]paxis.org or info[a]paxis.org
Website: goodbehaviorgame.org/
Overview of results from the European studies
Studies overview
The programme has been evaluated in one cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Belgium, three cluster RCTs in the Netherlands (one of which was conducted with children with psychiatric disorders), one mixed methods study in Ireland, one RCT in United Kingdom, and one RCT in Estonia.
The RCT in Belgium, involving children aged 7.4 years on average, found statistically significant positive effects at post-test on observed teacher behaviour management and some peer-rated and observed child classroom behaviours.
The Dutch RCT that involved children aged 5-13 years with psychiatric disorders found statistically significant effects favouring the intervention at post-test on teacher-reported child emotional and behavioural problems, but no effect on most measures of teacher self-reported outcomes.
One of the other Dutch RCTs, involving children with a mean age of 6 years, found a statistically significant positive effect at post-test on teacher-reported externalising behaviour and peer relations.
The final study in the Netherlands, also an RCT, involved children aged 6.9 years on average. It found a statistically significant effect favouring the intervention on teacher-reported child ADHD, bullying, victimisation and anxiety/depression, but not on anti-social or aggressive behaviours at post-test. From age 10 to 13 years, young people who had participated in the programme had a lower probability of starting to use tobacco and reduced growth in alcohol weekly use, but there was no statistically significant effect on weekly tobacco use and past year or month of alcohol use.
An Irish study (O'Donnell 2016) employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the GBG PAX version, using both quantitative (classroom observations recording the number of SPLEEMS (i.e. disturbing, disruptive, inattentive and unengaged behaviours) and qualitative data (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). It was conducted among 420 pupils aged between 7 and 8 years, and 21 teachers and 2 mentors in primary schools. The results of the study showed significant improvements among pupils’ self-regulation, self-control, and self-management. Moreover, it showed significantly reduced disruptive behaviour instances, and increased attentiveness and focus.
In a British RCT, 77 schools were randomly allocated to implement the GBG AIR for two years. The target cohort was form of 3084 pupils from between 7 and 8 years old. The study found no evidence of improvement of pupils’ behaviour (specifically, concentration problems, disruptive behaviour, and pro-social behaviour) but the implementation varied considerably (frequency and duration). Higher levels of pupil engagement with the game were associated with improved reading, concentration, and disruptive behaviour scores at follow. Moreover, there was tentative evidence that boys identified as at-risk of developing conduct problems at the beginning of the project benefitted from the GBG. For these children, small reductions in concentration problems and disruptive behaviour were observed.
Streimann et al. 2020: this Estonian RCT (matched-pair, cluster-randomized, waitlist controlled, open-label trial) studied child mental health rated by teachers, whether the effects of the intervention on child mental health extended to the home context, teacher self-efficacy and overall classroom behaviour. Intervention adherence and children’s exposure to the intervention were also measured. The trial included 42 Estonian elementary schools with 708 first-grade students. The intervention had positive effects on teacher-rated children’s mental health at the end of the first academic year, which lasted and strengthened during the second academic year. Moderation analysis demonstrated positive effects on mental health and prosocial behaviour for high-risk students during the first year (but not the second year). The intervention also had a positive lasting effect on teacher’s self-efficacy and overall classroom behaviour. A few intervention effects (prosocial behaviour, emotional well-being) were evident in the home environment during the second academic year (as reported by parents), but there were no effects on parent-rated child ADHD symptoms.
Humprey et al. 2021: this large cluster randomized controlled trial tested whether implementation variability and participant cumulative risk status (e.g. young relative age, begin male, identified as having a special education need, eligible for free schools meals, speaking English as an additional language etc.) were examined as predictors of disruptive behaviour. Seventy-seven English primary schools (N = 3,084 children, aged 6–7) were randomly assigned to deliver the GBG or continue their usual practice over 2 years. Intent-to-treat analysis found no discernible impact of the intervention on children’s disruptive behaviour. Subgroup analyses revealed no differential gains among children at low, moderate or high levels of cumulative risk exposure (CRE). CRE holds that individual risk factors at baseline (e.g. male, eligible for free schools meals, living in deprived neighbourhood etc.) are considered in the outcome analysis. However, dosage as a compliance marker identified a large, statistically significant intervention effect (d = −1.35) among compliers (>1,030 min of cumulative intervention exposure). Furthermore, children at high and low levels of exposure experienced significantly greater and lesser reductions in disruptive behaviour. These findings highlight the importance of optimizing implementation and demonstrate the utility of CRE as a theoretically informed approach to subgroup moderator analysis.
