International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research Open

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedro

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Readers’ Theatre impact on

the development of reading skills
Konstantinos Mastrothanasis a, *, Maria Kladaki a, Aphrodite Andreou b
a
Department of Primary Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece
b
Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Readers’ Theatre is an artistic drama-based preparation and stage presentation of theatrical scenarios method,
Reader’s theatre where the reader is called to interpret dialogues effectively, in cooperation with a group of people in the form of
Stage reading Stage Reading. Numerous studies have been conducted in order to evaluate the didactic effectiveness of the
Drama-based instruction
method for the development of the students’ reading skills. The aim of the study is the systematic review and
Interpretive reading
Reading ability
meta-analysis of bibliography from 1990 to 2020, in order to unitize the findings concerning the didactic per­
Reading literacy formance of Readers’ Theatre applications in the development of students’ skills aged between 6 and 12, as well
Reading skills as the revelation of the fields, where research presents some deficiencies. The findings of the systematic review of
Systematic review 23 studies showed that Readers’ Theatre is a teaching method, which contributes positively to the development
Meta-analysis of the students’ reading skills, along with the creation of positive attitudes towards reading and the development
of incentive for the learning of reading within linguistic environments of either the mother tongue or a foreign
language. Moreover, based on the meta-analysis results of 11 studies with similar research hypotheses and
design, it was discovered that Readers’ Theatre contributes considerably to the improvement of the students’
reading skills and has a large effect size indeed.

Introduction students to the benefit of language and its structures. Drama as a

Reading is one of those skills that defines considerably the concept of
“success” for Primary school students and – simultaneously - an un­
availing one in most fields later in their lives. It is characterized as one of
the most important skills to be taught as far as language teaching is
concerned and is one of the two receptive linguistic macro skills
(reading, listening) in learning that children are taught in school,
because it is an important means of linguistic communication, exchange
of ideas and acquisition of linguistic literacy.
The incentives, the approaches, the emotions, along with the
teaching method play a very important role for the learning as well as for
the overcoming of all the obstacles that the student might face. The
exploitation of Drama in Education and Theatre Pedagogy in language
teaching may contribute towards this direction, therefore dealing with
the language ability as a skill for development, thus engaging the stu­
dents in holistic activities that mobilize their interest for learning
(Gallagher et al., 2017; Piazzoli, 2022; Stinson & Winston, 2011). As
Dewey (1986) claimed long ago, all the methods that exploit the expe­
riential and playful learning procedure, activate positive feelings in the
teaching method takes advantage of all the principles of cooperative
learning for the motivation of each person’s creative skills to the benefit
of his/her psycho-social and personal development, thus encouraging
the students to use the language, while simultaneously is a means for
psychological decompression and entertainment (Hallgren, 2022). The
main goal is the multifaceted development and benefit of the person,
through a systematic and well-organized participation in multifarious
communicative events since Theatre constitutes a means for the trans­
formation of the students’ psychic and physical abilities into creative
actions. Through their active participation, the students improve various
linguistic and communicative skills, reinforce their incentives for
learning and gain self-confidence because of the playful, experiential,
and pleasant character of the teaching (Asimidou et al., 2021; Freeman
et al., 2010; Mastrothanasis et al., 2018, 2023). Moreover, introvert
children have the opportunity to express their opinions and emotions,
thus contributing to the reinforcement of their self-esteem. This might
highly likely lead to the assumption that various elements such as
challenge, entertainment, interaction, representation, evaluation of the
results, as well as feelings of tension and joy would contribute to keeping

* Corresponding author at: Dimokratias 1, 85132, Rhodes, Greece.

