Processes of analyzing the data using the seven codes

The researcher followed a particular procedure in his work with the children, particularly those that seemed to be lacking in social skills or self-esteem. An initial step was to help any participant who was indifferent or isolated to break through a negative aligned behaviour and progressively make his or her way towards a more positively-aligned one as it was mentioned earlier in this study that can be achieved, on the Methodology chapter, especially referring to the SE of an individual (Burke & Stets 1999 in Cast & Burke 2002). This was achieved over the whole duration of the meetings, often - and interestingly enough - with assistance from the participant’s peers. As the study proceeded, and as is evidenced through the in-depth and detailed description of the Meetings below, there was observable movement from one form of behaviour (negative) to the other (positive).

More specifically this chapter will focus at the following interrelated codes, always categorised as two types of behaviour, the Positive and the Negative. For the Communication code, on the Positive side belongs every single attempt of the

75

individuals to communicate verbally or with body language with their peers and the researcher – i.e. every time one child would approach the researcher to ask for clarifications or make a comment or when trying to solve a problem with a friend of his/hers, this situation points towards a high enough self-esteem and social skills level to handle the current situation alone. On the other side, staying away from the rest of the group and avoiding any verbal exchange of words or even eye contact, is considered to be on the Negative side of the Communication code.

This axis strongly related during the analysis to the code of “Teaming Up” or being “Isolated” during the activities. Without being present and/or active into a group, or at least in pair with a friend, the children usually would end up alone, sitting by the window, looking outside. Thus, any attempt to rekindle their interest through their peer’s requests or the researcher’s was harder to be achieved. When this “barrier” was overcome, it was easier for the researcher to gain access to the pre-mentioned phase of communication and the one after that, the outcome of understanding, enhancing and evolving the theatrical procedure/game they were dealing with.

A pre-requisite however to both the above axes is the axis of “Compliance/Indifference over Rules”, as the children’s willingness to accept the rules of each activity seems to be the key towards any behavioural outcome. After the self-isolating phase, if and whenever that happened during the meetings, the children would either stay away from the group and seem indifferent to the activities, with a small chance of returning to the group and at least participating through silent and rule-respecting observation, or start making a fuss and noise by running around the room, abusing the fact that the researcher and the teacher could not pay attention to all of them at the same time in a big room that was not the original classroom. When approached to be confronted about this behaviour though, they would either show guilt and return to the group or self- isolate themselves and start anew the same circle of behaviour.

The activities and processes evolved throughout data collection, as the researcher kept them open and flexible to changes as new and different situations arose during the activities. When something of interest was observed, he immediately headed over

76

towards the children initiating the particular situation and either engaged in talking with them or stood still observing their actions and re-actions towards their peers. All the emotions and thoughts expressed through their speech and movements are used as raw data material in this chapter to identify the procedures that they followed to overcome any obstacles as they moved from one stage (negative) to the other (positive). One example of a researcher-led intervention was when one of the boys did not want to participate in a two-man show on stage, but after the researcher asked kindly and his best friend exhorted him to do it and gave an idea on what they could perform on together, the boy started talking and his attention over the activities was increased. His behaviour shifted from being withdrawn and indifferent towards working as part of a team and seemingly enjoying the activity.

The researcher had in mind and under careful observation a number of pupils that the teachers of the class had already confirmed to be prone to LD, or at least suspected them to be. Other children were also observed; while these did not have LD as such, their behaviours and actions seemed to lead to similar behaviours with their peers who were diagnosed with LD.