Everyone Is Reading and Playing! A Participatory Theatre Project to Promote Reading Competence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores a timely and relevant issue in inclusive education: how theatre-based projects, particularly those involving dramatic texts on bullying, can foster reading competence in classrooms with diverse literacy levels. The topic is both meaningful and well-suited to the growing emphasis on multimodal and arts-integrated approaches in special and inclusive education (SEN). Overall, the study is commendable in its aim to blend performance, social-emotional learning, and literacy development in a unified pedagogical approach.

A major strength of the article lies in its practical orientation. The use of a real-world drama project provides tangible insights into how reading competence might be nurtured through embodied, participatory learning. The iterative research cycles and incorporation of both school and out-of-school contexts are particularly valuable, offering a well-rounded perspective on implementation and adaptability.

However, the structure of the article could benefit from a more cohesive, narrative-driven format. The current layout—outlined explicitly in the form of bullet points (e.g., “Chapter 2 introduces…”, “Chapter 3 outlines…”)—may be better served by integrating this information fluidly into continuous text. While transparency about the article's organization is helpful, its current form interrupts the scholarly flow and may detract from the depth of engagement with the material.

Another key area for development is methodological clarity. Although the article references research “cycles” and discusses findings in relation to research questions and hypotheses, the distinction between methodology (the overarching research framework) and methods (e.g., interviews, performance assessments, observational strategies) remains underdeveloped. A more precise articulation of the data collection and analysis processes would not only strengthen the research design but also improve the transparency and replicability of the study.

In terms of theoretical grounding, the article touches on reading theory, but it would benefit from a more robust engagement with how we read different kinds of texts differently. Dramatic texts, in particular, invite a kind of reading that is active, interpretive, and socially situated. Unlike prose or informational texts, plays are meant to be performed, and as such, they are read with an eye (and ear) toward embodiment, dialogue, and space. Incorporating perspectives from theorists such as Wolfgang Iser (on the active role of the reader), Erika Fischer-Lichte (on performance and transformation), and applied drama scholars like Baldwin and Fleming (2003) or Neelands (2009) could help ground the work in broader discussions about literacy and performance.

In addition, the article would benefit from a more explicit dialogue with existing empirical research in the field. While the case-based approach is informative, situating the findings in relation to other studies on theatre in education, reading development, or inclusive pedagogies would enrich the discussion. Comparative insights could help highlight where the study aligns with or diverges from previous work, making the implications for both theory and practice more robust.

In summary, this article makes a valuable contribution to inclusive pedagogy by highlighting the transformative potential of theatre in literacy development. With improvements to the structure, clearer methodological exposition, deeper theoretical engagement with the specificities of dramatic reading, and stronger connection to related empirical research, the piece could stand as a key reference in the growing field of arts-based literacy interventions in inclusive settings.

Author Response

"However, the structure of the article could benefit from a more cohesive, narrative-driven format. The current layout—outlined explicitly in the form of bullet points (e.g., “Chapter 2 introduces…”, “Chapter 3 outlines…”)—may be better served by integrating this information fluidly into continuous text. While transparency about the article's organization is helpful, its current form interrupts the scholarly flow and may detract from the depth of engagement with the material."

-> I agree, the first submission was not in the template of the journal. Now, the article is lectured and english edited by the journal. Now, every chapter allings with template of the journal.

"Another key area for development is methodological clarity. Although the article references research “cycles” and discusses findings in relation to research questions and hypotheses, the distinction between methodology (the overarching research framework) and methods (e.g., interviews, performance assessments, observational strategies) remains underdeveloped. A more precise articulation of the data collection and analysis processes would not only strengthen the research design but also improve the transparency and replicability of the study."

-> Yes, I agree. Now, I have added a new chapter 4 with the title Research Design and Methodology

"In terms of theoretical grounding, the article touches on reading theory, but it would benefit from a more robust engagement with how we read different kinds of texts differently. Dramatic texts, in particular, invite a kind of reading that is active, interpretive, and socially situated. Unlike prose or informational texts, plays are meant to be performed, and as such, they are read with an eye (and ear) toward embodiment, dialogue, and space. Incorporating perspectives from theorists such as Wolfgang Iser (on the active role of the reader), Erika Fischer-Lichte (on performance and transformation), and applied drama scholars like Baldwin and Fleming (2003) or Neelands (2009) could help ground the work in broader discussions about literacy and performance."