E-mail address: pred18001@aegean.gr (K. Mastrothanasis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100243
Received 16 October 2022; Received in revised form 26 February 2023; Accepted 30 March 2023
2666-3740/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Mastrothanasis et al.
the students’ interest undiminished (Mastrothanasis & Kladaki, 2020).
Therefore, Drama in Education functions effectively for the acquisition
of the teaching goals in an experiential and multisensory frame, which
enables the gaining of linguistic and other skills (Haseman & Winston,
2010; Papakosta et al., 2020; Rasmussen, 2010).
The contribution of Readers’ Theatre to the educational procedure is
evaluated as positive concerning language learning (Pillinger & Vardy,
2022) and especially for the gaining of reading skills (Kulo et al., 2021;
Uribe, 2019). Readers’ Theatre is a drama-based technique that com­
bines reading practice and performance. It is a type of a performing art
where a script is recited by actors, without the use of elaborate costumes
or stage settings. The aim of Readers’ Theatre is to bring the written
word into life, thus allowing the audience to experience the text on a
new basis, with the use of vocal expression, inflection, and pacing, as
well as the use of facial expressions and body language. It combines
elements of literary recitation with elements of theatricality in a specific
composition that is at the borderline between artistic verbal communi­
cation and performing art, drawing codes from both and creating a
complex result with multiple educational benefits. It is claimed that in
the field of didactics of reading, Readers’ Theatre may influence the
nature of the students’ literary experiences and contribute to their
response as readers with the written word.
The aim of this study is the systematic review and meta-analysis of
the relevant bibliography, in order to objectively evaluate the results of
the primary studies, to discover new research paths and analyse any
potential gaps in the field of research. Despite the broad discussion
concerning the challenge presented by the volume of the data, the
exploitation of a clear protocol for systematic review consists of an
important parameter, not only for the researcher’s guidance, but also for
matters of methodological transparency, quality, and credibility in the
exploration of the research hypotheses. The narrative reviews consist of
non-reliable data sources, given that they present subjective choices
and, therefore, include systematic and random errors. Thus, the present
systematic review and meta-analysis was necessary in order to research
on the theatrical-pedagogical effectiveness of the didactic interventions
of a Readers’ Theatre.
Readers’ theatre
Readers’ Theatre consists of a very special theatrical-pedagogical
method that includes elements from stage and theatre techniques,
such as that of Stage Reading and Chamber Theatre. It has to do with the
preparation and the stage presentation of a theatrical script, where the
reader is called to effectively render its dialogues, in cooperation with a
group of people, in the form of a theatre performance. The readers must
accomplish that with the right expression and fluency, so as to transmit
the messages of the play to the audience and that is why a special
preparation in the form of rehearsals is required for the part of the
reader-actor. However, although nowadays stage readings are not used
as widely as forms of theatre, they may apply to the teaching of the
mother tongue (Tyler & Chard, 2000) and the second or foreign lan­
guage (Drew, 2018; Drew & Pedersen, 2010) because of the holistic
teaching abilities they offer. Readers’ Theatre is a theatrical-pedagogical
method and simultaneously a hybrid form of theatrical expression in the
field of Education. Some educational applications of Readers’ Theatre
presented positive results for the educated persons, in all types of formal
education: Pre-school (Kristensen, 2022; Sikandar et al., 2018), Primary
(Young et al., 2019; Young & Rasinski, 2018), Secondary (Karabag,
2015; Kulo et al., 2021; Lo, Lu et al., 2021, 2021; Young & Ortlieb, 2018)
and Higher Education (Khing, 2020), as well as for students with a risk
for functional illiteracy (students at-risk) (Rinehart, 1999) or special
learning difficulties (Drill & Bellini, 2022; Hautala et al., 2022). In
particular, it has also been utilized as a means for programs concerning
the educational training of teachers or adults (Keamy & Selkrig, 2021;
Khanlou et al., 2022).
As a term, Readers’ Theatre includes two basic parameters, this of the
2
International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243
Reader and this of the Spectator. It is a standard form of dramatic pre­
sentation of a scenario, with the reader being called to interpret effec­
tively through recitation the content of a text in cooperation with a
group of persons, in the form of theatrical performance. Readers’
Theatre draws its literary elements from the text, its oral interpretation
and the focused meaning in the content and the messages included in the
text. From Theatre, it draws the dramatic text and the acting skills of the
persons that participate in its stage representation and the performing
narrative. From the performance, it borrows the secondary theatre codes
that are related with the visual frame, the music, the lights, and the
effects, in order to develop the spectacle. In bibliography, we also come
across the terms “stage reading”, “performance reading” and “theatrical
reading”.
The readers sit on a chair or stool with the scenarios in front of them
and by using their speech, they transform the reading into a minimalist
form of theatrical representation and stage presence. That is to say, they
interpret the scenario with the intention and aim to bring the characters
and the story into life, by using their voice, without having to memorize
their roles. Because of its minimalist nature, Readers’ Theatre demands
from the readers to read by using their expression and competence, so as
to transmit the meaning of the text to the audience.
From the Director’s point of view, Readers’ Theatre may be classified
in two types, according to the way of its exploitation: a) the semi-
theatrical type and b) the theatrical type. In the case of the semi-
theatrical form of direction, the students read the theatrical scenarios,
either by standing up or by being seated, usually in a semicircle or in a
line, in front of the rest of their schoolmates, who consist of the audience
of the performance (reading scenes in front of the class). All this should
be realized with theatricality as if they are real actors on a real stage,
playing a role that they have previously analyse and interpret though
rehearsals, thus embodying the character they support with their
reading. The theatrical direction includes the hearing narrative of the
students, who are the actors in front of the class audience that functions
as the attendants, with the only difference that here the secondary
theatrical codes are exploited in order to develop some impressiveness
(e.g. stage setting, costumes, lights, music). The learners enjoy this type
of direction since it enables and develops their creativity and imagina­
tion. Productions of such a type may be exploited outside the classroom
during the various cultural events that take place in the school envi­
ronment at times. This is a case that we encounter as a means of
theatrical expression in Education, in the form of Stage Reading.
Methodology
Research strategy
The systematic literature review was conducted according to the
methodology of Xiao and Watson (2017) and included the formulation
of the research questions of the review, the definition of the criteria for
inclusion and exclusion of a study from the review, the identification in
bibliographic database, the screening of the entries and the acceptance
of those that met the inclusion criteria, their data recording and their
presentation.
The review’s scope was limited in Greek and international studies
that were published in Greek and English from 1st of January 1990 to 1st
of January 2020 and focused on exploring the following key questions:
a What is the contribution of the application of Readers’ Theatre to the
Primary Education students’ reading ability?
b To what extend do the applications of Readers’ Theatre in Education
affect the students’ individual reading skills evaluation (reading
decoding skills, reading comprehension), their attitudes, and their
cognitive characteristics?
c What are the interventions’ specific features that contribute to the
accomplishment of the psycho-educational and didactic goals, to­
wards the development of reading skills and positive attitude?
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Identification and preliminary control below (See Table 1).

Finally, the identified studies were evaluated by two independent
The search of bibliographic entries of the international and Greek judges, possessors of a doctoral thesis, specializing in Theatre Pedagogy,
bibliography was carried out from the electronic databases ERIC, Sage for their methodological quality. The publications that met the criteria
Journals, JSTOR, Science Direct, Cambridge Core, Google Scholars, Oxford for evaluating the quality of research publications of Kmet, Lee and
Academic Journals, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), PROQuest, Cook (2004), with an acceptable value of ≥ 0.55 (p. 9) to the degree of
Springer Link, Taylor & Francis Online, Wiley Online Library, World Cat, agreement for the case of the two independent judges were finally
PsycINFO, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and the Greek data­ accepted.
bases of the National Documentation Centre (National Archive of
Doctoral Dissertations, Academy of Athens, Biblionet). A search through Meta-analysis strategy
the electronic databases provided 3.264 results with main terms of
search the words/phrases “readers Theatre”, “readers’ Theatre”, The final inclusion and presentation of the publications was followed
“reader’s Theatre”, “readers theatre”, “reader’s theatre”, “readers’ by the meta-analysis of the experimental and pseudo-experimental
theatre”, “chamber theatre”, “interpretive reading”, “performing readers”, studies (qualitative studies were excluded) with similar research hy­
“dramatic reading”, “diction”, “oral reading” in conjunction with the sub- potheses and design related with the effect of the Readers’ Theatre on
terms “reading”, “fluency”, “prosody”, “comprehension”, “knowledge the reading, as well as the respective skills. The aim of this procedure
acquisition”, “motivation” and “attitudes”. Also, another 41 records were was their quantitative and uniform outcome through the applications
found through relevant appendices of bibliographic reviews (Black, Meta-Mar (2.7.0.) and Meta-Essentials (Suurmond et al., 2017).
2016; Marshall, 2017). First, we estimated the effect sizes for each one of the selected
The sum of the 3.305 records collected during the identification studies, after the transfer of the initial and final average values, with
phase was reduced to 189 after a) the removal of duplicate entries, b) the their typical divergence and the size of the sample in the application. For
deletion of those that were not considered relevant, c) the removal of studies that reported many effect sizes for one variable, as a result of the
those bibliographic entries that provided limited content access rights measurement of different tools, an effect measurement was estimated by
and d) the deletion of those records with publication date before 1990. the average value of these (Field & Gillett, 2010). Consequently, the
Consequently, the full text of the documents was searched, retrieved, model of the effects was evaluated. In meta-analysis, we evaluate the
and archived and their content was studied to clarify whether the pre­ fixed effects and the random effects for the calculation of summary effect
defined inclusion criteria were met in the review. estimate, the selection of which depends on the heterogeneity of the
studies. In the first models, it is considered that the difference between
the studies is due to random factors only, whereas in the second ones it is
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
claimed that the effect of the intervention in each study is different in the
sample and is influenced by many factors (Hedges & Vevea, 1998). We
The inclusion criteria for the selected studies focused on six crucial
have a picture for this heterogeneity through I2 and Cohran’s Q-statistic.
points concerning a) the type of the publication, b) the author’s lan­
For I2 index, the following are proposed as the lowest limits for the
guage, c) the genre of the research design, d) the sample of interest, e)
explanation of the heterogeneity: 25% low heterogeneity, 50% medium
the intervention type and f) the quality of the publication. Regarding the
heterogeneity and 75% high heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003). As for
type of the publications, the publications accepted came from peer re­
the Q-statistic, there is heterogeneity when p is below the critical value
view journals, doctoral dissertations, monographs, book chapters,
(p˂.05) (Field & Gillett, 2010).
research reports and publications in conference proceedings in Greek or
English. Furthermore, they concerned original quantitative, qualitative,
Results
and mixed methodology studies that referred to the effects of Readers’
Theatre (RT) as an educational intervention on the reading skills and the
Systematic review
students’ attitudes from 6 to 12 years old and/or teachers that had used
Readers’ Theatre at these ages in a didactic way. More specifically, the
The inclusion procedure led to the selection and final choice of 23
inclusion and exclusion criteria of the analysis are presented in the table
studies concerning the evaluation of the effectiveness of Readers’
Theatre in the reading ability of students aged from 6 to 12 years, out of
Table 1 the initial 189 entries that had been read for the bibliographic review
Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the bibliographic review. and their profound analysis. The process from the identification stage to
Category Inclusion Exclusion the final inclusion is briefly described with figures through a PRISMA
Type of Peer review journals Book reviews, essays flow diagram, which is presented in Diagram 1.
publication Doctoral dissertations Articles from magazines Of the 166 entries excluded due to the exclusion criteria from the
Book chapters & books Postgraduate and total of 189 read, the: a) 114 were book reviews, essays, undergraduate
Research reports undergraduate theses
and post graduate theses, theatrical scripts, and books for children and
Articles from scientific Books for children and young
conference proceedings people & theatrical scripts young people, b) 24 included studies with sample different than the
Non research publication review targeted, c) 19 did not concern the evaluation of the Readers’
Language Greek, English Other Theatre effectiveness in the differentiation of reading skills and atti­
Type of study Original quantitative, Case studies tudes, and d) 9 did not include, according to the criteria, the acceptable
and design qualitative, and mixed
methodology studies
research design.
Sample Students of formal education Students of non-formal Next, all data presented by each of the 23 studies that were finally
aged 6–12 years and/or education of ages other than included in the review, were coded in a database for better management
teachers who have used RT in 6–12 years and/or teachers and presentation (see Table 2). The codification indicated information
their teaching for these ages who have not used RT in their
elements of the respective bibliographic report, information about its
teaching for these ages
Type of RT as an intervention for the Studies without a specific or research design, participants, research tools, intervention characteristics
intervention differentiation of reading clear result of intervention and the results obtained, according to the standard APA Style JARS
results skills and attitudes article reporting standards (Appelbaum et al., 2018; Levitt et al., 2018).
Quality of Value ≥.75 in the evaluation Value <0.75 in the evaluation Of the 23 studies, regarding the type of publication, 14 (60.9%) were
publication criteria of Kmet et al. (2004) criteria of Kmet et al. (2004)
publications in scientific journals, 8 (34.8%) were doctoral dissertations

