A Comparative Analysis of Research Trends in Theatre Education in China and Korea

I. Introduction

Theatre education engages learners through role play, improvisation, and dramatic composition, integrating language, body, emotion, and social interaction. It supports creativity, expression, cooperation, and social-emotional competence (Dawson et al., 2011), and can foster pre-service teachers’ empathy and awareness of professional conflicts (Briones et al., 2022). Theatre education has developed in relation to arts education policy in both China and Korea. In Korea, it has been discussed within cultural arts education, school arts education, and arts instructor support policies (MCST and KACES, 2016). In China, it has been linked to school aesthetic education and curriculum reform, especially through the 2020 school aesthetic education policy and the 2022 compulsory arts curriculum standards (General Office of the CPC Central Committee and General Office of the State Council, 2020; Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). These different policy and curriculum contexts may shape research topics, educational goals, and teaching practices.

In this study, theatre education is used as an inclusive term covering Drama in Education, Creative Drama, Process Drama, and related approaches that use theatre as educational content or as a teaching and learning method. Previous studies have examined theatre education within single-country contexts, specific teaching methods, or theoretical discussions (Kwon, 2023; Ham, 2024, 2025; Yang and Jo, 2020; Zhou, 2021; Ma, 2023). However, few studies have compared Chinese and Korean theatre education research using common analytical criteria while considering policy contexts. Therefore, this study compares selected CNKI- and RISS-indexed journal articles on theatre education in China and Korea from 2016 to 2025. It focuses on publication trends, educational levels, research methods, research topics, educational goals, teaching and learning characteristics, and policy contexts. The purpose is not to generalize all theatre education research in the two countries, but to describe trends within the selected journal articles. The research questions are as follows. Research Question 1. What are the characteristics of the included theatre education studies in China and Korea from 2016 to 2025 in terms of publication year, educational level or research context, and research method? Research Question 2. What similarities and differences do the included studies show in terms of research topic, educational goal, and teaching and learning characteristics? Research Question 3. How are the trends found in the included studies related to the arts education policies and educational systems of China and Korea?

Ⅱ. Method

This study used the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion stages of PRISMA 2020 as a reporting reference to describe the literature selection process. It was not a meta-analysis, an effect-size synthesis, or a full systematic review of all available sources. The purpose was to describe the quantitative distribution and content characteristics of theatre education research in China and Korea. The period from 2016 to 2025 was selected as a recent ten-year research window. Chinese articles were searched in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Korean articles were searched in the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS). Because the search was limited to these two databases, the findings should be interpreted within the scope of CNKI- and RISS-indexed journal articles. The search terms were “戏剧教育,” “戏剧教学,” and “教育戏剧” for CNKI, and “연극교육,” “교육연극,” and “드라마교육” for RISS. Searches were limited to titles and keywords. The search period was from January 2016 to December 2025, and only journal articles were included. Theses, field reports, project reports, and unpublished practice reports were excluded to keep the two national datasets comparable in review process, bibliographic information, and method reporting. Studies were included when they focused on theatre education or educational drama in an educational context and provided accessible full texts. Studies were excluded when they focused only on performing arts, theatre history, playwriting, acting training, simple class cases, or program introductions without sufficient research analysis. Studies that mentioned theatre education only marginally or lacked accessible full texts or basic information were also excluded. A total of 2,873 records were identified: 1,596 from CNKI and 1,277 from RISS. The 2,873 records were used to examine broad annual publication trends, whereas the 36 finally included studies were used for detailed content analysis. After duplicate removal and title/abstract screening, 186 records remained. Among them, 52 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Sixteen were excluded: descriptive class cases or program introductions without sufficient research analysis (n = 5), performance or acting practice studies (n = 4), studies that mentioned theatre education only marginally (n = 4), and studies with inaccessible full texts or insufficient information (n = 3). Finally, 36 studies were included in the content analysis: 24 Chinese studies and 12 Korean studies. The literature selection process is presented in <Table 1>. The 36 studies were coded according to the operational definitions and decision rules presented in <Table 2>. For frequency analysis, one dominant category was assigned to each study for each coding variable. The first author completed the initial coding, and the second author reviewed the classifications. Ambiguous cases were resolved through discussion. Formal inter-rater reliability statistics were not calculated.

