Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:30:27.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Creativity and Private Speech in Young Children

from Part IV - Motivational and Educational Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

By
C. Stephen White  and
Martha Daugherty
Edited by
Adam Winsler ,
Charles Fernyhough  and
Ignacio Montero
Adam Winsler
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Charles Fernyhough
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Ignacio Montero
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

Young preschool children frequently talk out loud to themselves as they play and explore the environment. This self-talk is known as private speech. Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory (1934/1986) maintains that children's private speech is used for self-direction and that this language is the foundation for later complex mental activity. According to Vygotsky, private speech is indicative of early cognitive processing and allows us to hear how children think about their own behavior and select courses of action.

The research literature has shown that private speech follows a predictable course of development in normally developing children and in children identified with serious learning problems (Berk & Spuhl, 1995). According to Vygotsky, private speech develops as children turn social speech toward the self to guide and control their behavior. Research supports Vygotsky's (1934/1986; 1930–1935/1978) original observations of an overall curvilinear developmental trend for overt private speech. That is, overt private speech increases in frequency during the preschool period, peaking around the ages of 4 to 6, and then becomes less common later as it gradually is replaced with more covert forms of self-talk, including whispers, inaudible muttering, and eventually silent inner speech (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Krafft & Berk, 1998; Winsler & Naglieri, 2003).

Research investigations have supported Vygotsky's theory on private speech and its relationship to cognitive development (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Bivens & Berk, 1990; Winsler & Naglieri, 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
Private Speech, Executive Functioning, and the Development of Verbal Self-Regulation , pp. 224 - 235
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behrend, D. A., Rosengren, K. S., & Perlmutter, M. (1992). The relation between private speech and parental interactive style. In Díaz, R. M. & Berk, L. E. (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 85–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berk, L. E. (1992). Private speech: An overview of theory and the status of research. In Díaz, R. M. & Berk, L. E. (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 17–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berk, L. E., & Garvin, R. A. (1984). Development of private speech among low income Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, L. E., & Spuhl, S. T. (1995). Maternal interaction, private speech, and task performance in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google Scholar
Berner, E. S. (1971). Private speech and role-taking abilities in preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bivens, J. A., & Berk, L. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the development of elementary school children's private speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 443–463.Google Scholar
Blaney, R. L., & Quay, L. C. (1990). Verbal communication, nonverbal communication, and private speech in lower and middle socioeconomic status preschool children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153, 129–138.Google Scholar
Bolen, L. M. (1976). Effects of race, sex, and kindergarten attendance on the creative thinking of second graders. Unpublished manuscript, Eastern Carolina University, Greenville, NC.Google Scholar
Borkowski, J. G., & Peck, V. A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182–201). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1987). Metamemory in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellano, J. A., Fivus, A., & White, W. (2003). Serving the economically disadvantaged in gifted education. In Castellano, J. A. (Ed.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 135–149). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Daugherty, M., & Logan, J. (1996). Private speech assessment: A medium for studying creative thinking in young children. Early Child Development and Care, 115, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugherty, M., White, C. S., & Manning, B. H. (1994). Relationships among private speech and creativity in young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, R., & Stein, A. (1972). The effects of personal responsibility and task interruption on the private speech of preschoolers. Child Development, 15, 310–324.Google Scholar
Dickson, K. (2003). Gifted education and African American learners. In Castellano, J. A., (Ed.), Special populations in gifted education (pp. 45–63). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1997). Microgenetic change in the quantity and quality of preschooler's private speech. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, V. Z. (1986). Recognizing superior cognitive abilities in disadvantaged, minority, and other diverse populations. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glascoe, F. P. (1996). Assesses whether the Brigance Early Pre-school and K & 1 Screens can help identify children with probable giftedness or academic talent. Roeper Review, 19, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1986). Identification and assessment of gifted/talented handicapped and non-handicapped children in early childhood. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khatena, J. (1989). Intelligence and creativity to multitalent. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Yaeger, J., & Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: Four studies and a review of theories. Child Development, 39, 691–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krafft, K. C., & Berk, L. E. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Significance of open-ended activities and make-believe play for verbal self regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, B. H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction (CSI) for classroom processes. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Matuga, J. M. (2004). Situated creative activity: The drawings and private speech of young children. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. (1990). Influences of intelligence and creativity on balance scale task performance of 3, 4 and 5 year olds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
Moss, E. (1990). Social interaction and metacognitive development in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, E., & Abravanel, E. (2000). The self-regulatory nature of preschool children's private speech in a naturalistic setting. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, F. K., Pellegrini, A. D., Floyd, B., Paguio, L., & Torrance, E. P. (1980). Performance on Torrance's Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement as a predictor of cognitive development. Unpublished research report, Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. N. (1979). Private speech in academic problem-solving: A naturalistic perspective. In Ziven, G. (Ed.), The development of self-regulation through private speech (pp. 295–323). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, C. F. (2004). A comparative study of creativity and cognitive problem-solving strategies of high-IQ and average students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences in how gifted children think. In Friedman, R. C & Shore, B. M. (Eds.), Talents unfolding (pp. 167–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking biased against or in favor of “disadvantaged” groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E., Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1930–1935)Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Kozulin, A., Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)Google Scholar
Winsler, A., Carlton, M. P., & Barry, M. J. (2000). Age-related changes in preschool children's systematic use of private speech in a natural setting. Journal of Child Language, 27, 665–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsler, A., & Díaz, R. M. (1995). Private speech in the classroom: The effects of activity type, presence of others, classroom context, and mixed-age grouping. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsler, A., Díaz, R. M., & Montero, I. (1997). The role of private speech in the transition from collaborative to independent task performance in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsler, A., Díaz, R. M., McCarthy, E. M., Atencio, D., & Adams Chabay, L. (1999). Mother-child interaction, private speech, and task performance in preschool children with behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 891–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winsler, A., & Naglieri, J. (2003). Overt and cover verbal problem-solving strategies: Developmental trends in use, awareness, and relations with task performance. Child Development, 74, 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×