3
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Diagram 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review.

and 1 (4.3%) were articles published in conference proceedings. It was In respect of the methodology of exploring effectiveness, it is
found that none of the studies concerned student samples attending observed that out of the 23 studies, 13 (56.5%) use quantitative meth­
schools in Greece and none was written in Greek (see: Table 3). odology, 8 (34.8%) mixed and 2 (8.7%) qualitative, with more frequent
Research on the effectiveness of Readers’ Theatre in Primary School research designs in pseudo-experimental (N = 12), action research (N =
students has been conducted mainly in America where 19 (82.6%) 5) and case study (N = 4).
studies were identified. Only 3 (13.0%) studies were identified in Asia Regarding the duration of the Readers’ Theatre intervention, there is
and 1 (4.4%) in Europe. In the decade 1990–2000 2 (8.7%) studies were diversity as for the time of the total implementation in the class that
identified, in the decade 2001–2011, 7 (30.4%) studies and in the ranges from 100 to 3000 min, and a time range from 1 to 9 weeks, while
decade 2011 until the beginning of 2020, 14 (60.9%) studies were it is found that the longer the duration and range of an intervention, the
identified, highlighting a more general emerging interest in the study of more effective for the student’s skills and attitudes (see: Table 6). In
the contribution of theatrical and dramatic techniques both in the most of the cases of the studies, these interventions are formed through a
educational process in general and in the field of reading skills in weekly developmental structure.
particular (see: Diagram 2).
Of the 23 studies, 19 (82.6%) had reading in native language as
Meta-analysis
reference field, while 4 (17.4%) had reading in a foreign language. No
study was found on second language reading.
In the meta-analysis, 11 of the above studies with similar research
Regarding the goal setting of the 23 studies, it is observed that in 18
hypotheses and design were included. These studies included an overall
(78.3%) of these cases the research brings into focus the investigation of
of 332 Primary School students. In the table below we can see the
the effect of Readers’ Theatre on the students’ reading decoding skills, in
Hedges’ g effect size, the limits for CI and the weight of each study in
13 (56.6%) on the students’ reading comprehension skills, in 14 (60.9%)
percentage points (see Table 7).
on the students’ psycho-emotional adaptation and cognitive skills and
The results of the combined effect sizes from these studies showed
finally, in 14 (60.9%) on the students’ attitudes towards reading or
that Readers’ Theatre contributes considerably to the improvement of
Readers’ Theatre as a didactic methodology (see: Table 4). Also, in 1
the students’ reading skill with obvious changes for them, since the
(4.4%) study the effect of Readers’ Theatre on vocabulary learning is
overall effect size is characterized as large (Hedges’ g = 1.23, 95%
mentioned. Finally, only 1 (4.4%) study evaluates the effect of the dig­
Cl=0.40–2.06) (Hedges, 1981) and statistically important (z = 3.30,
ital version of Readers’ Theatre (presentation via podcasting to specta­
p<.001) (See Table 8).
tors), while the remaining 22 (95.6%) evaluate its classic version
In the forest plot we can see the effect sizes and the 95% confidence
(presentation with physical presence in spectators).
interval of all the studies included according to S/N (See Diagram 3).
Regarding the participants’ characteristics, out of the total of 23
The examination of the effect sizes heterogeneity, with the use of two
studies, in 15 (65.2%) cases Readers’ Theatre is evaluated for student
different indexes (I2 και Cochran’s Q-statistic) suggested high hetero­
sample with typical reader characteristics, in 5 (21.7%) cases for student
geneity (Q(50) = 83.67, p< .001 και I2=88.05%), thus adoption of the
sample with learning difficulties and in 3 (13.1%) cases for both sample
random effects model (See Table 9).
categories (see: Table 5).
The funnel plot (see Diagram 4) and the Egger’s (t = 2.14, p=.06)