<Table 1>

Literature Selection Process

<Table 2>

Operational Definitions and Decision Rules for Coding

Ⅲ. Results

The results are organized by the three research questions. <Tables 3–5> present publication year, educational level, and research method; <Tables 6–8> present research topic, educational goal, and teaching-learning characteristics; and <Tables 9–10> present policy and system contexts.

1. Publication Year, Educational Level or Research Context, and Research Methods

<Table 3> presents the yearly distribution of the 36 included studies. The largest number of studies was published in 2023 (n = 7, 19.4%). Overall, Chinese studies increased more clearly after 2019, whereas Korean studies were fewer and more dispersed across the 2016–2025 period. [Fig. 1] shows the yearly distribution of the initially retrieved records from CNKI and RISS and provides a broader context for this trend.

<Table 3>

Yearly Distribution of Included Core Studies(n = 36)

[Fig. 1]

Annual Trends in Theatre Education Research in CNKI and RISS(2016–2025).

<Table 4> shows that university and higher education contexts were the most common (n = 14, 38.9%), followed by studies covering elementary and secondary education together (n = 7, 19.4%). Korean studies included more non-specific theoretical work on the meaning of theatre education, creativity, embodied experience, imagination, and relationships. In contrast, Chinese studies were more concentrated in university, higher education, and elementary-secondary school contexts, indicating a stronger link to school practice, higher education, value education, humanities education, and aesthetic education.

<Table 4>

Education Level or Research Context

As shown in <Table 5>, theoretical, literature-based, and conceptual studies were dominant (n = 21, 58.3%). Empirical studies, including qualitative, survey, and experimental or quasi-experimental designs, were limited. Korean studies included a small number of empirical studies, whereas Chinese studies were more strongly oriented toward policy, curriculum, teaching strategy, and implementation.

<Table 5>

Research Methods

2. Research Topics, Educational Goals, and Teaching and Learning Characteristics

<Table 6> shows that character, morality, values, and citizenship education was the most frequent topic (n = 8, 22.2%), followed by aesthetic or arts education policy and curriculum (n = 7, 19.4%). Korean studies tended to emphasize creativity, imagination, embodied experience, relationships, reflective thinking, and the theoretical value of theatre education. In contrast, Chinese studies more often addressed moral and values education, aesthetic education, ideological and political education, curriculum integration, and higher education. In this dataset, Korean articles were more often linked to creativity and theoretical discussion, while Chinese articles were more often linked to policy, values education, and curriculum.

<Table 6>

Major Research Topics

<Table 7> indicates that character, morality, values, and citizenship were the most frequent educational goals (n = 11, 30.6%), followed by creativity, imagination, and innovation (n = 9, 25.0%). Korean studies emphasized creativity, imagination, and embodied experience, while Chinese studies emphasized values, citizenship, aesthetic literacy, and socially responsible education. This difference shows that the two countries shared an interest in the developmental value of theatre education but placed emphasis on different educational outcomes.

<Table 7>

Educational Goals

<Table 8> shows that role play, role experience, and situation simulation were the most frequent teaching and learning features (n = 10, 27.8%). Both countries emphasized participatory drama activities, including improvisation, performance, and embodied expression. However, Chinese studies more often linked these activities to curriculum integration and school-wide practice, whereas Korean studies more often discussed them in relation to process-oriented learning, reflection, and the intrinsic value of theatre education.

