Implementing Readers Theatre in Arts-Based Research on Youth Identities: Reflections from Youth Peer Leaders and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents reflections from Youth Peer Leaders and Facilitators on implementing Readers Theatre (RT) as an arts-based methodology for exploring Asian-Canadian youth identities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on two virtual RT workshops conducted with 24 participants aged 18-24, we explore how RT facilitates creative expression, peer connection, and collective meaning-making among Asian-Canadian youth. We reflect on the ways in which RT enables youth to articulate complex experiences of isolation, resilience, intergenerational tension, and cultural belonging that traditional qualitative methods may not fully capture. We discuss methodological considerations for conducting dramatic arts-based research in virtual settings and the pedagogical value of participatory approaches. The reflections highlight the potential of RT to elicit narratives that deepen our understanding of identity formation and inform equity-centered, youth-inclusive research and practice. Keywords: Arts-based methodologies, dramatic arts, Readers Theatre, youth identity, participatory research
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".