Troncoso et al. 2021: this cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examined the impact of the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) on children's developmental trajectories of disruptive behaviour, concentration problems, and pro-social behaviour from middle childhood (ages 6–7 years) to early adolescence (ages 10–11 years). Seventy-seven schools in England were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. During the 2-year main trial period, teachers of this cohort in intervention schools implemented the GBG, whereas their counterparts in the control group continued their usual practice. A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model indicated that the GBG reduced concentration problems over time. In addition, the model also revealed that the intervention improved prosocial behaviour among at-risk children (e.g., those with elevated symptoms of conduct problems at Time 1, n = 485). No intervention effects were unequivocally found in relation to disruptive behaviour.
Ashworth et al. 2020: this study examined the efficacy of the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) in improving children’s reading attainment, and the extent to which this varies as a function of dosage and timing of outcome measurement by means of a 2-year cluster randomized controlled trial. Seventy-seven primary schools from three regions in England were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Children (N = 3084) aged 6-7 at baseline were the target cohort. Reading attainment was assessed via national teacher assessment scores at baseline, and the Hodder Group Reading Test at post-test and 1-year post intervention follow-up. At post-test, no effects of the GBG on children’s reading attainment were found. At 1-year follow-up, results demonstrated that GBG can produce measurable improvements in children’s academic attainment, but these effects may take time to become apparent and are contingent upon implementation dosage falling within an optimal range.
In a small exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial (O’Keeffe et al. 2021) of the PAX Good Behaviour Game in Northern Ireland a total of 15 schools (19 classes) were randomised to intervention and control groups. The analysis focused specifically on the outcome of self‐regulation with 355 elementary school pupils in year 3 (age M = 7.40, SD = 0.30). Participating schools in the trial were located in areas with socio‐economic disadvantage. After 12 weeks of implementation, the trial provided some evidence that the PAX GBG may help improve self‐regulation in participating pupils, while the findings suggest that it may offer a feasible mental health prevention and early intervention approach for Northern Ireland classrooms.
The programme has been rated as Promising by Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development based on a review of studies conducted world-wide.
Countries where evaluated
- Belgium,
- Netherlands,
- Ireland,
- United Kingdom,
- Estonia
Characteristics
Protective factor(s) addressed
- Individual and peers: clear morals and standards of behaviour
- Individual and peers: interaction with prosocial peers
- Individual and peers: opportunities and rewards for prosocial peers involvement
- Individual and peers: prosocial behaviour
- Individual and peers: academic self-efficacy
- School and work: opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
- School and work: rewards and disincentives in school
Risk factor(s) addressed
- Individual and peers: anti-social behaviour
- Individual and peers: early initiation of drug/alcohol use
Outcomes targeted
- Academic performance
- Depression or anxiety
- Suicidal ideation
- Alcohol use
- Use of illicit drugs
- Smoking (tobacco)
- Other behaviour outcomes
Description of programme
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is a classroom-based behaviour management strategy for elementary school that teachers use along with a school’s standard instructional curriculum. GBG uses a classroom-wide game format, with teams and rewards, to socialise children to the role of student and reduce aggressive, disruptive classroom behaviour, which is a risk factor for adolescent and adult illicit drug abuse, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, antisocial personality disorder, and violent and criminal behaviour.
In GBG classrooms, the teacher assigns all children to teams, usually three, that are balanced with regard to gender; aggressive, disruptive behaviour; and shy, socially isolated behaviour. The teacher assigns a team leader, usually a shy child, to organise activities and pass out rewards. Next, the teacher explains the rules of the game, describing what behaviours will not be allowed during the period in which the GBG is played (which are usually verbal disruption, physical disruption, being out of one’s seat without permission and non-compliance), and the rules are posted on the wall of the classroom.
During the game, the teacher notes the occurrence of problem behaviours by placing ticks next to the name of a team whenever one of its members displays a targeted prohibited behaviour. The teacher neutrally states the behaviour that was displayed, identifies the child who displayed it and praises the other teams for behaving well. A team wins the game if the number of ticks does not exceed four at the end of the game period, and more than one team can win. Initially, members of the winning team receive tangible rewards (stickers, rubbers) and activities (extra break time, class privileges). In addition, any team that wins a game during the week receives a special reward on Friday (such as a party or an outdoor activity). Non-winners engage in quiet seat-work during this time, and they receive no special attention from the teacher.
During the first weeks of the intervention, GBG is played three times a week for 10 minutes each time during periods of the day when the classroom environment is less structured and the students are working independently of the teacher. Game periods are increased in length and frequency at regular intervals; by mid-year, the game may be played every day. Initially, the teacher announces the start of a game period and gives rewards at the conclusion of the game.
Later, the teacher defers rewards until the end of the school day or week. Over time, GBG is played at different times of the day, during different activities and in different locations; the game evolves from being highly predictable in timing and occurrence with immediate reinforcement to being unpredictable with delayed reinforcement, so that children learn that good behaviour is expected at all times and in all places.