<Table 8>

Teaching and Learning Characteristics

3. Theatre Education Research in Relation to Arts Education Policy and Educational Systems

These patterns can be understood in relation to each country’s arts education policy and educational system. As summarized in <Table 9>, Korean studies discussed theatre education mainly within cultural arts education, school arts education, curriculum-linked instruction, and teacher education. Chinese studies were more directly connected to aesthetic education policy, compulsory arts curriculum reform, moral and values education, ideological and political education, and interdisciplinary learning. <Table 10> presents the top five normalized keywords by country. The keyword frequency results supported the category-based interpretation. Chinese articles were frequently associated with aesthetic education, values education, higher education, and curriculum integration, whereas Korean articles were frequently associated with creativity, imagination, embodied experience, and relationships.

<Table 9>

Comparative Summary of Theatre Education Research Trends(Korea/China)

<Table 10>

Major Keywords by Country

Taken together, the 36 studies indicate that both countries view theatre education as a participatory and experiential approach. However, Korean studies mainly emphasized the creative, aesthetic, relational, and experiential value of theatre education, whereas Chinese studies connected theatre education more strongly with policy, curriculum reform, values education, and interdisciplinary practice. This difference suggests that theatre education research in the two countries reflects not only different research interests but also different policy directions and educational system needs.

Ⅳ. Conclusion

This study compared 36 CNKI- and RISS-indexed journal articles on theatre education published from 2016 to 2025. The dataset included 24 Chinese articles and 12 Korean articles. The findings should be read as trends within the selected journal articles, not as a general account of all theatre education research in China and Korea. The main findings are summarized according to the research questions.

First, theatre education research increased after 2019, especially in China. University and higher education contexts were the most common, and theoretical or literature-based studies dominated. This indicates that empirical research on theatre education remains limited in both countries.

Second, both countries understood theatre education as a participatory and experiential approach that supports expression, role experience, interaction, and learner engagement. However, their emphases differed. Korean studies tended to focus on the intrinsic value of theatre education, including creativity, imagination, embodied experience, relationships, and reflective thinking. Chinese studies more often addressed aesthetic education, moral and values education, ideological and political education, curriculum integration, and higher education practice. In teaching and learning characteristics, role play, situation simulation, improvisation, performance, and curriculum-integrated activities appeared in both countries. Chinese studies, however, more strongly framed these activities as strategies for school curriculum implementation.

Third, the trends were related to each country’s policy and educational context. Korean studies framed theatre education mainly as a medium for creativity, expression, coexistence, and reflection, whereas Chinese studies framed it more as a route for aesthetic education, values education, curriculum reform, and school-based implementation.

Future research should clarify related concepts and expand empirical studies on classroom practice and learner experience. Teacher education should include practice in designing role play, improvisation, embodied expression, reflection, and curriculum-linked drama activities. Comparative studies should also move beyond literature reviews to examine actual classroom practice, teacher experience, and curriculum implementation.

This study has several limitations. The search was limited to one major database for each country: CNKI for China and RISS for Korea. Theses, field reports, and project reports were also excluded to keep the dataset comparable. This may have left out practice-based materials from the field. Therefore, relevant studies indexed in other databases may have been missed. The final dataset included only 36 studies, which limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, each study was coded into one dominant category for frequency analysis, which may not fully capture the multiple themes and goals of individual studies.

Although the coding framework was reviewed by the second author, formal inter-rater reliability statistics were not calculated. The relationship between policy contexts and research trends was interpreted descriptively, and this study did not test whether specific policies caused changes in research topics or methods. Finally, this study examined research trends rather than the effects of theatre education. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as a comparative overview of research trends, not as evidence of educational effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

This article was developed by revising and expanding part of the first author’s master’s thesis.