4
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Table 2
Description of the goal and scope of empirical studies for Primary Education.
Studies Purpose Scope Class Student sample Continent
nd
Young & Rasinski, 2018 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills. Native 2 70 students, many of whom are bilingual America
language
nd
Marshall, 2017 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, reading Native 2 26 students, of whom 86% are Caucasian, 7% African America
comprehension, long-term memory and reading language American and 7% Hispanic / Latino.
motivation.
Mraz et al., 2013 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, reading Native 3rd 19 students with learning difficulties. America
comprehension and student attitudes. language
Forney, 2013 Impact of RT on reading comprehension and long- Native 4th 66 students of three Primary School departments. America
term memory retention. language
th
Kariuki & Rhymer, 2012 Impact of RT on reading comprehension. Native 6 20 students of lower income classes.
language
America
Young & Rasinski, 2009 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, attitudes and Native 2nd 29 monolingual students. America
psychosocial characteristics of the student language
Vasinda & McLeod, 2011 Impact of digital RT on student reading Native 2nd- 35 students with learning difficulties. America
comprehension and attitudes. language 3rd
Lin, 2015 Impact of RT on students’ reading attitudes. Foreign 6th 32 students learning English as a foreign language. Asia
language
Caudill-Hansen, 2009 Impact of RT on reading decoding and reading Native 6th 50 students. America
comprehension skills. language
Clark, Morrison, & Wilcox, Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, attitudes and Native 4th 3 students of different reading profiles. America
2009 psychosocial characteristics of the student language
th
Tsou, 2011 Impact of RT on student’s reading decoding skills, Foreign 5 60 students learning English as a foreign language Asia
comprehension, attitudes and psychosocial language with a similar socio-economic and reading profile.
characteristics.
Corcoran & Davis, 2005 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, attitudes, and Native 2nd- 19 students with learning and emotional learning America
psychosocial characteristics of the student. language 3rd difficulties. 75% are Caucasian, 25% African
American and Hispanic / Latino.
Johnson, 2011 Impact of RT on Reading Decoding and Reading Native 2nd 44 students, of whom 68% are African American, 4% America
Comprehension Skills language Eurasian, 9% Latino, 13% Asian and 4% of various
other nationalities.
Rinehart, 1999 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, attitudes, and Native 1st- 22 students with learning difficulties. America
psychosocial characteristics of the student. language 2rd
Millin & Rinehart, 1999 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, reading Native 2nd 28 students with reading difficulties. America
attitudes and psychosocial characteristics of the language
student.
Carrick, 2001, 2009 Impact of RT on skills of reading decoding, reading Native 5th 179 students from four different schools. America
comprehension, attitudes, and psychosocial language
characteristics of the student.
Smith, 2011 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, reading Native 2nd 85 students from four sections of a school. America
attitudes and psychosocial characteristics of the language
student.
Black, 2016 Impact of RT on reading decoding and reading Native 5th 50 students of typical development and 11 students America
comprehension skills. language with reading difficulties.
th
Myrset & Drew, 2016 Impact of RT on reading decoding skills, reading Foreign 6 21 students of typical development and 6 students Europe
attitudes and psychosocial characteristics of the language with reading difficulties.
student.
Jagger, 2008 Impact of RT on reading decoding and reading Native 5th 82 students from four sections of a school. America
comprehension skills. language
Keehn, 2003 Impact of RT on reading decoding and reading Native 2nd 66 students from four sections of a school. America
comprehension skills. language
rd
Huang & Luo, 2017 Impact of RT on student reading decoding skills, Foreign 3 26 students learning English as a foreign language. Asia
attitudes, and psychosocial characteristics of the language
student.
Young, Durham, Miller, Impact of RT on students’ reading skills and reading Native 2nd 76 students from seven departments of different America
Rasinski, & Lane, 2019 decoding, reading comprehension and vocabulary language schools
learning.

linear regression test did not indicate any evidence for possible bias of
the publications. Finally, three studies were found through the trim-and-
fill method of Duval and Tweedie (2000) and were adjusted according to
their effect sizes.
Conclusion
The aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was the in-depth
examination of the didactic efficiency of the applications of Readers’
Theatre and in particular, the promotion of their contribution to Primary
Education, in connection with reading matters on the one hand and on
the other, the revelation of the fields that the research presents
deficiency.
Regarding the first part of the targeting, as revealed from the study of
the elements that the evaluated researches included by covering some
thirty years, Readers’ Theatre consists of a theatrical-pedagogical
method that contributes positively to the development of the students’
reading skills, the creation of positive approaches towards reading and
the development of the learning initiatives in linguistic environments
either of the mother tongue or of a foreign language for the learning of
reading. The results of the meta-analysis for the influence of Readers’
Theatre as a method for the didactics of reading, showed that it con­
tributes considerably to the improvement of the students’ learning skills
that equals to 1.23. According to bibliography, the desired levels for an
effective intervention program is bigger than 0.40 (Hattie, 2008, p. 97).
On a level of reading decoding skills, it was revealed that Readers’
Theatre has a positive effect on students; this was presented by almost
the total of the researches for the improvement of the reading fluency

5
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Table 3 Table 4
Descriptive features of empirical studies for Primary Education. Description of empirical research on the level of skills assessment.
Variable Fields Frequency Studies Decoding Comprehension Psycho- Attitudes
emotional
Type of publication Scientific Journal 14
adaption &
Doctoral Dissertations 8
cognitive skills
Conference proceedings 1
Location America 19 Young & √
Asia 3 Rasinski, 2018
Europe 1 Marshall, 2017 √ √ √
Language Greek 0 Mraz et al., 2013 √ √ √
English 23 Forney, 2013 √ √
Reference field Native language 19 Kariuki & √ √
Foreign language 4 Rhymer, 2012
Bilingual 0 Young & √ √ √
Sample of interest Typical/formal readers 15 Rasinski, 2009
Students with learning difficulties 5 Vasinda & √ √ √
Students with or without learning 3 McLeod, 2011
difficulties Lin, 2015 √ √
Methodology Quantitative 13 Caudill-Hansen, √ √
Mixed 8 2009
Qualitative 2 Clark et al., 2009 √ √ √
Focus of interest Decoding 19 Tsou, 2011 √ √ √ √
Comprehension 14 Corcoran & √ √ √
Psychosocial skills 14 Davis, 2005
Attitudes 14 Johnson, 2011 √ √
Class 1st-3rd 13 Rinehart, 1999 √ √ √
4th-6th 10 Millin & √ √ √ √
Duration of experimental 1–500 min 8 Rinehart, 1999
intervention 500–1000 min 7 Carrick, 2001, √ √ √ √
>1000 8 2009
Scope of experimental 1–4 weeks 6 Smith, 2011 √ √ √
intervention 4–8 weeks 7 Black, 2016 √ √
>8 weeks 10 Myrset & Drew, √ √ √
2016
Jagger, 2008 √ √
Keehn, 2003 √ √
Huang & Luo, √ √ √
2017
Young et al., 2019 √ √

Table 5
Description of empirical research at the level of student difficulties and reader
characteristics.
Studies Typical readers Readers with learning disabilities

