Readers Theatre as an arts-based approach to education: A scoping review on experiences of adult learners and educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arts-based educational methodologies have been implemented in nursing and other health disciplines to promote person-centered approaches to care. Readers Theatre has been applied as a tool to promote compassionate and holistic approaches to care. Readers Theatre is a form of drama that requires participants to read aloud a scripted narrative to the audience. OBJECTIVES: To examine the extant literature on experiences of adult learners and educators in utilizing Readers Theatre, and its potential suitability for nurse education. The review question was: "What are the learning experiences of adult students and the teaching experiences of educators in the uptake of Readers Theatre?" DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: Scoping review guidelines proposed by Arksey and O'Malley were adopted. Academic databases searches were carried out in ProQuest, JSTOR, Scholars Portal, EBSCO, Web of Science, PubMed, Expanded Academic ASAP, and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: The search and keyword strategy was developed by two reviewers and approved by the lead author, and a librarian. All titles and abstracts were individually examined by the two reviewers with discrepancies discussed and resolved by both parties. Data were extracted for thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were selected for the final sample. Four themes were identified within the scoping review relevant to Readers Theatre teaching-learning experiences: 1) principles and characteristics; 2) awareness, understanding, caring and empathy; 3) cross-disciplinary collaboration, interdisciplinary education, and knowledge dissemination; and 4) promoting students' skills. CONCLUSIONS: Readers Theatre has the potential to be utilized within a nursing curriculum, and particularly in theory and substantive class-based courses, through active group learning, in the application phase of knowledge acquisition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".