References

• Briones E, Gallego T and Palomera R(2022). Creative drama and forum theatre in initial teacher education: Fostering students’ empathy and awareness of professional conflicts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, Article 103809. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103809]
• Choe JY(2020). A study of the triggering processes of dramatic actions leading the integration of reason and emotion through theatre in an educational context. Journal of Korean Dance Education Society, 31(2), 121~142. [https://doi.org/10.23022/kdes.2020.31.2.121]
• Dawson K, Cawthon SW and Baker S(2011). Drama for Schools: Teacher change in an applied theatre professional development model. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(3), 313~335. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2011.589993]
• Gan JJ(2019). The educational significance and teaching strategies of educational drama. Western China Quality Education, 2019(16), 198. [https://doi.org/10.16681/j.cnki.wcqe.201916117]
• General Office of the CPC Central Committee, and General Office of the State Council. (2020). Opinions on comprehensively strengthening and improving school aesthetic education in the new era.
• Gong SN and Li YN(2018). Innovative research on university environmental design teaching based on educational drama: The case of three major composition courses. Theatre House, 2018(34), 124~126.
• Ham HK(2024). Research on relationship methods in theatre education: Focusing on Martin Buber’s relational theory. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 22(2), 307~324. [https://doi.org/10.23317/kaae.2024.22.2.017]
• Ham HK(2025). The educational implications of theatre education analyzed through Bachelard’s imagination. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 23(1), 99~115. [https://doi.org/10.23317/kaae.2025.23.1.006]
• Ham HK and Cho JH(2023). An analysis of bodily experience in theatre education: Focusing on the circular causal relationship between creativity and intuition. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 21(2), 75~92. [https://doi.org/10.23317/kaae.2023.21.2.005]
• Han YK(2023). Innovative practice of theatre education in primary school aesthetic education in a specific region: A review of Happy Learning: Chinese Localized Practice Cases of Educational Drama (Primary School Edition) [Book Review].
• Hong RX(2022). Exploring educational drama for values education in higher education: Logical foundations and practical approaches. Drama, 2022(2), 146~155. [https://doi.org/10.13917/j.cnki.drama.2022.02.012]
• Huang LY(2024). The role of educational drama activities in promoting young children’s emotional understanding and strategies for implementation. Charming Hunan, 2024(6), 22~24. [https://doi.org/10.12968/cypn.2024.12.22]
• Kim HH, Park EJ and Jung WJ(2019). An exploratory study on school arts education policy for future talent development in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Focusing on theatre. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 17(3), 47~67.
• Kim JS, Choi SY and Kwon NJ(2023). Impact of creative science drama during the class-closing stage on elementary students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward science. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 42(3), 409~420. [https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2023.42.3.409]
• Kim JY(2017). Creativity in theatre education: An integrated arrangement of individualistic creativity and sociocultural creativity. Drama Research, 52, 95~130. [https://doi.org/10.15716/dr.2017..52.95]
• Kim YR(2017). An analysis of the operation and effectiveness of cooperative integrated arts activities in middle schools. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 15(4), 19~36.
• Ko JH(2016). Development measures for school theatre education to strengthen character education: A comparison of school theatre education in Korea and France. French Cultural Studies, 32, 1~33. [https://doi.org/10.18022/acfco.2016..32.001]
• Kwon JH(2023). Transformation of cognitive structure to strengthen creativity in theatre education: Focusing on meta-vision formation and expression of dramatic intelligence. Korean Journal of Arts Education, 21(3), 51~66. [https://doi.org/10.23317/kaae.2023.21.3.004]
• Liang S(2019). A preliminary study on the humanistic significance and application of the “educational drama plus” model in higher education. Chinese Theatre, 2019(6), 86~87.
• Lin YF(2025). The value of educational drama in school aesthetic education and an exploration of embodied teaching. The Education of Innovative Talents, 2025(4), 76~80.