Young & Rasinski, 2018 √

Marshall, 2017 √
Mraz et al., 2013 √
Diagram 2. Thirty years of research over time based on review. Forney, 2013 √
Kariuki & Rhymer, 2012 √
Young & Rasinski, 2009 √
(Carrick, 2001, 2009; Caudill-Hansen, 2009; Corcoran & Davis, 2005; Vasinda & McLeod, 2011 √
Huang & Luo, 2017; Keehn, 2003; Millin & Rinehart, 1999; Mraz et al., Lin, 2015 √
2013; Myrset & Drew, 2016; Rinehart, 1999; Tsou, 2011), for reading Caudill-Hansen, 2009 √
precision (Johnson, 2011; Young & Rasinski, 2009, 2018), the prosody Clark et al., 2009 √ √
Tsou, 2011
(Huang & Luo, 2017; Mraz et al., 2013; Rinehart, 1999; Young &
√
Corcoran & Davis, 2005 √
Rasinski, 2009, 2018), the pronunciation during the speech (Myrset & Johnson, 2011 √
Drew, 2016) and the decrease of reading mistakes (Mraz et al., 2013). In Rinehart, 1999 √
certain researches, however, it appeared that Readers’ Theatre presents Millin & Rinehart, 1999 √
Carrick, 2001, 2009
similar results in comparison with other didactic methods, something √
Smith, 2011 √
that we believe, derives from the previous maintenance of acquired Black, 2016 √ √
benefit during the period of researches (Hautala et al., 2022) or limits Myrset & Drew, 2016 √ √
the range of the improvement of a person’s reading ability and is Jagger, 2008 √
imposed by the restrictions of other cognitive or non-cognitive factors Keehn, 2003 √
Huang & Luo, 2017
(e.g. age). More specifically, in the research of Young et al. (2019) the
√
Young et al., 2019 √
students that participated in theatrical-pedagogical activities of
Readers’ Theatre, showed considerable improvement in connection with
reading decoding, corresponding to the improvement of students that to this that occurred to students who were taught either with the re­
participated in interventions of reinforcement of their reading skills petitive readings technique, or other traditional effective methods based
(Young et al., 2019, pp. 217–218). In the researches of Marshall (2017), on the Curriculum (formal instruction with silent reading, choral
Smith (2011), Black (2016) and Jagger (2008), the methodology of reading et al.). Finally, in the study of the Clark et al. case (2009), similar
Readers’ Theatre provided improvement in reading competence, similar results concerning the pronunciation and the evenness of the students’

6
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Table 6
Description of the research methodology and the findings of empirical studies.
Studies Duration Range Methodology Research design Tools Results

Young & Rasinski, 2018 2600΄ 9 Quantitative Quasi- experimental TPRI Scale, NEAP Scale, The improvement in the ability to accurately provide
design Rubric the oral pronunciation and prosody reading, compared
to the method of silent reading, with large effect sizes.
Marshall, 2017 400΄ 0,5 Mixed Quasi- experimental Structured interview, Slight improvement in reading fluency, reading
design observation, questionnaire, prosody and comprehension. The contribution of
WIAT scale, easyCBM scale stagnating reading in knowledge acquisition, and
memory registration. Qualitative research results
showed an improvement in the students’ interest and
an increase of the reading motivations.
Mraz et al., 2013 900΄ 1,5 Quantitative Correlational JBRI scales, FMFS rubric Improvement in reading fluency, reading prosody and
approach reading comprehension. Reduction of reading errors.
Case study Students’ enthusiasm.
Forney, 2013 225΄ 0,25 Quantitative Pre-test design Cognitive assessment Mean effect sizes on comprehension similar to RT,
Cross-sectional questionnaire silent reading and robin round reading. The
design effectiveness of RT against alternative reading methods
in retaining information.
Kariuki & Rhymer, 270΄ 0,25 Quantitative Between groups Cognitive assessment Better performance, regardless of student gender, in
2012 design with one questionnaire comprehension of physics textbook readings compared
post- test to traditionally taught students.
Young & Rasinski, 2009 2600΄ 9 Mixed Correlational Open interview, DRA scale, Skills Improvement in oral pronunciation accuracy,
approach TPRI scale, rubric reading speed and prosody reading. Enthusiasm of
Action research students with rehearsals and performance. Pleasure
reading behaviour at home.
Vasinda & McLeod, 525΄ 2,5 Mixed Correlational Focus group interview, Improvement in students’ reading speed, reading
2011 approach questionnaire, DRA scale, comprehension, attitudes, and psychosocial
Action research CRI scale adjustment.
Lin, 2015 1885΄ 1,6 Quantitative Correlational Questionnaire There was no differentiation in the already high reading
approach attitudes of the students.
Action research
Caudill-Hansen, 2009 1000΄ 2,5 Quantitative Quasi- experimental DIBELS scale, STAR scale Better performance in reading fluency and reading pace
design than when students taught according to the curriculum.
Similar levels of reading comprehension between the
two groups.
Clark, Morrison, & 400΄ 2 Mixed Correlational Semi-structured interview, Positive reinforcement of reading motivation, increase
Wilcox, 2009 approach QRI scale, CRI scale, MFS of confidence to read in front of an audience,
Case study rubric improvement in pace reading and fluency. Similar
levels of pronunciation and smoothness.
Tsou, 2011 960΄ 6 Mixed Quasi- experimental Focus group interview, Alpha Improvement in accuracy level of reading
design scale pronunciation, reading fluency, reading motivations
and confidence compared to traditional teaching. Slight
improvement in reading comprehension. Enthusiasm
and interest for the linguistic lesson.
Corcoran & Davis, 2005 800΄ 2 Quantitative Correlational Observation, ERAS scale Improvement in reading fluency, self-confidence and
approach reading motivation. Students’ enthusiasm for the
Action research process.
Johnson, 2011 900΄ 2,25 Quantitative Quasi- experimental Observation, DIBELS scale, Better performance in reading accuracy and reading
design STAR scale prosody than students taught according to curriculum.
Similar levels of reading comprehension between the
two groups.
Rinehart, 1999 1600΄ 1,5 Quantitative Descriptive Observation, lesson plans, Improvement in fluency, prosody reading, reading
approach diary motivation, self-confidence. Positive attitudes towards
Action research the RT.
Millin & Rinehart, 1999 1400΄ 1,75 Mixed Quasi- experimental Observation, QRI scale, ERAS Better performance in recitation, reading
design scale comprehension and reading attitudes than students
taught based on the curriculum. Increased confidence
and enthusiasm for RT as a teaching practice.
Carrick, 2001, 2009 2400΄ 3 Mixed Quasi- experimental Observation, Terranova Better performance in reading fluency, reading
design scale, ARI scale, calendars, comprehension, and reading motivation than students
checklists taught according to repeated reading and traditional
teaching. Increased mobilization and enjoyment of
teaching through RT.
Smith, 2011 3000΄ 2,5 Quantitative Quasi- experimental DIBELS scale, ERAS scale, Improvement in reading fluency, reading motivations
design MRP scale and attitudes towards reading, but with results similar
to the repeated learning technique.
Black, 2016 675΄ 2,25 Quantitative Quasi- experimental DIBELS scale, STAR scale Improvement in reading fluency and comprehension
design but similar results compared to traditional teaching for
typical/formal development readers. For students with
reading difficulties there was an advantage in
comprehension over those who attended traditional
teaching.
Myrset & Drew, 2016 235΄ 0,25 Quantitative Descriptive Semi-structured interview, Improvement in pronunciation, word recognition,
approach video recording reading fluency and reading motivation. Increase of
Case study confidence, engagement, enthusiasm, and
commitment.
(continued on next page)