GBG originates from work developed in the late 60ies in the US; and that original GBG work was not copyrighted. Therefore, two versions (with variations between them) currently exist, the one by AIR and the one by PAX (see contact information). In the implementation experiences below, we identify the version that was used. The longitudinal studies that established the evidence for the effectiveness of GBG in the US can be connected to both versions, but evaluations of the European PAX version are still in process.
Implementation Experiences
Contact details
Dr Geertje Leflot
geertje.leflot[a]thomasmore.be
This experience refers to the AIR GBG version
Main obstacles
Although the cost of the intervention was reduced in comparison to the Dutch version, many schools (especially small schools) still find the intervention quite expensive. In Flanders schools get educational guidance in terms of a fixed number of ‘staff hours’ (depending on their pupils’ population, more hours if more pupils from low SES backgrounds) from ‘pedagogical guidance centers’ (staff mainly consisting of teachers) and student counseling from ‘centres for student counseling’ (multidisciplinary staff consisting of, e.g., school psychologists and social workers). These centres, however, do not have the ‘know how’ or time and resources to provide GBG training and consultations. Thus, to implement the GBG, the schools must use the budget provided by the government for their daily operating costs or attract external funding (which is not common practice in Flanders).
Schools have three ‘pedagogical days’ each school year. During these days the school must organise educational activities for school staff. As these pedagogical days are frequently already allocated to other activities (such as seminars on new regulations regarding inclusive education in Flanders), finding sufficient time for the three half-day training sessions for the Flemish version of the GBG (the first before the start of the implementation, the second after approximately 5 months, and the last at the end of the school year) is challenging.
In Flanders schools and teachers are under a lot of pressure to follow government-based regulations and educational guidelines for pupils, leaving little time for investing in preventive programmes such as the GBG.
In schools where not all teachers and principle support the intervention, the quality and quantity of the implementation of the GBG is hampered (e.g. teachers negatively influence each other).
De Sleutel, the organisation that provides the training and consultations for the Flemish version of the GBG, is just one of the many organisations providing education and training to teachers. This makes the dissemination and distribution of the Flemish version of the GBG challenging.
How they overcame the obstacles
- De Sleutel helps schools search for funding to finance the implementation of the GBG. For example, de Sleutel has set up cooperation with the Rotary or the local authorities to fund the implementation of the GBG in schools
- When the training sessions cannot be organised during pedagogical days, de Sleutel and the school search for other opportunities to gather all of the teachers. This frequently results in training sessions being organised during staff meetings. As these meetings take place after school hours and are kept short, the quality of the training session can be impeded.
- As support of the whole school team is crucial to the implementation of the GBG, de Sleutel fully informs the school team about the GBG so that the team as a whole can make an informed decision before investing in the GBG.
- De Sleutel invests in the dissimination and distribution of the Flemish version of the GBG. Schools receive information on the GBG via seminars, mail, pamphlets, Facebook page, etc.
Lessons learnt
Based on our experience with the Flemish and Dutch version of the GBG, we leant that it is necessary to adapt the GBG to the specific educational context, without changing the core elements of the programme. Moreover, quasi-experimental research with the Flemish version showed that the adapted version has positive effects despite the adaptions (Leflot and Colpin, 2016; Leflot et al., 2017).
Furthermore, we learnt that the implementation quality and dosage of the Flemish version is higher when the intervention is embedded in the school context (e.g. the majority of the teachers implement the GBG, the GBG is visualised in the school, schools portray themselves as GBG schools, the GBG theory is part of the school’s educational vision, parents are involved). On the other hand, we have experienced that in some schools where the GBG was only implemented by a few teachers, these teachers can become GBG pioneers by showing and sharing their positive experiences and results, making other teachers curious and more open to the intervention, facilitating the implementation in the whole school.
After the training phase, we noticed that the GBG fades out of the school: the GBG becomes less prominent in the school, teachers implement the GBG less or only implement aspects of the intervention, some teachers stop completely. De Sleutel aims to sustain the implementation by publishing new game elements to motivate teachers and pupils (e.g. new ways to reward children), discussing the long-term implementation with the school team during the final training session, organising booster sessions after the implementation phase, etc. Despite these efforts, long-term implementation (after the training phase) remains a problem.
Notwithstanding the changes, the cost still remains an obstacle for many schools.
Finally, schools were very positive toward the durable GBG material (e.g. pictograms, posters, cards, instruction booklet) provided in the GBG-box
Recommendations
Based on our experience with a foreign version of the GBG and the Flemish adaption we advise other countries to make necessary changes to the non-core elements of the programme in order to fit the educational context.
