The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading © 2024 the Authors Published version Hautala, Jarkko; Karhunen, Roosa; Junttila, Enni; Ronimus, Miia; Young, Chase Hautala, J., Karhunen, R., Junttila, E., Ronimus, M., & Young, C. (2024). The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2023.2301092 2024 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrc20 Journal of Research in Childhood Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20 The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading Jarkko Hautala, Roosa Karhunen, Enni Junttila, Miia Ronimus & Chase Young To cite this article: Jarkko Hautala, Roosa Karhunen, Enni Junttila, Miia Ronimus & Chase Young (25 Jan 2024): The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2023.2301092 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2023.2301092 © 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Published online: 25 Jan 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 664 View related articles View Crossmark data The Goal to Perform in Readers’ Theater Motivates Boys Who Struggle With Reading Jarkko Hautala a,b , Roosa Karhunen a , Enni Junttila a,b , Miia Ronimus c , and Chase Young d a Niilo Mäki Institute, Jyväskylä, Finland; b University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; c University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; d Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas ABSTRACT There is a global concern regarding boys’ poor engagement in literacy activities. It is suggested that boys enjoy ways of learning that are active and have explicit goals. Readers’ theater (RT) provides an active and collaborative means of practicing oral reading fluency, with a clear goal of performing for an audience at the end of training. In the context of an intervention study for struggling readers in grades 3 and 4 (9–10 years old), we investigated whether boys benefit more than girls from the goal to perform in readers’ theater in terms of reading fluency development, engagement, and retrospective perception of their learning. We found that girls slightly outperformed boys in expressive reading and showed higher engagement in RT. Girls were also more interested in drama and more likely to participate in the study. However, boys showed a larger reduction in RTrelated disaffection over time. In addition, boys in the goal-oriented program reported learning to act and immerse themselves in the text more often than boys in the practice-oriented RT. In contrast, girls reported learning these skills also in the practice-oriented RT. We conclude that the goal to perform in RT may be particularly helpful in engaging boys in RT. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 January 2023 Accepted 30 October 2023 KEYWORDS Intervention; middle childhood; mixed-methods; readers’ theater; reading difficulties; reading fluency There is global concern regarding boys’ academic achievement. Boys tend to fall behind girls early on in several academic skills, including reading. As suggested by the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, girls outperform boys already in the 4th grade in most of the participating countries (Mullis et al., 2023). The reasons for the gender gap are believed to stem from the slower development of boys in verbal, executive, and self-regulation skills, presumably originating both from biology and cultural gender expectations (Eagly & Wood, 2013; McGeown & Warhurst, 2020). Research has shown that boys often find it difficult to conform to traditional classroom teaching – for example, in terms of sitting still and focused for long periods of time – but instead enjoy more behaviorally active ways of learning with clearly set goals (Beaman et al., 2006; Brozo et al., 2014; Deed & Campbell, 2007; Merisuo‐Storm, 2006; for a review, see James, 2015). Readers’ theater (RT) is an active form of practicing oral reading fluency with a shared goal of a dramatic performance before an audience (Rinehart, 2001). RT previously has been found to support boys’ learning in particular (Young et al., 2020, 2021), as boys tend to appreciate an active way of learning (including aspects of fun, non-traditionality, and collaboration) and enjoy the dramatic performance that is part of RT. However, because Young et al. (2021) interviewed only boys, it is not known if there are differences in how girls and boys perceive learning during RT. In addition, it remains unclear as to which extent the goal-orientedness or the active nature of RT (Hautala et al., 2023) is responsible for the positive reception of RT among boys. To resolve these gaps and issues, we investigated the gender differences among dysfluent readers in learning and engagement during RT and in retrospective RT experiences. CONTACT Jarkko Hautala [email protected] Niilo Mäki Institute, P.O. Box 29, Jyväskylä 40101, Finland JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2023.2301092 © 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. Gender gap in reading fluency—Origins and possible solutions Reading fluency means the ability to read text accurately and at an appropriate pace, with ease, appropriate expression, and prosody when reading aloud (Kuhn et al., 2010). Low reading fluency is the main manifestation of developmental dyslexia – a specific difficulty in learning to read, which is more prevalent in boys than girls (Yang et al., 2022). In Finland, the country of the present study, girls outperform boys by 0.62 SD in reading fluency at the end of comprehensive school (age 15–16 years, Torppa et al., 2018). The gender gap in reading ranks high in international comparison (OECD, 2019). A major reason for the gender gap seems to be boys’ less frequent reading (Jabbar & Warraich, 2022; Stutz et al., 