7
K. Mastrothanasis et al. International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243

Table 6 (continued )
Studies Duration Range Methodology Research design Tools Results

Jagger, 2008 100΄ 2 Quantitative Quasi- experimental Observation, DIBELS scale, Improvement in reading fluency and comprehension
design GMRT scale but with similar results to traditional teaching.
Keehn, 2003 1800΄ 2,25 Quantitative Quasi- experimental QRI Scales, GORT scale, Improvement in reading fluency and reading
design ORFS scale, DFA scale comprehension especially for students with low and
high reading performance, compared to middle
performance students. Everyone benefited.
Huang & Luo, 2017 100΄ 1 Mixed Descriptive Observation, video Improvement in reading fluency and prosody reading,
approach recording, positive reaction to RT but stable levels of student
Case study WPS, FLCAS Scale stress.
Young, Durham, Miller, 2250΄ 18 Quantitative Quasi- experimental GMRT-4 scale Improvement in reading decoding, comprehension and
Rasinski, & Lane, design vocabulary learning but with similar results compared
2019 to an intervention in reading skills, except in the case of
comprehension, where greater magnitudes of influence
were achieved through RT.

Note. Duration: Duration of intervention (in min), Range: range of intervention (in weeks).

difficulties (Jenkins et al., 2020; Millin & Rinehart, 1999; Mraz et al.,
Table 7
2013; Vasinda & McLeod, 2011), with similar contribution in compar­
Effect Size publications, Cl limits and weight (%).
ison either with the repetitive readings technique or other traditional
S/N Study Hedges’ g CI LL CI UL Weight methods based on the Curriculum (Black, 2016; Forney, 2013; Jagger,
1 Vasinda and MvLeod (2011) 0.20 − 0.27 0.67 9.84% 2008; Marshall, 2017; Tsou, 2011).
2 Tsou (2011) 0.47 − 0.05 1.01 9.65% On a level of psycho-social adjustment, cognitive skills and attitudes,
3 Marshall (2017) 0.57 − 0.22 1.38 8.59%
the contribution of Readers’ Theatre is considerable indeed; there is
4 Smith (2011) 0.78 0.34 1.23 9.95%
5 Kariuki and Rhymer (2012) 0.81 − 0.09 1.79 8.05% promotion of the added value of this theatrical-pedagogical method to
6 Young, Durham et al. (2019) 0.82 0.36 1.30 9.84% the reading incentives (Carrick, 2001, 2009; Clark et al., 2009; Corcoran
7 Keehn (2003) 0.91 0.56 1.28 10.21% & Davis, 2005; Marshall, 2017; Millin & Rinehart, 1999; Myrset &
8 Millin & Rinehart (2009) 1.41 0.60 2.30 8.36% Drew, 2016; Tsou, 2011), the students’ interest for reading at school
9 Young and Rasinski (2018) 1.66 1.08 2.28 9.34%
(Marshall, 2017), the enthusiasm (Corcoran & Davis, 2005; Millin &
10 Young and Rasinski (2009) 1.81 1.21 2.45 9.28%
11 Huang and Luo (2017) 5.19 4.11 6.43 6.88% Rinehart, 1999; Mraz et al., 2013; Myrset & Drew, 2016; Tsou, 2011;
Vasinda & McLeod, 2011; Young & Rasinski, 2009), the delight (Car­
rick, 2001, 2009; Huang & Luo, 2017; Myrset & Drew, 2016), the
involvement (Carrick, 2001, 2009; Myrset & Drew, 2016; Vasinda &
Table 8
Combined effect sizes.
McLeod, 2011), the commitment for participation (Myrset & Drew,
2016), the love for reading at home (Young & Rasinski, 2009), the
Combined effect sizes Values
development of self-confidence (Corcoran & Davis, 2005; Millin &
Hedges’ g 83.67 Rinehart, 1999; Myrset & Drew, 2016; Tsou, 2011; Vasinda & McLeod,
Standard error 0.37
2011), the acquisition of knowledge (Marshall, 2017) and the retention
CI Lower limit 0.40
CI Upper limit 2.06
PI Lower limit − 0.67 Table 9
PI Upper limit 3.13
Examination of the heterogeneity of studies based on I2
and Cochran’s Q-statistic.
reading were discovered, in comparison with their performance before Heterogeneity criteria Values
the intervention with Readers’ Theatre. Q 83.67
On a level of reading comprehension, it was revealed that Readers’ pQ 0.000
Theatre affects positively in cases of students’ populations of typical/ I2 88.05%
T2 0.59
formal development (Carrick, 2001, 2009; Kariuki & Rhymer, 2012;
T 0.77
Keehn, 2003; Young et al., 2019), as well as in populations with learning

Diagram 3. Forest plot of the meta-analysis publications.