Note from the authors
Flemish version of the Good Behavior Game: “TOPgame” (TOPspel)
A Dutch version of the Good Behavior Game was tested in a randomized controlled trial in Flanders (Leflot et al., 2010, 2013). Whereas the implementation integrity in this study was good, it became clear that several characteristics of this Dutch version (e.g., the cost and intensity of the teacher training) were not compatible with the organization in Flemish schools and that further implementation and dissemination of this intervention as such was not feasible. Therefore, a Flemish version of the GBG was developed. The Flemish version is based on the same theoretical principles as the American and Dutch version of the GBG and uses the same core principles. The intervention however focusses more on facilitating social skills in general via an advanced program, requires less administration and leaves more room for teachers’ adaptation of non-core program elements to the specific classroom context (e.g., progress of the intervention, pictograms…). Furthermore, the Flemish version was adapted so it could be implemented in the six grades of primary school (6 to 12 years old). Finally, the amount of classroom consultations was reduced, contributing to the decrease of the financial cost of the intervention.
Year implemented: Dutch: 09/2006 - 05/2009; Flemish: 09/2014 - 05/2015
De Sleutel organises the training sessions and classroom consultations for the implementation of the GBG. They can be contacted via https://www.desleutel.be/
Country
Contact details
Karin Streimann
karin.streimann[a]tai.ee
This experience refers to the PAX GBG version
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
- Teachers were not implementing the programme with high fidelity during the first year of implementation.
- Mentors were not able to coach teachers, as they were not experienced in mentoring and did not have experience of implementing the methodology on their own.
With respect to social context
- Teachers do not feel comfortable with mentors and observers visiting their lessons.
- Teachers are not eager to take up new elements (kernels) in their classrooms (harmonica, timer, sticks, hand signals, OK/not OK cards, etc.); they need extra motivation from their mentors to continually use these elements.
- Some Estonian teachers struggle with using the Tootle notes (praise notes).
- Estonian teachers did not think that an ‘American’ programme would work and be relevant in Estonia.
- In Estonia the educational system is inclusive, but teachers struggled with the use of the methodology for children with special needs.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- Teachers did not have enough support from their schools for the programme implementation.
- Some teachers were not able to take part in the 3day training course because there was no substitute who could teach their classes during training days.
- Some teachers coming to PAX GBG training were sent there by the school management and were not motivated to implement the programme.
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
- Mentors received booster training to develop their coaching skills and had to practice the methodology on their own with children.
- Mentoring frequency was increased (currently mentors visit each class between 10 and 14 times per school year).
- The training for both teachers and mentors was restructured and content was added. This improved their understanding of the methodology and increased implementation fidelity.
With respect to social context
- Clear communication about the aim and content of classroom visits before teacher training.
- Mentors model the use of kernels and Tootle notes when visiting classrooms. Positive attention to PAX behaviour was also constantly modelled during teacher training.
- Practical Estonian examples from previous years and experienced mentors have reduced resistance to the ‘American’ programme.
- Engaging special education specialists and social pedagogues to the development activities helps to find solutions for teachers who use the programme with children with special needs.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- School management and support specialists were also invited to the PAX GBG training. This resulted in teachers having more support inside the school and not feeling alone (which resulted in sustained use of the methodology and expansion within schools).
- Both teachers and school management have to agree to participate in the programme implementation. This ensures that teachers are motivated to implement the methodology and that schools support them thoroughly with it.
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
- Programme implementation needs continuous support and it’s important to consider from the beginning how to make the support system sustainable in the long term. For example, how often will teachers receive booster training sessions? Will there be a mentor in each school or a mentor in each region? How often will mentors visit schools? Who will pay for the support system? These are all questions that should be thought through at the beginning.
- Mentors need comprehensive training not only about the methodology but also about coaching, advocating and lobbying for the programme, developing teachers’ and schools’ motivation, and sustaining their motivation during the implementation.
With respect to social context
The programme is easily adaptable to different social contexts and does not need many adaptations. Children like the programme a lot, which supports its implementation. But it’s important to keep in mind that this is a universal prevention programme: it will not solve all problems and selective/indicated approaches will still be needed.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- It’s not enough to work only with teachers or only with school management.
- It’s important to involve both, because the support and acknowledgement that teachers receive from school management motivates them to implement the programme with higher fidelity. It’s wise to involve parents also, as they are often motivated to work with the school when their children are in elementary school. Their recommendations can have a significant influence on the decisions made by schools.
- It is important to include more than one teacher per school; the more teachers from a school implement the methodology the better is the support from and cooperation with school management.
Strengths
Content needs little adaptation, evidence-based kernels are easily implemented, teachers notice changes in the classroom quickly, the focus is on positive and prosocial behaviour.
Weaknesses
Resource consuming (intensive mentoring), difficult to evaluate rigorously and in the long term, difficult to involve school management.
Opportunities
Activities conducted with parents (i.e. parental training based on PAX GBG).
Threats
Low fidelity, difficulties in maintaining sustained use.
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
Start the implementation with motivated teachers who can help with the adaptation process.
With respect to social context
Involve local teachers and experts from different areas (mental health, prevention, education, special education, research) as much as you can in the adaptation process. They can help to develop the vocabulary, advise about necessary changes, suggest measures for evaluation, etc. They are also important parties in the advocacy and lobbying work.