-> Yes, I agree. I added more theory in section 2.

"In addition, the article would benefit from a more explicit dialogue with existing empirical research in the field. While the case-based approach is informative, situating the findings in relation to other studies on theatre in education, reading development, or inclusive pedagogies would enrich the discussion. Comparative insights could help highlight where the study aligns with or diverges from previous work, making the implications for both theory and practice more robust."

-> Yes, I rewrite the whole last section 6. Summary and Discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title and abstract

Recommendations:

• Revise the abstract for clarity and conciseness. Some phrases are awkward or overly dense (e.g., “students engaged in reading through performance” could be reworded to “students improved reading through dramatized engagement with text”).

Introduction and literature context

Recommendations:

• Strengthen the transition from general statements on inclusion and bullying to the specific problem the study addresses (e.g., lack of effective inclusive literacy strategies).

• Add a comparative note on how this project builds upon or diverges from existing theatre-based literacy interventions.

Theoretical framework

Recommendations:

• Improve clarity in explaining the three levels for non-specialist readers. Some sections are too abstract and would benefit from specific classroom examples.

• Consider summarizing the theoretical section with a visual diagram (adapted from Figure 1) that aligns each reading level with corresponding theatre practices.

Research questions and methodology

Recommendations:

• Clarify the sampling strategy (e.g., how students opted into the theatre project vs. control groups).

• Explicitly discuss how data validity and reliability were addressed, particularly for field notes (e.g., use of structured observation rubrics, inter-observer checks).

• Consider adding a brief rationale for the use of the LGVT reading test and how its T-score categorization maps onto the reading model you employ.

Results presentation

Recommendations:

• Add a visual chart showing LGVT score trends over time (t1–t3) for both intervention and control groups to improve reader comprehension.

• Discuss the implications of the non-significant statistical findings more directly—why might strong qualitative improvements not be reflected quantitatively?

• Clarify whether the reduction in performance variability in the intervention group (as mentioned) was statistically tested or qualitatively observed.

Discussion and interpretation

Recommendations:

• Deepen the analysis of why the intervention improved group dynamics and reading self-efficacy—consider referencing theories of intrinsic motivation, self-determination, or social learning.

• Discuss transferability: How might the approach adapt to older students, different cultural contexts, or virtual environments?

• Explicitly link each hypothesis back to the findings in a short summary table or paragraph.

Conclusion and implications

Recommendations:

• Reframe parts of the conclusion to distinguish implications for research, policy, and classroom practice.

• Add suggestions for future research, especially quantitative expansion, mixed-method integration, and more diverse school contexts.

• Consider ending with a short call to action for educators interested in applying performative reading interventions.

Language and style

Recommendations:

• Conduct a light language edit for fluency and grammar. Some awkward constructions appear throughout, particularly in the abstract and methods section (e.g., “students are not regularly playing on stage” could be “students are not typically engaged in stage-based activities”).

• Simplify overly technical language when it’s not central to the point—this will improve accessibility to a wider audience of educators and practitioners.

Referencing and citation

Recommendations:

• Standardize all citations (some inconsistencies such as “XX, 2024” placeholders still exist).

• Where possible, hyperlink or annotate access to open educational resources or play texts used in the intervention to support replicability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a good command of academic English and is generally well-organized and readable. The ideas are clearly presented, and the overall structure supports comprehension. However, several areas would benefit from light to moderate language editing to improve fluency, precision, and consistency in tone.

Specifically:

• Some phrasing is awkward or overly literal, likely due to translation from German or non-native usage (e.g., “students are not regularly playing on stage” or “reading corners offered a protected space”).

• There are occasional issues with subject-verb agreement, word order, and sentence length, particularly in the abstract and theoretical sections.

• A few technical or policy-related terms (e.g., “scenic play,” “systematic design of learning opportunities”) could benefit from either brief explanation or more standard English equivalents.

These issues do not detract from the scientific value of the work but may affect accessibility for an international readership. A professional copyedit or proofreading pass by a native English speaker with experience in academic writing—particularly in education or applied linguistics—would strengthen the manuscript's clarity and polish.