2016), possibly because they enjoy and value reading less than girls (Marinak & Gambrell, 2010). Boys also tend to overestimate their reading skills (Merisuo-Storm & Aerila, 2018), which may make them less likely to invest in developing their reading skills. These gender differences may originate from differences in self-regulation as girls tend to have better self-regulation skills, such as effortful control (Else-Quest et al., 2006) and delay of gratification (Silverman, 2003), than boys. Self-regulation skills are essential for learning challenging skills that require long-term practice, such as reading fluency and comprehension. In addition, gender differences have been found in achievement goals, which refer to beliefs and attitudes defining an individual’s primary reason for engaging in academic activities (Ames, 1992). Evidence shows that boys are more likely than girls to adopt performance goals (Yu & McLellan, 2019), focusing on gaining positive judgments and avoiding negative judgments of competence (Dweck, 1986). In contrast, girls may be more likely to prioritize learning or mastery goals (KenneyBenson et al., 2006) – that is, increasing their academic competence (Dweck, 1986). Mastery goals have been more consistently associated with positive school and learning-related affect and motivation than performance goals (see, e.g., Pekrun et al., 2009). The gender gap in reading can be mitigated by various actions, including national-level educational policies (Marks, 2008), instructional approaches emphasizing language competencies (Hochweber & Vieluf, 2018), and integration of reading and other activities (Young et al., 2020). It also has been suggested that schools should more actively provide literacy instruction targeted to boys and help them find reading material that is of personal interest to them (e.g., Senn, 2012). However, much more research evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is required (Sokal, 2010). The primary remedial method for improving low reading fluency is repeated oral reading (Samuels, 1979; see Reutzel et al., 2008). In repeated reading of the same text, the student receives an experience of reading more fluently, which generalizes to novel texts in the long run. In RT, repeated reading gives students a chance to read aloud fluently to others, which is believed to be a key aspect of RT (Rinehart, 2001). Repeated reading also has a clear goal, as the students read to learn their lines in the script. This is important, as specific goals are generally known to support learning and motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002). Given their lower reading motivation, such additional goals may be particularly important for boys. Research on readers’ theater RT was developed in the United States in the 1980s (see Rinehart, 2001). In its traditional form, RT is a whole-class activity consisting of weekly projects in which reading a script is practiced daily from Monday to Thursday and then performed on Friday. At the beginning of the week, groups are formed based on the students’ script selection. As the week progresses, the students rehearse together to develop word recognition automaticity and eventually appropriate expression before the weekly performance. The next week, new scripts are offered as options, and the process repeats. In previous studies, this activity has lasted from a few months to the entire school year, leading to impressive gains in reading fluency relative to those in the control group (Keehn, 2003; Young & Rasinski, 2009, 2018). Additional benefits may include improved accuracy (Millin & Rinehart, 1999) and prosody or expression (Quezada, 2021; Young & Rasinski, 2009, 2018), as well 2J. HAUTALA ET AL. as increased overall reading ability (Garrett & O’Connor, 2010; Griffith & Rasinski, 2004). On the other hand, when the amount of oral reading training has been controlled for, RT has produced equal gains in reading skills relative to the control group (Black, 2016; Hautala et al., 2023; Jagger, 2008; Marshall, 2017; Smith, 2011). Therefore, RT appears as effective as traditional repeated reading practice. Notably, Keehn’s (2003) study reported that the poorest readers in class developed the most, suggesting that RT is also highly applicable to special education (see also Hautala et al., 2023; Mraz et al., 2013). The possible motivational benefits of RT have not been extensively studied. A few studies have reported no extra benefits for RT in general reading attitude or motivation (Marshall, 2017; Smith, 2011). On the other hand, the benefits of RT over traditional instruction have been observed in self-image as a reader (Merritt, 2015) and student engagement (Haughey, 2015; Hautala et al., 2023). In addition, anecdotal reports from RT studies suggest that students generally enjoy RT (Millin & Rinehart, 1999; Mraz et al., 2013; Rinehart, 2001). Although RT appears well received by students, more research is needed to understand how RT supports students’ and especially boys’ reading motivation. Recently, we developed a new drama-oriented RT (hereafter drama-RT) program targeted at Finnish special education. The aim is to enrich the special education lessons (typically administered once or twice a week) with a highly rewarding form of reading practice, rather than to provide a highly intensive reading remediation. The program was designed to reflect the values and conceptions of learning of the Finnish National core curriculum for basic education (FNAE, 2016), which states that every child is valued as an individual and has the right to the support and encouragement that can best help them grow as a person. The goals for transversal competence (FNAE, 2016) include developing social skills and the ability to express oneself in