With respect to organisational and economic context
We would recommend the use of a mentoring system, otherwise the implementation fidelity might be low. Choose your mentors carefully; they should have thorough experience of working in schools. Visit sites where PAX GBG has already been implemented and learn about the existing systems in Europe. Think in advance about the sustainability of the mentoring system: who could support the teachers if there is no extra funding for mentors?
Number of implementations
Country
Contact details
Catherine Reynaud-Maurupt
c.reynaud.maurupt[a]gmail.com
association.grvs[a]gmail.com
This experience refers to the AIR GBG version
Link to the article on the transferability in France
Kiefel, M., Reynaud-Maurupt, C., & Poidevin, É. (2018). Le programme américain Good Behavior Game : Premiers éléments de compréhension de sa transférabilité en France. Revue Éducation, Santé, Sociétés,5(1), 99-119.
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
- Difficulty in getting the assent of the whole teaching team in the same school to set up the programme.
- Rejection of purely behavioural methods by the majority of teachers; positive conditioning negatively perceived, characterised by teachers as not soliciting critical thinking from pupils.
- Rejection of American programmes by a small but significant proportion of teachers.
- Rejection of positive education by a minority of teachers (a small minority that consumes a great deal of energy!).
- Additional workload for teachers during the first year of implementation (particularly a one-on-one conversation with a GBG coach every fortnight to analyse and go through their work practices after a session of observation in their class).
With respect to social context
Some schools have a large proportion of children in precarious economic, social and educational situations and don’t benefit from any social diversity. These schools are precisely the ones that would benefit the most from the GBG programme. However, teachers working in schools that benefit from greater social diversity, with children who are better off, tend to be more willing to be trained in the GBG.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- At the organisational level, gathering two school teams at the same time (2 days in September and 1 day in February) requires simultaneously mobilising lots of replacement teachers to make sure the whole school team can participate in the training.
- At the economic level, the implementation of the GBG programme is supported by a non-profit association that solicits funding on an annual basis to successfully carry out its projects. Therefore, it could suffer from cash flow problems if public funding were not allocated in time (consequently jeopardising the development of the programme).
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
- Presentation of the programme in the school year prior to implementation followed by a vote to determine the assent or otherwise of the teaching team.
- Systematisation of a collective debriefing with pupils after each GBG session that enables them to work on the verbalisation of emotions and arguments, thus better acknowledging and reflecting the French approach to the development of cognitive skills; a more detailed explanation during initial training of the value of rewards, focusing on the fact that rewards quickly become intangible as the school year progresses; focusing during the initial training and the coaching of the teachers on the part of the programme that deals with group dynamics and team work (cooperation, solidarity, negotiated resolution of problems).
- Emphasising GBG experiences in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands (scientific references), and promoting the 2013 EMCDDA report North American drug prevention programs: are they feasible in European cultures and contexts?
- Demonstrating that positive education is compatible with setting clear rules. Neuroscience studies have proven that positive education is not just an ideology.
- Scheduling sessions for teachers and GBG coaches to analyse work practices during lunchtime breaks. During initial training, focusing on the programme’s immediate outcomes (better classroom management, better school climate).
With respect to social context
- First step: we choose the schools with line managers in the national education services in order to select the schools with the most disadvantaged populations.
- Second step: we present the programme to the teams that work in these schools and we ask them to organise a vote on participation.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- To obtain enough replacement teachers we have to schedule training sessions very early on with the national education services to make sure that GBG training sessions are integrated into the training plan from April of the previous year (hence the need to mobilise teaching teams during the previous school year: everything must be set up in April for the following September). The available teaching resources combine replacement teachers for teachers who are being trained and replacement teachers for teachers who are on sick leave. Consequently, the booster session scheduled for February might have to be rescheduled to March or April, because February is ‘flu season’. We must accept the need to run a training session for each school team if it’s not possible to gather both teams simultaneously.
- Up until now the cost of implementing the GBG programme and the cost of the transfer of skills from AIR was covered by funding dedicated to the testing of innovative actions. Co-funding from different public bodies made it possible to avoid financial issues.
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
- Do not involve the minority of the teaching team that does not wish to engage in the programme despite a positive majority vote. We consider this respecting the teachers’ pedagogical freedom. Have teachers (those who have accepted GBG training) sign a contract committing to the programme for the first year of implementation.
- (+c. + d.) Adapt the teachers’ training to the needs expressed by the French teachers; use appropriate vocabulary adapted to their professional culture. Pay sustained attention in the GBG programme to the overall strategies that aim to develop social skills, such as cooperation and solidarity, academic skills such as concentration and autonomy, and cognitive skills such as verbalisation of emotions and arguments (help teachers to understand that the programme is not limited to the goal of ensuring that children conform to expected social behaviours).
