Compositional Knowledge:

Compositional knowledge was another theme or category that appeared in the data of this study. It was mentioned by all participants in this study. The sub themes that were mentioned by the participants as sub categories of compositional knowledge were not different from what were included in the literature. Compositional aspects were included in the literature are varied such as, ideas, meaning, vocabulary and imagination (Collins, 1998). Some researchers (see Hyland, 2002) believe that punctuation relates to compositional aspect because it is related to the meaning. However, I believe that punctuation is more related to the meaning when reading rather than when writing. Therefore, in this study punctuation was included in the transcriptional aspect, as students in the Omani schools learn punctuation as rules and apply it as part of transcribing not as part of meaning.

thought are important for writing, some aspects included in the interview instruments such as imagination, ideas generating and organisation. These aspects used to probe detailed information from the participants about compositional aspect.

Curriculum professionals’ perspectives:

Curriculum professionals mentioned applying new vocabulary, ideas and organisation of ideas as important aspects for writing. In this view CP3 stated

“We give the students many styles of writing to help them to write. We vary these styles

from stage to another. From that the student learns how to organize (*his) ideas when he

wants to write a story, or when he writes a poem from his mind” (CP3).

What was stated by CP3 is a vital aspect in teaching writing according to recent theories; see (Collins, 1998). By learning different forms of writing, the students learn new compositional knowledge about writing such as generating new ideas and structuring the text. However, what is stated by CP3 conflict with the implemented content of the writing curriculum, as varying writing forms do not exist in the writing curriculum of fourth grade. Therefore, I argue that what was included in CP3’s statement might be something that CP3 believes ought to be included in the writing curriculum.

In addition, sometimes the participants tend to mention aspects that they think will please the researcher, rather than saying the reality. Nevertheless, in this study the advantage is that my previous position, as one of the professionals in the department of the Arabic language curriculum, allowed me to discuss the aspects that do not reflect the reality with curriculum professionals, as will appear in chapter seven.

*(His) here refers to both male and female. This is because in the Arabic language, the norm is to use the masculine gender to refer to both male and female. Therefore, it is rare to see in the Arabic literature he/she; his/her as it appears in the English literature.

However, the question that rose here is if the curriculum professionals believe that teaching the students different forms of writing will help them in generating new ideas and creating different forms of writing, then why did they not develop the writing curriculum in such a way?

It is difficult to answer this question; as there are many factors that control curriculum development. This idea does not necessarily reflect all curriculum professionals’ beliefs. It was known that the curriculum is developed by a team of curriculum professionals rather than an individual. In such a situation, just the common and agreed ideas are adopted; therefore, finding some differences in the curriculum professionals’ perspectives is expected. However, the teachers actually implement what is included in the real curriculum not the theoretical beliefs in curriculum professionals’ minds. Thus, it expected that teachers’ perspectives would reflect the reality in terms of compositional aspects. Yet, it is also possible that the teachers might mention some theoretical aspects that they desire to be included in the curriculum.

Teachers’ perspectives:

Teachers’ viewpoints about compositional aspect as basic knowledge for writing were clearer than what was stated by the curriculum professionals. From what teachers stated, many aspects or themes were identified.

Vocabulary:

All nine teachers mentioned vocabulary as vital aspect for writing; they thought that, students could not compose if they do not have enough vocabulary. They mentioned that learning new vocabulary helps the students to employ them in their writing. For example (T4) mentioned:

“Firstly the vocabulary is very important for the student, which means, that when the

student obtains new vocabulary or a group of useful words he will be able to compose or to

write about the picture in appropriate way. Yet, if he doesn’t have vocabulary, he will not

be able to write” (T4).

This point of view complemented what was emphasised by researchers, who concluded that the lack in shared vocabulary among the students meant a lack of knowledge of range of texts see (Czerniewska, 1992). However, I also believe that limiting the students to particular types of texts may cause limitation in the vocabulary and the language that is used in different forms of writing, which is the case in fourth grade curriculum.

Meaning:

Although only one teacher mentioned meaning as key aspect for writing, I presented it as the second aspect because it is related to the vocabulary. Unless the students are able to use the vocabulary to add an appropriate meaning to their written texts, enormous amount of vocabulary will be useless. However, the evidence from this study indicated that most teachers were satisfied with vocabulary as an important aspect for writing. Only one of the teachers stated that the vocabulary does not make good writing by itself if it does not add meaning to the text.

“The most important thing is to compose using new vocabularies; however the sentence

should include comprehensible meaning. For example, you saw the girls who stated

‘cooperation is the essence of this life’. This is a complete sentence includes sophisticated

vocabulary, but it does not involve right meaning” (T5).