versatile ways, including drama and movement, practicing performing, and encouraging creativity and use of imagination. Our program consisted of eight 90-minute sessions, allowing struggling readers to practice reading aloud and develop their unique styles of expression in a safe environment without the fear of being compared to more proficient readers. The program contains elements for supporting both mastery and performance orientations. To support mastery orientation, students are given continuous positive feedback that emphasizes effort instead of correct performance and collaboration is encouraged instead of competition. Students’ perspectives are also taken into account, and their feelings are discussed in an accepting and warm atmosphere. On the other hand, the goal to perform the play for an audience at the end of the program may emphasize performance orientation, as the students are asked to demonstrate their skills to their classmates publicly. To study the effectiveness of the drama-oriented RT program, we ran a large-scale randomized controlled trial (Hautala et al., 2023). In addition to the general effectiveness of the program, we investigated whether the goal to perform for others underlies RT’s effectiveness in promoting student engagement, reading fluency, and motivation (Rinehart, 2001). We contrasted two different versions of the program: one with a goal to perform for an audience (RT Goal), and the other without such a goal (RT Practice). Both versions relied on the same materials. We found out that both versions of the program were able to help struggling readers in Grades 3 and 4 to catch up with their typically reading peers to some extent. In contrast, the RT Goal program additionally promoted student engagement and alleviated anxiety about oral reading in public. Also, the qualitative data collected during the RT lessons indicated that students enjoyed RT and acting in particular (Hautala et al., 2023). Thus, the goal to perform, rather than the non-traditional form of reading practice, is responsible for the motivational benefits. Finally, one previous study explicitly attempted to reduce the gender gap in reading with RT (Young et al., 2021). The study found that RT was able to support boys’ decoding skills more than those of girls, whereas no such benefit was found for vocabulary and reading comprehension measures. An inductive content analysis of interviews conducted only for boys identified a main theme that “boys liked the collaborative aspect of dramatic performance and believed it is a fun and non-traditional classroom activity. RT also helped their ability to sustain, strengthen, and develop their reader identities through comedy” (Young et al., 2021, p. 1). Thus, RT appears to be an instructional method that provides boys with an active, collaborative, and fun way to practice reading. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 3 The present study To better understand how to support reading development and motivation among boys optimally, we conducted a reanalysis of the drama-RT intervention study with RT Goal and RT Practice programs, targeted at struggling readers in the 3rd and 4th grades (Hautala et al., 2023). This design enabled us to study the potentially differing influence a goal to perform may have on the learning and motivation of boys and girls. The data also allow us to extend our understanding of student perceptions of RT in the context of gender differences, given that Young et al. (2021) interviewed only boys. Our first research question is: Do boys benefit from drama-RT more than girls in terms of learning and engagement? Previous studies with unselected samples have found that RT is instrumental in reducing the gender gap in reading skills (Young et al., 2020, 2021). It is unknown whether such differences in responsiveness can be observed with girls and boys who are struggling to read with no assumed gender difference in reading skills. Further, concerning motivational measures, boys are known to be less engaged readers than girls, even when reading skill is controlled (Marinak & Gambrell, 2010). Therefore, we expect boys to be initially less engaged in drama-RT than girls. However, given that boys are known to enjoy RT (Young et al., 2021), this gender difference may attenuate over time. This brings us to our second research question: Is the goal to perform responsible for the possible benefits of drama-RT on learning and engagement among boys? To the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies on this issue. There are several possible reasons why boys may benefit from clear goals. First, boys’ self-regulation skills tend to develop slower than girls’ (Else-Quest et al., 2006; Silverman, 2003), so boys may need clear goals to remain focused on the activity. Relative to girls, boys also adopt performance goals more commonly (Yu & McLellan, 2019) and there is also some evidence that learning environments emphasizing performance goals could be beneficial for boys (Midgley et al., 2001). Thus, we hypothesize that the opportunity to perform the play at the end of the program could be particularly engaging for boys, as it provides a clear rationale for the reading practice and gives the students a chance to demonstrate their reading and acting skills to others while also supporting mastery orientation. Meanwhile, the RT Practice program trains the same reading and drama skills as the RT Goal program but without a clear goal, which may be engaging enough for more mastery-oriented girls (Kenney-Benson et al., 2006). Finally, we conducted a brief and highly structured interview both for boys and girls to understand how they perceive drama-RT with and without a goal. We were particularly interested in what the students believe they learned