• Lu LT, Wang HY and Gao F(2019). Educational drama as a new pathway to improve the academic achievement of ethnic minority students: Reflections from the perspective of embodied cognition theory. China Ethnic Education, 2019(11), 15~18. [https://doi.org/10.16855/j.cnki.zgmzjy.2019.11.010]
• Ma WQ(2023). The history, problems, and responses of theatre education: An interpretation of the theatre, including Chinese opera, section of the new arts curriculum standards. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 43(6), 146~151. [https://doi.org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2023.06.013]
• Meng QQ(2025). A practical study of theatre education in university aesthetic education: The case of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Contemporary Drama, 2025(5), 33~37. [https://doi.org/10.13369/j.cnki.ddxj.2025.05.008]
• Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and Korea Arts & Culture Education Service(2016). 2016 school arts instructor support program operational guidelines.
• Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China(2022). Compulsory education arts curriculum standards: 2022 edition. Beijing Normal University Press.
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71]
• Rong J(2024). The important role of theatre education in children’s growth. Theatre House, 2024(16), 53~55.
• Seo HJ, Kim YS and Kim MH(2022). A qualitative case study on university students’ experiences of “coexistence” in a liberal arts course using educational drama. Korean Journal of Culture and Arts Education Studies, 17(6), 283~305. [https://doi.org/10.15815/kjcaes.2022.17.6.283]
• Shen XC(2023). The rationale and pathways for promoting interdisciplinary thematic learning through educational drama. Modern Education, 2023(12), 3~9.
• Song XX and Liu EZ(2025). Practical strategies for empowering moral education in primary and secondary schools through theatre education. Art Education, 2025(16), 127~130.
• Wang Q(2019). Educational drama and the development of university students’ humanistic literacy in the context of interdisciplinary integration. Theatre House, 2019(2), 154~155.
• *Wang SW and Yu XL(2022). Application strategies of “educational drama” in school moral education. Economist, 2022(10), 208~209.
• Wei YZ, Tu JW and Liu HP(2021). Study on blended teaching practice in drama in senior high school: The case of Hefei No. 1 High School. China Music Education, 2021(5), 18~23.
• Wu BX(2025). Application pathways of theatre education in university humanities education. Popular Literature and Art, 2025(1), 107~109. [https://doi.org/10.20112/j.cnki.ISSN1007-5828.2025.01.036]
• Xie YX and Guo X(2024). Strategic transformation and integrated development of drama education in higher education in the context of new humanities disciplines: A study based on “tense” and “voice.” Journal of Jilin University of Arts, 2024(4), 83~90. [https://doi.org/10.13867/j.cnki.1674-5442.2024.04.007]
• Yang SY and Jo DJ(2020). The development and application of a pre-service teacher education program using educational drama based on reflective thinking. Korean Journal of Culture and Arts Education Studies, 15(6), 1~36. [https://doi.org/10.15815/kjcaes.2020.15.6.1]
• Yang X, Ye XZ and Yang YZ(2024). The significance and application of educational drama in university ideological and political education. Journal of Ezhou University, 31(6), 30~32. [https://doi.org/10.16732/j.cnki.jeu.2024.06.009]
• Yu D and Zhang X(2019). Integrating ideological and political education into theatre education through the concept of educational drama: A case of performance courses. Art Education, 2019(11), 92~93.
• Yu RS(2024). Practical innovation and value realization of educational drama in ideological and political courses. China Ethnic Education, 2024(4), 55~57. [https://doi.org/10.16855/j.cnki.zgmzjy.2024.04.016]
• Zeng X(2023). Educating through aesthetic education and cultivating people through theatre: An exploration of educational drama practice based on university cultural resources, taking Southwest Petroleum University’s original drama Energy New Youth as an example. Popular Literature and Art, 2023(18), 214~216. [https://doi.org/10.20112/j.cnki.ISSN1007-5828.2023.18.072]
• Zhao J and Bo YJ(2022). Predicament and breakthrough of integrating drama education into primary and secondary school classrooms. China Music Education, 2022(9), 42~46. [https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1138.2022.09.007]
• Zhou SN(2021). The theoretical and practical development of drama education in Shanghai primary and secondary schools, 2000–2020. Art Education, 2021(7), 105~109.