Looking at the example that was stated by T5 indicates that some students have some superior vocabulary, but they do not know how to use them appropriately in social

contexts. In other words, socially, cooperation is essential for life, yet it is not essence of it. Therefore, the teacher did not accept the sentences that were given by the student. In spite of the significance of the meaning for writing, it was only mentioned by one teacher and I believe that she mentioned it accidentally. This is because she remembered, while talking about what is essential for writing, the situation of the girl who used excellent words with wrong meaning. In this situation, this teacher explained to the girl “your vocabulary is

good but the meaning is wrong”. Therefore, she emphasised meaning as an important

aspect for writing. I argue that the other teachers did not mention meaning because it is part of ideas. Meaning cannot be reached if students are not able to generate new ideas and organise them which adds meaning to their writing.

Ideas:

Generating ideas and organising them in appropriate way is another theme mentioned by five teachers. They claimed that the sequence and correlation of ideas are important aspects for writing. For example (T6) described this as:

“The ideas ought to be sequenced and include the content that composition is

required…the first thing for me is that, the students talk about the ideas in front of the

teacher” (T6).

In addition, (T8) detailed:

“The sequence of the ideas is important not only in students’ writing, it is also important

for their life. This helps them to have a well organized life” (T8).

In each statement an important aspect was emphasised; these aspects harmonise with recent theories and approaches in teaching writing. T6 for example, mentioned that the oral

discussion is an appropriate manner that assists the students to identify their ideas and organise them in a proper way. This approach has been emphasised by many researchers such as (Graves, 1983 and Wilkinson, 1986 a). However, I believe that the discussion is necessary and valuable when students are required to generate new ideas and write about different topics. Nevertheless, when the discussion is limited on the same ideas that are already included in the reading texts, it will not be more than recalling the same ideas, which is the situation in this case study.

T8 on the other hand, mentioned that students’ ability to organise their ideas for writing might enable them to organise their everyday life. This point of view is related to Halliday’s functional theory of language, which considered language for life. He stated that we learn language and learn through language (Halliday, 1975). Students might benefit from writing skills to be implemented in their everyday life and vice- versa. Though, students cannot generate new ideas without imagination.

Imagination and thinking:

Just one teacher (T7) emphasised imagination as an important aspect for writing. T7 linked this aspect with topics that were included in the writing curriculum. She stated that, if the students could not imagine the characters of the story or the picture of the animal; they will not be able to write about it.

“Student has to have extensive imagination to be able to write” (T7).

This teacher seems to be a supporter of the philosophy which states; more attention should be given for thinking and composing in the writing lessons (Bunting, 1998). The evidence from research (e.g. Hart, 1996) indicated that utilising students’ imagination and experiences in the writing lessons can help developing students’ composing and

transcribing. Yet, does the way that Arabic writing is taught in the Omani schools benefit developing students’ imagination, and thinking abilities in order to be able to generate new ideas? I believe that in the Omani context curriculum professionals and accordingly teachers are very keen on ensuring accuracy in students’ writing without thinking about what students can write and what they like to write. Therefore, I argue that T7’s view about imagination reflects individual perspective rather than reflecting the reality of the writing curriculum content. This claim about limitation in the efforts that are offered to develop students’ imagination and thinking was supported by evidence derived from teachers’ practices in the writing classroom, which will be discussed in the following section.

Teachers’ practices:

The evidence derived from observing teachers’ practice in the writing classrooms indicated that compositional aspects were given less attention than was given to the transcriptional aspects. Many aspects included in the teachers’ perspectives were not evident in teachers’ practices. However, they were not completely ignored. The attention that was given to this aspect appeared in different ways. It appeared when assessing students’ writing. Most teachers considered the right meaning and ideas when correcting students’ writing. This was also evident when teachers asked students to order the writing ideas, by asking each group to write about particular idea that related to the topic. Most teachers tried to identify some ideas related to the topic that help the students to write the text. However, they did not guide the students to organise the ideas in a way that would help them to get a well- organized text. This might be due to the nature of the text. The nine observed teachers taught different forms of topics. The topic in two classes with T2 and T3 was about giving directives for others about bad behaviour and commendable deeds. The topic required the

writing of unconnected sentences, so there was no need to organise ideas, as the lesson was more related to grammatical drills. In the three other classrooms with T1, T4 and T5 the topic was about the benefit of the cooperation for the society. This topic required giving some ideas about the topic, as separated sentences not as a full text. The two topics did not require the teachers to focus on generating sequential ideas, as some unconnected ideas were sufficient. Thus, the emphasis of the sequence of ideas was not clear in these five classrooms.