in drama-RT, what they remember best from the program, and whether there were gender differences in these evaluations. An earlier interview study (Young et al., 2021) found that boys liked the active way of learning and dramatic performance in RT, but girls were not interviewed. Again, the gender differences in goal orientations (Yu & McLellan, 2019) may be reflected in the interview answers as well. For example, boys may value the performance at the end of the program more than girls. Method Participants We interviewed 90 (56 girls, 34 boys) out of 99 (9 students could not be reached) students who participated in an RT intervention (Hautala et al., 2023). Background information on the students is provided in Table 1 in the Results section. The mean age of the participants was 10.0 years (S.E. = 0.07). The students were dysfluent readers from 10 schools, with a very low mean standardized reading fluency score (Z = −1.48, SD = 0.70) assessed using a word list (Häyrinen et al., 2013) and text reading tasks (e.g., First Steps, Lerkkanen et al., 2006). The students were randomly assigned either RT Practice (n = 46) or RT Goal (n = 44) interventions. The students and their caregivers provided informed written consent prior to the study. Ethical approval for the research was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the University of Jyväskylä. The 4J. HAUTALA ET AL. research was conducted according to the ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects set forth by the Declaration of Helsinki. In the beginning of the study, the parents filled out a background questionnaire, including questions regarding the parents’ education level (1–7) and the child’s interest in a) theater (yes/no) and b) reading (yes/no). Interventions Both RT programs consisted of eight preplanned and documented 90-minute sessions held once a week in small groups of five students. The program focused on practicing a single play script (1,000 words/8 acts) entitled “Velhokisat” (Wizard Contest), which was written for the research project by drama teachers. The reading exercises in the program were designed around this script. All the groups had identical props provided by the researchers (wizard hats, magic wands, etc.). The story narrative and characters were studied in depth during the program. Each session involved a greeting circle, reading exercises, and ending routines. In the greeting circle, students shared their thoughts and feelings using emotion flash cards. The beginnings of the sessions often included warm-up exercises, such as moving around in the space as the play’s characters. Reading exercises included exercises such as echo reading, where either the teacher or a student modeled reading and the rest would then read the same line in unison. Other reading exercises included reading the text in different emotional tones prompted by emotion flash cards or imagery and performing the text physically while the teacher or a student reads it aloud. The scenes were also discussed in depth. Ending routines consisted of a reflective drama exercise called “marking the moment” where students indicated one memorable moment from the session and gave feedback on the session using a smiley face scale. A drama contract (Neelands, 1984) was introduced during the first session to ensure a safe learning environment for everyone. A drama contract explains the type of drama work to be completed and the basic principles of group work (e.g., everyone is allowed to participate in their own way, all participation is voluntary, and the self is separated from the role and thereby protected during role-play) (Heyward, 2010). University students with >25 ECTS (i.e., at least basic studies) in drama pedagogy were recruited as instructors for the small groups and to conduct the measurements at schools. The research assistants received extensive training and support from the research team. The training covered pedagogical and practical aspects of RT, the intervention programs and drama and reading activities, and other duties of research assistants, including confidentiality practices, research assessment tasks, and documentation of assessments and RT sessions. To analyze treatment fidelity, one session from each RT group was videotaped and rated by an observer on a scale from 1 to 5 regarding the quality of reading training (i.e., the students’ ability to focus on reading and engage with reading assignments). According to fidelity analysis (Hautala et al., 2023), lesson times ranged from 55 to 91 min (M = 73 min, SD = 10 min), with active engagement in reading exercises ranging from 14 to 43 min (M = 25.7 min, SD = 7.7 min). The quality ratings of the reading instruction ranged from 2 to 5 (M = 3.8, SD = 0.9). The reading exercise time and quality ratings did not correlate with reading gains from T1 to T2 (|r|s ≤ .273, ps ≥ .152). Table 1. Background information on participants. Parent questionnaire Group nAge (years) Fluency (Z) Theater % Reading % Max educ. RT Practice Girls 28 10.00 (0.11) −1.39 (0.14) 35.7 (0.09) 21.4 (0.08) 4.75 (0.23) Boys 18 9.83 (0.15) −1.72 (0.14) 22.2 (0.10) 16.6 (0.09) 4.89 (0.23) RT Goal Girls 28 9.99 (0.12) −1.57 (0.13) 38.4 (0.10) 37.0 (0.09) 4.93 (0.21) Boys 16 10.09 (0.14) −1.22 (0.17) 12.5 (0.08) 6.2 (0.06) 4.94 (0.27) Total 90 9.98 (0.07) −1.47 (0.72) 25.6 (0.05) 17.7 (0.05) 4.88 (0.12) Theater % = Percentage of students whose parents report the student as being interested in theater. Reading % = Percentage of students whose parents report the student reading frequently in their leisure time. Max educ. = Parent’s highest education level (1–7). Standard errors are provided in parentheses. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 5 The RT Goal and Practice programs followed the same lesson structure for the first four sessions. From the fifth session onward, the RT Goal group started to prepare for the performance at the end of the program. The RT Practice students kept practicing the play without the goal of performing it for an audience. Still, they were given the opportunity to introduce the characters to an audience briefly. In this manner, both groups had an opportunity to perform for an audience. The RT Goal group performed the play by reading aloud their lines from the scripts and acting out as they had practiced. The performances were not evaluated in any way. One child withdrew from the performance due to being nervous. Unfortunately, four out of 10 schools were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic before the programs could be completed, thereby causing the interventions to end prematurely. Measures The children attended individual assessment sessions preand post-intervention either at school or on the phone (at posttest). The assessment sessions were audio recorded. Expressive reading skill Students’ expressive reading skills were assessed by a 150-word text (parallel versions were used at pre and posttest), which the students were asked to read with the aim of making it sound interesting. Their reading time was measured and transformed into reading rate (words per minute, WPM). In addition, the number of phonetic errors, including self-corrections, was counted (see Hautala et al., 2023). Based on audio recordings, expressive reading was evaluated on subscales of stress, fluency, rate, and an additional emotional expression scale, with a rubric adapted from Zutell and Rasinski (1991). For example, the stress subscale consisted of five levels: 1) Consistent difficulties in assigning proper within-word stress. 2) Consistent difficulties in assigning sentence-level stress and pauses. 3) Mixed performance of assigning proper word and sentence stress. 4) Consistently proper assignment of word and sentence stress according to syntax and meaning; however, the voicing is clearly constrained. 5) Consistently expresses the syntax and meaning of the text with clear voicing. The interrater reliability values were α = .93–.96 at the pretest between three raters and α = .88–.93 at the posttest between two raters. The overall mean across the four subscales (α = .89) was used as an index of expressive reading skill in the statistical analysis. Engagement Students’ emotional engagement and disaffection were assessed by a paper-and-pencil questionnaire adapted from Pöysä et al. (2018). The questionnaire was administered twice, in the third and seventh lessons. The questionnaire included subscales of emotional engagement (three items, α = .89, in T1; e.g., “I enjoy reader’s theater”) and disaffection (three items, α = .80; e.g., “Readers” theater is boring”) on a five-point scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). The mean score of each subscale was used in the analyses. Students’ structured interview The structured interview took place in the post-assessment session and included questions about leisure time reading (not reported in this study) and experiences of RT. The questions were Q1) What did you learn during RT? and Q2) What do you recall best from RT? If applicable, an additional question was asked: Q3) How do you feel about RT being cut short? The responses were transcribed from the audio recordings for content analysis. Processing of interview data The verbal answers were subject to basic content analysis (Weber, 1990), enabling structured organization and qualitative data interpretation. The data coding process proceeded in the following manner: 6J. HAUTALA ET AL. First, a researcher read the interview responses several times to get a general understanding of the data. Then, preliminary categories that emerged from the data were identified. Thereafter, subcategories were identified within the main categories. These initial categories for each question were discussed in the research group, additional categories were added when required, and final categories were defined and agreed upon (see Tables 2–4 in the Results section). Further, coding guidelines with detailed code definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and example responses for each category were prepared to ensure the reliability of coding and mutual exclusivity of categories. After that, the researcher and a research assistant independently classified the responses. The interrater agreement percentages were 90.0%, 94.4%, and 82.1% for Q1–3, respectively. Any remaining discrepancies in the classifications of the two coders were then discussed and resolved to reach an agreement of 100%. During the analysis process, it was noted that while most of the answers were brief and concise statements, such as “to read better” or “to act,” a substantial portion included some elaboration related to the child’s learning or personal experience. Therefore, the answers were additionally categorized into elaborate and nonelaborate ones, straightforwardly according to the answer length and amount of details, to enable a separate content analysis of the elaborate answers. This examination is discussed in the results section further below. Mixed methods technique Following O’Cathain et al. (2010), the mixed methods technique was utilized for the categorized interview data. Accordingly, the results of one analysis (here, the content analysis) are used to guide the focus of further analyses (here, the statistical analyses). To find out what type of answers students gave to each question and in which categories there were trends for gender and RT program effects and their interaction, we first performed a descriptive analysis for the categorized interview data. This knowledge (i.e., a thread) was then used to group the categories into broader classes containing a sufficient number of cases for statistical analysis. It was also noticed that the students’ answers to the question “What did you learn in RT?” varied substantially in the degree of elaboration. These answers were subject to devoted content and statistical analysis. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was conducted using generalized linear mixed modeling techniques (SPSS), including a random intercept for participants. The analyses of oral reading skills and engagement included the main effect of time, group, gender, and the interactions of time × group, time × gender, and time × group × gender. The background and interview data analysis included factors of groups, gender, and the interaction between the two. Gamma distribution was set for the reading errors and positive engagement (for inverted values) analysis to meet model assumptions of normally distributed residuals. In contrast, normal distribution could be used for the remaining reading and engagement measures. Further, interview data were analyzed using binomial logistic regression. It was noticed that the models converged only when there was a substantial number of responses; therefore, a statistical analysis was only run for category groupings with a minimum of 30 responses. Robust estimation with Satterthwaite correction for p-values was used. Cohen’s d effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) were calculated by the Effect Size -shiny app (Ben-Shachar et al., 2020) based on statistical test results. The values are interpreted as small (0.1–0.4), medium (0.5–0.7), and large (>0.7). Results See Table 1 for background information on the study groups. According to the parent questionnaire, boys were marginally less interested in theater, F(1, 84) = 3.788, p = .055, d = 0.425, and in reading at leisure time, F(1, 85) = 3.370, p = .070, d = 0.398. Moreover, boys were also underrepresented in the JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 7 The goal to perform appears to be central in RT. There is a lack of research on what motivates people to perform; however, “needs to influence others, show one’s competence, and receive social acceptance” has been discussed in the literature (e.g., Wiemers & Wolf, 2015). It may even be that performing for others is a fundamental, possibly biologically wired (Wiemers & Wolf, 2015), motivation for humans. A common observation during the RT in this study was that numerous children slowly warmed up to the drama work and that stage fright was an aspect that the children discussed and worked through during the program. This was also supported by the finding that almost all students (79%) were disappointed if their performance was canceled due to school closure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Limitations and future directions The generalizability of the present findings is limited for several reasons. First, the number of girls and boys in each intervention group was small. The interventions were also relatively short and of low intensity, thereby being incapable of inducing major changes in the dependent measures. Therefore, the finding that the learning motivation of boys could be supported by a goal to perform needs to be replicated by experimental studies with higher statistical power – both with larger group sizes and interventions with larger effect sizes. Moreover, the significant interaction effects involving the gender factor had medium or small effects. It must be noted that the gender differences in learning and motivation are generally small, and individual variability typically overrides gender differences (see, Reynolds et al., 2015). Unfortunately, four out of 10 schools were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic before the programs could be completed, thereby causing the interventions to end prematurely. The interruption of the intervention and especially the cancellation of the final performance may have led to the attenuation of RT intervention effects. Overall, we believe our RT Goal program successfully addresses the diverse learning needs of struggling readers. However, further research with various methodologies, such as questionnaires, observational methods, and in-depth interviews, is required to document these possible individual benefits. Moreover, the fluency progression of the students during the program period may be enhanced further (Hautala et al., 2023). It is possible that RT with relatively easy texts is mainly suited to support students’ basic oral reading fluency and that more demanding texts or other types of instruction (e.g., reading books or reading aloud longer paragraphs) are required for further fluency improvement. In particular, following the repeated reading method (Samuels, 1979), students may benefit from additional opportunities for repeated oral reading practice (e.g., homework) and regular assessments of their oral reading fluency, which gives them explicit feedback on their progression. The efficiency of such a combination of drama RT and repeated reading methods could be evaluated in future studies. Conclusions According to the present results, readers’ theater can specifically address the learning motivation of boys who struggle with reading in two ways. First, RT seems to reduce boys’ disengagement in the activity over time – perhaps by alleviating their initial reservations toward drama. Second, the goal to perform for an audience seems to help boys especially acknowledge their learning in drama – that is, acting and immersing themselves in the text. Overall, readers’ theater seems to be an effective method to engage boys who struggle with reading to practice oral reading fluency. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all children, parents, teachers, students, and research assistants participating in the ReadDrama research project. 14 J. HAUTALA ET AL. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This research was supported by grants [319911, 352020, and 317030] to JH from the Academy of Finland. ORCID Jarkko Hautala http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7402-6364 Miia Ronimus http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3231-3442 References Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2006). Differential teacher attention to boys and girls in the classroom. Educational Review, 58(3), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600748406 Ben-Shachar, M., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020). Effectsize: Estimation of effect size indices and standardized parameters. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(56), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815 Bender, W. N., & Smith, J. K. (1990). Classroom behavior of children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(5), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949002300509 Black, L. A. (2016). The effects of readers’ theater on reading comprehension and fluency of fifth-grade students (Publication No. n.p.: 3746796) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3061&context=dissertations Bristol, T. J. (2015). Teaching boys: Towards a theory of gender-relevant pedagogy. Gender and Education, 27(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.986067 Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A., & Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, gender, and engagement: Lessons from five PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(7), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.291 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Deed, C., & Campbell, C. (2007). Boys acting differently: Choice, engagement and learning. International Journal of Learning, 14(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i02/45228 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613484767 Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33 Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 49, 534–541. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20201661 FNAE. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www. oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education Garrett, T. D., & O’Connor, D. (2010). Readers’ theater: “Hold on, let’s read it again.” Teaching Exceptional Children, 43 (1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004300101 Griffith, L. W., & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.2.1 Haughey, B. (2015). The effects of readers theater on fluency and student engagement. Northwest Missouri State University. https://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/researchpapers/2015/Haughey,%20Brandy.pdf Hautala, J., Ronimus, M., & Junttila, E. (2023). Readers’ theater projects for special education: A randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(5), 663–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042846 Häyrinen, T., Serenius-Sirve, S., & Korkman, M. (2013). Lukilasse 2: Lukemisen, kirjoittamisen ja laskemisen seulontatesti 1.–6. vuosiluokille (Screening test for reading, writing and calculus for grades 1 to 6). Hogrefe. Heyward, P. (2010). Emotional engagement through drama: Strategies to assist learning through role-play. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 197–204. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ930153.pdf Hochweber, J., & Vieluf, S. (2018). Gender differences in reading achievement and enjoyment of reading: The role of perceived teaching quality. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(3), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671. 2016.1253536 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 15 Jabbar, A., & Warraich, N. F. (2022). Gender differences in leisure reading habits: A systematic review of literature. Global Knowledge, Memory & Communication, 72(6/7), 572–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-12-2020-0200 Jagger, T. P. (2008). The effect of readers’ theatre on fifth graders’ reading fluency and comprehension (Publication No. 3297175) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest. com/openview/8e14b29277e0acfdd4368fa76a4e079c/1?cbl=18750&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId= em9w0gRAkV6vxxHDkCW9myDiDwEyugZuLoyWR6shGUs%3D James, A. N. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching the male brain: How boys think, feel, and learn in school. Corwin Press. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781483393407 Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency. Literacy Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395 Kenney-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.42.1.11 Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10. 1598/RRQ.45.2.4 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A.-M., Poskiparta, M., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2006). The first steps study [Unpublished data]. Department of Psychology and Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070902803795 Marks, G. N. (2008). Accounting for the gender gaps in student performance in reading and mathematics: Evidence from 31 countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701565279 Marshall, H. B. (2017). The effectiveness of readers’ theatre on fluency, comprehension, and motivation on primary students [Doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University]. JEWLScholar@MTSU Repository. https://jew lscholar.mtsu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/91dc0a4d-002b-4727-a5d7-461fa1dd1ab4/content McGeown, S. P., & Warhurst, A. (2020). Sex differences in education: Exploring children’s gender identity. Educational Psychology, 40(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1640349 Merisuo-Storm, T., & Aerila, J. A. (2018). Boys’ and girls’ reading skills and attitudes during the first six school years. In P. O. García & P. B. Lind (Eds.), Reading achievement and motivation in boys and girls (pp. 157–181). Springer. Merisuo‐Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600576039 Merritt, J. E. (2015). Using readers’ theater to improve reading fluency in students with dyslexia. Sam Houston State University. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b41d6a0d456331a8cb45fdec4945f20a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl= 18750 Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663. 93.1.77 Millin, S. K., & Rinehart, S. D. (1999). Some of the benefits of readers theater participation for second-grade title I students. Literacy 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: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 52(2), 163–180. https://scholarworks. wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol52/iss2/5 Mullis, I. V. S., von Davier, M., Foy, P., Fishbein, B., Reynolds, K. A., & Wry, E. (2023). PIRLS 2021 international results in reading. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103. kb5342 Neelands, J. (1984). Making sense of drama: A guide to classroom practice. Heinemann. Novita, S. (2016). Secondary symptoms of dyslexia: A comparison of self-esteem and anxiety profiles of children with and without dyslexia. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856257.2015.1125694 O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ, 341(sep17 1), c4587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587 OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1787/5f07c754-en Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0013383 Pöysä, S., Vasalampi, K., Muotka, J., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2018). Variation in situation-specific engagement among lower secondary school students. Learning and Instruction, 53, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.007 16 J. HAUTALA ET AL. Quezada, N. F. (2021). Outcomes of a readers´ theatre program on oral reading prosody: An exploratory study in different environments. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(5), 577–588. https://doi.org/10. 26822/iejee.2021.213 Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.1.37-50 Reynolds, M. R., Scheiber, C., Hajovsky, D. B., Schwartz, B., & Kaufman, A. S. (2015). Gender differences in academic achievement: Is writing an exception to the gender similarities hypothesis? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176(4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1036833 Rinehart, S. D. (2001). Establishing guidelines for using readers’ theater with less-skilled readers. Reading Horizons, 42 (2), 65–75. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol42/iss2/1 Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/20194790 Senn, N. (2012). Effective approaches to motivate and engage reluctant boys in literacy. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01107 Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 49(9), 451–463. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1025872421115 Smith, D. M. (2011). Readers theatre: Its effectiveness in improving reading fluency, student motivation, and attitudes toward reading among second-grade students (Publication No. 3483738) [Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/readers-theatreeffectiveness-improving-reading/docview/902152705/se-2 Sokal, L. (2010). Long-term effects of male reading tutors, choice of text and computer-based text on boys’ reading achievement. Language and Literacy, 12(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.20360/G27P42 Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 101–113. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022 Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., Niemi, P., & Ahonen, T. (2018). Why do boys and girls perform differently on PISA reading in Finland? The effects of reading fluency, achievement behavior, leisure reading, and homework activity. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12103 Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Sage. Wiemers, U. S., & Wolf, O. T. (2015). Public speaking in front of an unreceptive audience increases implicit power motivation and its endocrine arousal signature. Hormones and Behavior, 71, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh. 2015.04.007 Yang, L., Li, C., Li, X., Zhai, M., An, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., & Weng, X. (2022). Prevalence of developmental dyslexia in primary school children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Sciences, 12(2), 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci12020240 Young, C., Durham, P., Rasinski, T. V., Godwin, A., & Miller, M. (2021). Closing the gender gap in reading with readers theater. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1986460 Young, C., Mohr, K. A., & Landreth, S. (2020). Improving boys’ reading comprehension with readers theatre. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12307 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 Yu, J., & McLellan, R. (2019). Beyond academic achievement goals: The importance of social achievement goals in explaining gender differences in self-handicapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 33–44. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.lindif.2018.11.010 Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543502 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 17