8
K. Mastrothanasis et al.
Diagram 4. Funnel plot of the meta-analysis publications.
of mnemonic recordings from the content of the text (Forney, 2013;
Marshall, 2017). The above findings reveal that students develop posi­
tive emotions and behaviours and suggest that the preparation for a
performance is an important aspect of Readers’ Theatre (Hautala et al.,
2022). In Smith’s (2011) research, however, despite the improvement
on a level of reading incentives and attitudes towards reading from
Readers’ Theatre, the repetitive readings technique led to similar results.
Also, Lin’s (2015) research did not present any difference on the already
high reading attitudes of the students after a didactic intervention with
Readers’ Theatre. Finally, in the research of Huang and Luo (2017), the
intervention with Readers’ Theatre did not lead to the reduction of the
level of students’ stress.
The added contribution of Readers’ Theatre to either student pop­
ulations of typical/formal development readers or those of readers with
learning difficulties, in comparison with other methods, became clear in
cases where any intervention was made systematically over time. Some
interventions of a short period of time and implementation range with
Readers’ Theatre did not indicate important differences in the
improvement of the students’ learning ability in comparison with other
effective methods (Black, 2016; Jagger, 2008; Marshall, 2017). Ac­
cording to our viewpoint, longer targeted reading interventions perform
better in developing reading skills than shorter ones, because they
provide more opportunities for practice and feedback. Learning to read
is a complex and multifaceted process that requires sustained effort and
repeated exposure to text. Longer interventions allow students to receive
more instruction, practice reading more texts, receive feedback on their
progress and provide more opportunities to master reading skills and
develop more complex reading strategies which are known to take a long
time to develop. In the majority of the case studies, the didactic in­
terventions are formed through a weekly structure of development. The
teacher who would undertake the realization of the Readers’ Theatre
project, acted as a director of a theatre performance. At the beginning of
the week s/he would hand the text of the theatrical scenarios out, pro­
cess them with the students and assign roles. The scenarios were based
either on novels or to children’s literature pieces, poems or fairytales
(Carrick, 2001, 2009; Caudill-Hansen, 2009; Keehn, 2003; Lin, 2015;
Millin & Rinehart, 1999; Mraz et al., 2013; Myrset & Drew, 2016;
Vasinda & McLeod, 2011; Young & Rasinski, 2018), or texts taken from
the students’ curriculum that had been transcribed into dramatic text in
dialogue form and were suitable for the students’ reading level (Black,
2016; Clark et al., 2009; Corcoran & Davis, 2005; Forney, 2013; Huang
& Luo, 2017; Jagger, 2008; Kariuki & Rhymer, 2012; Marshall, 2017;
9
International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243
Rinehart, 1999; Smith, 2011; Tsou, 2011; Young & Rasinski, 2009).
Usually, the teacher would read the scenario aloud first, so that his/her
students would hear it. Throughout the week, s/he would guide and
provide feedback to his/her students, who would work individually or as
a group, in order to be informed about the adequacy of their perfor­
mance. Through rehearsals and participatory practices of the group, the
students were trained to interpret and perform the content of the di­
alogues satisfactorily. The teacher would gradually delegate more re­
sponsibilities to his/her students. At the end of the week, they would
present the text to an audience in the form of Readers’ Theatre.
As for the second part of the retrospective goal, it was discovered that
none of the studies was about student populations in schools of Greece.
Also, none was written in Greek. Although there is a growing interest in
studying the contribution of theatrical and dramatic techniques in the
educational procedure and especially in the field of reading skills
internationally, no study that connected the execution of scenarios and
theatrical dialogues in the form of Readers’ Theatre with the positive
effect on bilingual students’ reading skills was found. In Greece, we
often come across Readers’ Theatre as a means of theatrical expression
in Education, as Stage Reading within the frame of school cultural
events. Its efficiency as a didactic tool for the development of skills in the
second language of typical/formal development readers or readers with
learning difficulties, however, has not yet been accessed. Neither the
effect of its digital exploitation in the skills and the attitudes of bilingual
students has been assessed. The study of didactic techniques that func­
tion effectively in bilingual students, presents scientific and educational
interest, with the need of such an investigation being in harmony with
the requirements and the expectations of the educational community.
Contribution and limitations of the study
The present systematic review and meta-analysis collected the
knowledge offered by the qualitative, quantitative, and mixed type
studies concerning the effectiveness and the exploitation of Readers’
Theatre for the teaching of reading, as well as the development of
respective reading skills. During the bibliography search, as it resulted
from the volume in the studies that have internationally been conduct­
ed, it seems that there is a special interest for the subject in question.
However, no systematic review or meta-analysis related to it was found.
The present study is the first attempt of a systematic overview and
composition of the already existing bibliography.
However, the study presents some restrictions as well. The fact that
only studies in English or in Greek were included, consists of an
endogenous restriction, which might have excluded some important
studies published in other languages, along with the fact that there were
no studies for student populations with an age older than 12. Also, an
additional restriction is the incongruous reference to the studies, which
made it necessary to convert a different effect size result in an audience,
or even created the need for its calculation by the writers, when this was
not done originally. Finally, there is another limitation that is related to
the words which were exploited for the processing of the systematic
review of the bibliography. Although quite a few words with relevant
semantic content were used, others such as “stage reading”, “staged
reading”, “play reading” and so on, which might offer additional results
that could be exploited in the study, were not included.
Statements and declarations
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No poten­
tial competing interest was reported by the authors.
Declaration of interest statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No
K. Mastrothanasis et al.
potential competing interest was reported by the authors.
References
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M.
(2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology.
American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
Asimidou, A., Lenakakis, A., & Tsiaras, A. (2021). The contribution of drama pedagogy in
developing adolescents’ self-confidence: A case study. NJ Drama Australia Journal, 45
(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14452294.2021.1978145
Black, L. A. (2016). The effects of reader’s theater on reading comprehension and fluency of
fifth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University.
Carrick, L. U. (2001). (Doctoral Dissertation). Lehigh University.
Carrick, L. U. (2009). The effects of readers theatre on fluency and comprehension: A study on
fifth grade students in regular classrooms. VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
Caudill-Hansen, K. (2009). Readers’ theater as a strategy to increase comprehension and
fluency in sixth grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University.
Clark, R., Morrison, T. G., & Wilcox, B. (2009). Readers’ theater: A process of developing
fourth-graders’ reading fluency. Reading Psychology, 30(4), 359–385. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02702710802411620
Corcoran, C. A., & Davis, A. D. (2005). A study of the effects of readers’ theater on second
and third grade special education students’ fluency growth. Reading Improvement, 42
(2), 105–112.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. Educational Forum, 50(3), 242–252. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
Drew, I. (2018). Reading in the second language classroom: Consideration of first
language approaches in second language contexts. Acta Didactica Norge, 12(2), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.5570
Drew, I., & Pedersen, R. R. (2010). Readers theatre: A different approach to English for
struggling readers. Acta Didactica Norge, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5617/
adno.1051
Drill, R. B., & Bellini, S. (2022). Combining readers theater, story mapping and video self-
modeling interventions to improve narrative reading comprehension in children
with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(1),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10803-021-04908-X/TABLES/4
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of
testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2),
455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0006-341X.2000.00455.X
Field, A., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000711010X502733
Forney, M. (2013). Teaching content material through reader’s theater (Doctoral
dissertation). Fielding Graduate University.
Freeman, G. D., Sullivan, K., & Fulton, C. R. (2010). Effects of creative drama on self-
concept, social skills, and problem behavior. The Journal of Educational Research, 96
(3), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598801
Gallagher, K., Rhoades, R., Bie, S., & Cardwell, N. (2017). Drama in education and
applied theater, from morality and socialization to play and postcolonialism. In
Oxford research encyclopedia of education, 1. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.34
Hallgren, E. (2022). Drama in education and the value of process. In M. McAvoy, &