- (e.) French teachers are obliged to contribute a certain number of ‘pedagogical teaching’ hours outside the classroom. The national education services will therefore offset the investment in the GBG programme by allocating 9 hours of each teacher’s pedagogical teaching time to the programme (1 hour to organising and scheduling, 6 hours to the analysis of work practices with the GBG coach and 2 hours to exploitation of data gathered in class).
With respect to social context
- It is advisable to start looking for the right school 8 months before starting the programme.
- The first GBG programme implementation in France occurred in an ideal socio-historical context, because the education and health services had realised that they had the same goal in terms of the development of children’s social skills: education services had begun to pay closer attention to the benefits of programmes enhancing life skills and to measure their performance, because they contribute to improved learning processes.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- We have to set up things very early on to organise the implementation of the programme in a school, beginning to prepare in January for a programme to start the following September.
- We must set up a development and funding plan for the coming years with public authorities, to take into account our cash flow problems throughout the year and find other sources of funding than the ones that have been allocated so far (the funding available for a particular innovative action on the basis that it is innovative inevitably becomes limited over time). To promote a project that could be developed at a larger scale, it would be interesting to see the results of economic impact studies on the GBG programmes that have been developed in Europe.
Strengths
An evidence-based programme using years of practical case studies, not adding anything to the school curriculum for the pupils.
A programme that fosters changes in teachers’ work practices, thanks to a very accurate description of expected professional gestures, and that provides the tools to enable data collection and analysis of observational data (teachers have the benefit of hindsight; unbiased approach to education).
Besides the long-term effects, teachers and pupils benefit from immediate outcomes.
A programme thoroughly cherished by children who themselves perceive the benefits, as they can fit in in groups better and work in a calmer, quieter atmosphere.
Weaknesses
French national education has a professional culture in which teachers are not used to working in teams and are totally free in terms of their pedagogical choices; how the programme is implemented may therefore be affected by differences in how individual teachers understand and conduct their jobs.
Opportunities
To implement an efficient programme rather rapidly on a large scale at a reasonable cost avoiding major disturbances for teachers or pupils, or changes in the school curriculum.
The long-term impact of the programme is not limited to a reduction in addictive behaviours but also involves delinquency prevention, suicide prevention and anti-social personality disorder prevention.
Threats
The need for sustained funding while the current funding must be renegotiated each year.
The current funding comes exclusively from public funds dedicated to health and not from education services, although education services have invested human resources.
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
Make sure you get the consent of all parties represented and/or accept the fact that some teachers won’t stick to the project and feel free to ‘let them go’ (you won’t achieve any significant result with people who don’t support the project).
With respect to social context
Find schools in deprived neighbourhoods with large numbers of disruptive children with learning difficulties, since these schools are those where you will get the best results from GBG implementation.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Build your own network of decision-makers prior to implementation in order to minimise difficulties in obtaining funding and to ensure the best local support possible for further organisation.
Note from the authors
Year the program was implemented:
School years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017: pilot study (3 schools = 35 teachers, 660 pupils, 3 trainers) with transfer of skills from AIR
Current school year: a transition before national development : first year of GBG implementation without AIR support (4 new schools = 49 new teachers and 860 new pupils) and first French experimentation of ‘Train the trainers’ (4 new trainers)
Number of implementations
Country
Contact details
This experience refers to the AIR GBG version
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
- Recruitment & training of teachers
- Teacher turnover in intervention schools
- Teacher availability for coaching support
With respect to social context
Different teaching culture during parts of the game. It was difficult for some teachers & teaching assistants. Also, some were more uncomfortable with the use of positive reinforcement. Some felt it was too American and felt unusual in a UK classroom.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- Recruitment of schools to take part in intervention
- Cost to schools
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
-
Coaching support
With respect to social context
-
Coaching support & training.
With respect to organisational and economic contex
- Extensive outreach and partnership marketing
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
- Flexible & accessible training
- Online/virtual coaching support
With respect to social context
- Take care and ensure proper resources to help teachers understand Good Behaviour Game through training and coaching support.
- Make it as easy as possible for teachers to collect data.
With respect to organisational and economic context
- More investment required for schools recruitment
Strengths
- Fidelity
- Coaching
- Impact
Weaknesses
- Resource-heavy
- Staff turnover
Opportunities
- Impact
- Seamless with curriculum
Threats
- Cost
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
Invest in upfront training and help teachers have a deep understanding of GBG.
With respect to social context
Training & coaching.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Build strong relationships with school leadership team along with teachers. Maintain these relationships through the programme and build new ones as staff move on. Ensure a whole school buy-in.
Number of implementations
Country
Contact details
Agnieszka Sukiennik — GBG Coach
agnieszka.sukiennik[a]o2.pl
This experience refers to the AIR GBG version
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
The most difficult part was luring primary schools (i.e. head teachers and teachers) into the programme and making it look attractive from the very beginning.