Author Response

Revise the abstract for clarity and conciseness. Some phrases are awkward or overly dense (e.g., “students engaged in reading through performance” could be reworded to “students improved reading through dramatized engagement with text”).

-> Yes, I did. The whole article is also english edited by native experts form this journal.

Strengthen the transition from general statements on inclusion and bullying to the specific problem the study addresses (e.g., lack of effective inclusive literacy strategies).

-> Yes, I did. See in chapters 1 and 2.

Add a comparative note on how this project builds upon or diverges from existing theatre-based literacy interventions.Improve clarity in explaining the three levels for non-specialist readers. Some sections are too abstract and would benefit from specific classroom examples.

-> I agree, I add more examples for every level.

• Consider summarizing the theoretical section with a visual diagram (adapted from Figure 1) that aligns each reading level with corresponding theatre practices.

-> I tried, but it does not work very well. So, I decide to highlight the theatre practices in the text body.

• Clarify the sampling strategy (e.g., how students opted into the theatre project vs. control groups).

• -> I agree. Did it in the new section 4.2.

• Explicitly discuss how data validity and reliability were addressed, particularly for field notes (e.g., use of structured observation rubrics, inter-observer checks).

-> I agree, there are limitations in this case studies I discussed in section 4.4 and 6.3

• Add a visual chart showing LGVT score trends over time (t1–t3) for both intervention and control groups to improve reader comprehension.

• -> Thank you, good idea. I did a new figure, see Fig. 3

• Discuss the implications of the non-significant statistical findings more directly—why might strong qualitative improvements not be reflected quantitatively?

• -> I add more calculations see section 5.3 and rewrote section 6

• Clarify whether the reduction in performance variability in the intervention group (as mentioned) was statistically tested or qualitatively observed.

• Yes, I rewrite it better in section 6.

• Consider adding a brief rationale for the use of the LGVT reading test and how its T-score categorization maps onto the reading model you employ.

• -> Yes, I rewrite it in section 4.4

• Deepen the analysis of why the intervention improved group dynamics and reading self-efficacy—consider referencing theories of intrinsic motivation, self-determination, or social learning.

• -> I delete these categories out of the abstract. In this article I will not present these parts.

• Discuss transferability: How might the approach adapt to older students, different cultural contexts, or virtual environments?

• Explicitly link each hypothesis back to the findings in a short summary table or paragraph.

• Reframe parts of the conclusion to distinguish implications for research, policy, and classroom practice.

•  

  • I rewrote the section 6 in this way.

  • Conduct a light language edit for fluency and grammar. Some awkward constructions appear throughout, particularly in the abstract and methods section (e.g., “students are not regularly playing on stage” could be “students are not typically engaged in stage-based activities”).

  • Simplify overly technical language when it’s not central to the point—this will improve accessibility to a wider audience of educators and practitioners.

• Referencing and citation

  • Standardize all citations (some inconsistencies such as “XX, 2024” placeholders still exist).

  • Where possible, hyperlink or annotate access to open educational resources or play texts used in the intervention to support replicability.

  • Add suggestions for future research, especially quantitative expansion, mixed-method integration, and more diverse school contexts. Consider ending with a short call to action for educators interested in applying performative reading interventions.

  • I did an professional english editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s, 

The revised manuscript presents a significant improvement in both academic rigor and clarity. The authors have strengthened the theoretical framework, providing a more comprehensive foundation for the study and positioning the work more clearly within the existing literature on participatory theatre and reading competence. These additions greatly enhance the scholarly depth of the paper.

Furthermore, the revisions in the methodology section have made the research design and data collection processes more transparent and robust. The clearer articulation of the methods employed now supports the study's findings more convincingly and lends greater credibility to the conclusions drawn.

Overall, the manuscript is now academically sounder and offers a valuable contribution to the field.

Suggestion: As a final refinement, it is advised that section 6.1 (“Summary”) be reformulated to serve as a general concluding section. This would provide a more cohesive and reflective closure to the manuscript, aligning with academic conventions and reinforcing the study's significance.

Author Response

"As a final refinement, it is advised that section 6.1 (“Summary”) be reformulated to serve as a general concluding section. This would provide a more cohesive and reflective closure to the manuscript, aligning with academic conventions and reinforcing the study's significance."

 

Answer: Yes, thank you. I worked on it. I changed the name to Conclusion and delete the subsection in section 6.