On the other hand, the topic in other two classrooms with T6 and T9 was a summary of a story that students learnt in the reading lesson. This topic demanded a focus on organising the ideas of the story to have a reasonable summary of the story. Yet, both teachers did not guide their students appropriately to achieve this aim. Thus, in both classes the students failed to write the text by themselves. In contrast, in the classroom of T7, the emphasis of organising the ideas was clearer. It could be because the topic necessitated sequential ideas, as it was an expository text, about the Oryx in Oman, which required some organisation for the ideas to generate a paragraph. I believe, according to what T7 stated in the interview, that this teacher believes in the importance of organising ideas, so she practices what she believes. However, I do not mean that other teachers do not have same belief, rather the emphasis of this belief differ from one to another. In addition, the evidence that was derived from observing only one lesson might be not enough to claim that the teacher did not consider compositional aspects in their practices. Nevertheless, this limitation in the observation data was strengthened by the data that was derived from other resources such as students’ perspectives and their writing.

The question that needs to be discussed here regarding the compositional aspects of writing is; what ideas the teachers train their students to generate and organise. Although T7, in my point of view, was better than the rest of the teachers in training the students to organise the ideas appropriately, the students did not generate new ideas they just rewrote the same ideas that were included in the reading text. Training the students to generate and organise new ideas appropriately are potential skills, especially for young students. It helps them in their present and future writing. Alternatively, lacking this skill means lacking a vital aspect in the process of writing as we will see in the following section.

Students’ practices:

Unfortunately, unlike the transcriptional aspects, the compositional aspects of writing were not given appropriate attention in students’ practices. Most students in both; group work and individual work did not consider the sequence of ideas, meaning of the sentences and text organisation while writing. For example, when P3 was working in her group work, she wrote a correct sentence in terms of spelling and sentences structure but the meaning was unclear and did not reflect the question’s requirement. However, not one of the group’s members tried to correct this sentence, which led the teacher T1 to correct the sentence. This could be because the students in the group did not see the sentence, as although they were working in group, almost each one was working individually. It also could be because the students did not recognise that the meaning of the sentence that was written by P3 was wrong. In both cases, the students need to be trained how to read each others work and give appropriate feedback.

meaning or organising ideas while writing the text. This is because all students were copy the text from the board so there was no chance for them to generate ideas, or even to think about the meaning of the text individually. If students did not have a chance to share their own ideas with their peers and the teacher, it is expected that, they will not recognise the value of compositional aspects for writing. This is what will be seen in the next section.

Students’ perspectives:

When students were asked about what is important for writing, unsurprisingly not one of them mentioned anything about the compositional aspect, neither about ideas nor about vocabulary and meaning. Students’ perspectives about compositional aspects reflected lack of knowledge about them, as it appeared in P30's statement.

“It is important for writing to have neat handwriting and right spelling. Ideas are not very

important” (P30).

One can assume that this student is unclear about the explicit relationship between writing and ideas, vocabulary, and meaning. However, the question that appears accordingly is why the students consider handwriting and spelling as main aspects for writing and neglect ideas, vocabulary and meaning. The answer might be that most teachers give a great emphasis in their directives in the classroom for spelling and handwriting with little attention to the meaning and ideas (Kos & Maslowski, 2001). Yet, it is not only the teachers who are responsible for this situation; it is also partly a result of the way that the writing curriculum was designed to teach writing. The writing curriculum restricted teachers and students on particular types of writing. This led to the ignorance of compositional aspects. Additionally, asking the students to copy the text from the board at the end of the writing lesson is likely to deprive the students of any opportunity to think

and imagine what they need for their texts and how to organise them. Therefore, it was expected that students’ written texts might not reflect explicit evidence about considering ideas, meaning, and imagination as will be discussed next.

Students’ written texts:

The 37 written texts that were collected from observed classrooms did not reflect students’ consideration of compositional aspects in their writing. This is because most of them were copied from the board, as mentioned earlier, so if there is any consideration of compositional features (e.g. ideas, meaning, and text organisation) in these texts it reflected the group work and teachers’ writing rather than the individual work. On the other hand, by analysing students’ free writing, the evidence indicated that the students have ideas to write about, as various ideas were included in the free writing texts. However, most students lacked the skills to organise their ideas, as well as lacking an appropriate vocabulary to express their ideas. Therefore, the meaning they included in their writing was unclear. This is, as I mentioned earlier, an expected consequence of the way that students are taught writing and the way that they were used to write. The students are unfamiliar with free writing; they used to have ready-made written texts. Neither the curriculum content, nor classroom practices gave much attention to free writing. Therefore, when the students were asked to produce a text from their own ideas they faced several difficulties in creating meaningful texts. Students’ free writing also reflected a lack in writing process such as planning, drafting and revising, which was the third theme related to knowledge for writing.