With respect to social context
There was a lot of paperwork connected with legal issues and financing, caused by the money coming from different parties with nothing in common.
With respect to organisational and economic context
This does not apply to GBG at this stage.
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
We relied mostly on professional and personal contacts of GBG coaches and ‘whispering’ marketing — we asked teachers to advertise the programme among their colleagues if they liked it.
With respect to social context
We hired new personnel to handle the office work.
With respect to organisational and economic context
This does not apply to GBG at this stage.
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
Do not push people. Do not give too many details, especially concerning the documents to be filled in. Focus on the positive aspects. Keep in touch.
With respect to social context
Think twice before engaging people who are not really willing to participate. If a teacher is forced by their supervisor to join the programme, they will leave sooner or later.
With respect to organisational and economic context
This does not apply to GBG at this stage.
Strengths
Fun for the children; satisfaction for the adults; and social advantages.
Weaknesses
Paperwork; lack of proper communication channels; and some people dropped out.
Opportunities
It had an amazing impact on children's social behaviour in the school environment, which will continue beyond the programme.
Threats
Teachers may get bored with the method.
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
Hire responsible professionals that are ready to work both independently and in a team.
With respect to social context
Not applicable.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Not applicable.
Number of implementations
Country
Contact details
Jimmy Pettersson
jimmy.pettersson[a]malmo.se
This experience refers to the AIR GBG version
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
Some teachers were not willing to change the way they worked and if they eventually started to make some changes, they were often selective about the changes they made, choosing to make those changes that suited them best and ignoring others.
With respect to social context
In Sweden, we are working with the AIR version of the GBG, but we are using training materials from the Netherlands: we had a Dutch version of an American programme for implementation in Sweden. Some people saw this as a problem and said that it would never work. But, as risk and protective factors are the same in all countries, we did not consider this a problem.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Getting the school to allow enough time to support the teachers properly was an obstacle. As some teachers were sceptical and in some cases unwilling to change the way they managed their classrooms, it would have been very helpful to have more access to their time, especially after lessons in which they implemented the programme, when we wanted time for coaching, but there were no substitutes available to cover the teachers’ next lessons.
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
As positive reinforcement is used in the Good Behaviour Game (GBG), we chose to use that approach with teachers as well. We tried to focus on the changes they made and gave them a lot of praise for making these changes. After doing this, we gave them advice as to how to proceed with making the other changes necessary.
With respect to social context
The first thing we needed to do was to adapt the programme to fit the Swedish cultural context. We were lucky though, as the Dutch school system is a lot more similar to the Swedish system than the American system. This meant that we needed to make only minor changes, such as altering some names and adjusting it to fit with the Swedish school curriculum.
With respect to organisational and economic context
We tried to find time outside the classroom (during breaks or lunch or between classes) in order to coach teachers regarding how well they stuck to the manual, etc. We also developed a form to give teachers written feedback.
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
You have to be flexible. Not everyone will be ready at the same time, so you also have to have patience. But above all you must never give up. We did see changes among the teachers who were initially unwilling to change.
With respect to social context
Evidence-based interventions work regardless of country and origin, as long as you are familiar with the relevant risk and protective factors.
With respect to organisational and economic context
We are preparing for a new study and this time we have been meticulous about pointing out what we expect from the schools that are willing to participate in the study, especially concerning time and access to teachers.
Strengths
As the programme is easy to learn and easy to use, teachers who are open-minded will see changes quickly. This will encourage them to continue.
Weaknesses
There will be children who will have problems adapting to this way of working, and teachers who lack the longer term perspective will have problems motivating themselves to continue to guide the children in the right direction.
Opportunities
The GBG offers so many opportunities. Children work more quietly so they get more done. This means that they get less homework and less homework means more time for other activities, etc.
Threats
Teachers who follow only certain parts of the package and by doing so do not get the results in the long run that we are looking for are a threat.
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
Those implementing the programme must have an understanding of how the school system works in order to reach the right people and foresee what will come during the school year.
With respect to social context
It is important to take time to reflect on how the context in which you plan to apply the programme compares with the context of the original programme.
With respect to organisational and economic context
It is important to make sure that the schools know exactly what is expected of them and what you need from them in order to implement the programme properly.
Number of implementations
Country
Contact details
Conor Owens
conor.owens[a]hse.ie
This experience refers to the PAX GBG version
Main obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
Obstacles to initial implementation took two forms: (1) training and support and (2) preconceptions of some teachers and principals.
Principals were required to release teachers for two days PAX GBG training and teachers were required to invite a PAX GBG mentor into their classroom for four post-training mentoring visits.
At the start, training was dependent upon Dr Dennis Embry, a PAX GBG developer, coming over from the US.