P. O’Connor (Eds.), The routledge companion to drama in education (pp. 45–52).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003000914-6.
Haseman, B., & Winston, J. (2010). ‘Why be interested?’ aesthetics, applied theatre and
drama education. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and
Performance, 15(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2010.512182
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Hautala, J., Ronimus, M., & Junttila, E. (2022). Readers’ theater projects for special
education: A randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042846
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/
10769986006002107
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. https://doi.
org/10.1136/BMJ.327.7414.557
Huang, C.-. L., & Luo, C.-. L. (2017). A case study of collaborative learning via teaching
readers theater. Chaoyang Humanities and Social Sciences Journal, 15, 120–139.
https://doi.org/10.30110/CJHSS
Jagger, T. (2008). The effect of readers theater on fifth graders’ reading fluency and
comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University.
Jenkins, K., Jackson, J., Abdella, A. S., & Henderson, K. (2020). Using Reader’s theatre to
improve reading fluency in african-american male students with learning and
behavioral challenges. Physical medicine, rehabilitation and disabilities, 6(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.24966/PMRD-8670/100043
Johnson, D. D. (2011). The effects of a reader’s theater instructional intervention on
secondgrade students’ reading fluency and comprehension skills (Doctoral dissertation).
Walden University.
Karabag, S. G. (2015). Secondary school students’ opinions about readers’ theatre.
European Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-
jer.4.1.14
10
International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243
Kariuki, P., & Rhymer, S. (2012). The effects of readers’ theatre-based and tradition-
based instruction on sixth-grade students’ comprehension at a selected middle
school. In J. Petry (Ed.), Annual Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association (pp. 1–14). Mid-South Educational Research Association.
Keamy, R. K., & Selkrig, M. (2021). Interrupting practice traditions: Using readers’
theatre to show the impact of a nationally mandated assessment task on initial
teacher educators’ work. Teaching Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10476210.2021.1951198
Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young
readers’ oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40–61. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395
Khanlou, N., Vazquez, L. M., Khan, A., Orazietti, B., & Ross, G. (2022). Readers theatre as
an arts-based approach to education: A scoping review on experiences of adult
learners and educators. Nurse Education Today, 116, Article 105440. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105440
Khing, I. E. (2020). Using reader’s theatre strategy in learning english poetry: How
effective it could be? Journal of English Education and Teaching, 4(3), 310–322.
https://doi.org/10.33369/JEET.4.3.310-322
Kmet, L. M., Lee, R. C., & Cook, L. S. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for
evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage
Foundation for Medical Research.
Kristensen, K. (2022). Utilizing readers’ theatre and role-play to engage young english
language learners. GATESOL Journal, 32(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.52242/
GATESOL.130
Kulo, S. A., Odundo, P. A., & Kibui, A. (2021). Perception of teachers on readers theatre
and reading comprehension: Prospects for curriculum planning. Journal of Language
and Linguistic Studies, 17(1), 256–267.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-
Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary,
qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology. American
Psychology, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Lin, Y. F. (2015). Using readers theater as a facilitator in elementary school english
training. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.
v4n2p43
Lo, C. C., Lu, S. Y., & Cheng, D. D. (2021a). The influence of reader’s theater on high
school students’ english reading comprehension-english learning anxiety and
learning styles perspective. SAGE open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/
21582440211061576
Lo, C. C., Wen, H., & Lin, Y. S. (2021b). The effect of readers theater on EFL seventh-
graders’ reading and listening comprehension. SAGE open, 11(3). https://doi.org/
10.1177/21582440211038388
Marshall, H. B. (2017). The effectiveness of readers’ theatre on fluency, comprehension, and
motivation on primary students (Doctoral dissertation). Middle Tennessee State
University, Department of Elementary and Special Education.
Mastrothanasis, K., Geladari, A., & Kladaki, M. (2018). Play activities in second language
teaching metacognitive writing strategies to struggling bilingual writers: An
empirical study. International Journal of Education and Research, 6(6), 279–290.
Mastrothanasis, K., & Kladaki, M. (2020). The involvement of children in the arts during
their leisure time. Asian Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 3(2),
10–19.
Mastrothanasis, K., Zervoudakis, K., Kladaki, M., & Tsafarakis, S. (2023). A bio-inspired
computational classifier system for the evaluation of children’s theatrical anxiety at
school. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-023-11645-4
Millin, S. K., & Rinehart, S. D. (1999). Some of the benefits of readers theater
participation for second-grade title I students. Reading Research and Instruction, 39
(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558312
Mraz, M., Nichols, W., Caldwell, S., Beisley, R., Sargent, S., & Rupley, W. (2013).
Improving oral reading fluency through readers theatre. Reading Horizons, 52(2),
163–180.
Myrset, A., & Drew, I. (2016). A case study of readers theatre in a primary Norwegian
EFL class. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology, 4(1), 49–66.
Papakosta, A., Mastrothanasis, K., Andreou, A., & Blouti, I. (2020). Psychometric
evaluation of recall and recognition tasks for the measurement of young spectators’
theatrical memory. Journal of Literary Education, 3, 177–199. https://doi.org/
10.7203/JLE.3.14835
Piazzoli, E. (2022). The elements of drama in second language education: An
intercultural perspective. In M. McAvoy, & P. O’Connor (Eds.), The routledge
companion to drama in education (pp. 391–407). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781003000914-43.
Pillinger, C., & Vardy, E. J. (2022). The story so far: A systematic review of the dialogic
reading literature. Journal of Research in Reading. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9817.12407
Rasmussen, B. (2010). The ‘good enough’ drama: Reinterpreting constructivist aesthetics
and epistemology in drama education. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of
Applied Theatre and Performance, 15(4), 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13569783.2010.512187
Rinehart, S. D. (1999). ‘Dont think for a minute that i’m getting up there’: Opportunities
for readers’ theater in a tutorial for children with reading problems. Reading
Psychology, 20(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/027027199278510
Sikandar, S. A. B. D. H., Abdullah, E. Z. B. H., & Raj, S. M. R. (2018). Reader’s theatre: To
enhance reading amongst preschool readers. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(7), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.6007/
IJARBSS/v8-i7/4319
K. Mastrothanasis et al.
Smith, D. (2011). Readers theatre: Its effectiveness in improving reading fluency, student
motivation, and attitudes toward reading among second-grade students (Doctoral
dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, College of Education.
Stinson, M., & Winston, J. (2011). Drama education and second language learning: A
growing field of practice and research. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of
Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(4), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13569783.2011.616395
Suurmond, R., Rhee, H.van, & Hak, T (2017). Introduction, comparison, and validation
of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis
Methods, 8(4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/JRSM.1260
Tsou, W. (2011). The application of readers theater to FLES (foreign language in the
elementary schools) reading and writing. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 727–748.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01147.x
Tyler, B. J., & Chard, D. J. (2000). Focus on inclusion: Using readers theatre to foster
fluency in struggling readers: A twist on the repeated reading strategy. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 16(2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600278015
Uribe, S. N. (2019). Curriculum-based readers theatre as an approach to literacy and
content area instruction for english language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
35(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1526726
11
International Journal of Educational Research Open 4 (2023) 100243
Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theatre: A powerful and purposeful
match with podcasting. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497. https://doi.org/
10.1598/rt.64.7.2
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature. Review:
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0739456X17723971
Young, C., Durham, P., Miller, M., Rasinski, T. V., & Lane, F. (2019). Improving reading
comprehension with readers theater. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(5),
615–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1649240
Young, C., & Ortlieb, E. (2018). Implementing readers theater in secondary classrooms.
Reading Psychology, 39(8), 879–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02702711.2018.1555364
Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing readers theatre as an approach to
classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/
10.1598/RT.63.1.1
Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2018). Readers theatre: Effects on word recognition
automaticity and reading prosody. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 475–485.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12120