The principals’ concerns related to the following: how much resource and teaching time the programme would take up; whether or not it would have additional effects on existing school policies and programmes; what children it would work for; if it would work for all children regardless of their abilities; and which teachers would need to be trained.
The teachers’ concerns before the take-up of PAX GBG related to the following: whether or not the children would buy into the programme, whether or not it would work, whether or not it would increase teachers’ workloads and whether or not they would have the confidence to deliver the training. A key concern was how teachers’ representative bodies would engage with PAX GBG.
With respect to social context
The number of programmes on offer to school principals the difficulty in accessing the evidence supporting them, and the implications for scalability and sustainability, were the main obstacles. The obstacles were about a crowded space rather than the programme.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Securing grant money to scale up delivery.
How they overcame the obstacles
With respect to individual professionals
Funding is an ongoing issue. Interestingly, funding and resources are currently received from a number of organisations with different focuses on child-related outcomes, e.g. health and well-being, childhood poverty, teacher education.
In collaboration with PAX GBG, we are now in a position to have our own accredited trainers; this will have significant positive implications for efficiency and scaling up.
The gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data was important for identifying obstacles and assessing our efforts to address them.
With regard to the principal and teacher preconceptions, based upon qualitative interviews, teachers reported that they felt confident and competent in terms of delivering PAX GBG following the training mentor support and school principals reported valuing the programme for its impacts on pupils self-regulation skills and teacher practice
With respect to social context
Routinely gathering local data was an important strategy for highlighting impacts both qualitatively and quantitatively. It was also important to collaborate with influential groups within the teaching profession, e.g. teacher unions and education centres.
With respect to organisational and economic context
Because of the far-reaching outcomes of PAX GBG, there are several potential routes to funding. Hence no one organisation is required to cover all the costs.
In building a funding case, it has also been our experience that teachers have continued to deliver PAX GBG for a number of years post training, which significantly reduces the cost of a child receiving the programme.
Since our first offer of training, we have had a waiting list of schools and teachers for future training.
Lessons learnt
With respect to individual professionals
The main lessons we learnt were that PAX GBG is transferable it works in Ireland, and it is accepted by pupils, teachers and principals. It is easy to implement. The model we developed was a teacher-to-teacher model; future trainers will be teachers and the mentors are teachers. The core outcome for pupils was self-regulation. Mentor support is essential. Teachers stated that the programme was easy to implement, took up little time and had positive effects on the individual pupils, the classroom and their own experiences as teachers.
Because the programme had an impact on child behaviour so quickly, it was easy for teachers to see PAX GBG as a classroom management programme rather than as a mental health/resilience programme. Based on implementation experience, we focused on the long-term effects of the programme, e.g. reduced risk of drug usage.
With respect to social context
A partnership model for implementation that involved key decision-makers helped us to design an implementation plan that makes the PAX GBG system ready to scale up. A teacher-led approach fits within current education policy and practice developments.
With respect to organisational and economic context
PAX GBG is a transferable scalable programme that is valued by pupils, teachers and school principals. Implementation requires an ordinary amount of commitment nothing exceptional om behalf on the pupils, teachers or principals. Because of the training structure and the addition of evidence-based kernels, it is easy to implement and sustain.
Strengths
Teachers view PAX GBG as being an acceptable, valuable and impactful additon to their practice achieving significant outcomes for both them and their pupils.
Pupils want to play PAX GBG. To achive equity of access for teachers and pupils ie scaling up multiple delivery routes are required. PAX GBG can be delivered as part of teacher in service training and as part of college based teacher training.
It is not a complicated programme in terms of its delivery but it is based on significant, complex research.
Weaknesses
The need to get multiple organisations to pool resources to facilitate the scaling up of GBG is a weakness.
Opportunities
It is scalable and sustainable and achieves significant long-term outcomes. This allows for population-level change.
Threats
There is a need to move the conversation from evidence-based programmes to the more difficult and important criteria of being evidence-based, scalable and sustainable programmes.
Recommendations
With respect to individual professionals
In our experience, teachers appreciated the teacher-to-teacher delivery and that data were collected and feedback given. Equip teachers to evaluate PAX GBG in their own classroom. This helps them to own and evolve their own practice by generating their own on-going evidence and quality improvement cycle.
With respect to social context
It is important to reinforce the idea that the benefits for pupils are developmental in nature, with behaviour in the classroom being the first outcome but the most important outcomes over time being related to mental health and risk-taking behaviour. Pupils learn self-regulation skills.
With respect to organisational and economic context
A partnership approach allows for more influence, profile and access to potential funding. There are positive impacts upon the culture of the classroom and the school.
Note from the authors
The description, content and implementation of PAX and PAX GBG are quite different. Only PAX GBG use the evidence-based kernels. I can either supply that information or you could request that from Dr Dennis Embry at dde[a]paxis.org
I want to declare that I receive no benefits from and have no financial interest of any kind in PAX GBG.
