The purpose of this study was to examine relationships among thought processes represented in young children's private speech and creativity assessments of the same children. A secondary purpose was to study the role of affective private speech and its association with creativity measures. The sample was 42 preschool and kindergarten children on whom creativity measures were obtained using the Torrance Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM) assessment instrument. Private speech was collected from the same children. Each private speech utterance was coded into one of five levels: (a) task irrelevant speech (T-1); (b) nonfacilitative, task relevant speech (T-2); (c) task relevant speech (T-3); (d) coping/reinforcing speech (T-4); and (e) solving speech (T-5). Statistical analysis revealed significant positive relationships among creativity measures, solving speech, and coping/reinforcing speech. Furthermore, coping and reinforcing private speech were consistently linked with high creativity measures, demonstrating that the affective domain may play a critical role in creative thinking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amabile, T.M. (1988). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.
2.
Anastopoulos. A.D., & Krehbiel, G.C. (1985. April). The development of private speech: A review of empirical evidence addressing Vygotsky's theoretical views. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario. Canada.
3.
Anderson, M.A. (1985). Protocol analysis: A methodology for exploring the information processing of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 30, 28-32.
4.
Berk, L.E. (1985). Development of private speech among preschool childrenEarly Child Development and Care. 24, 103-129.
5.
Berk, L.E., & Garvin. R.A. (1987). Development of private speech among low-income Appalachian children. Developmental Psychology. 20. 271-286.
6.
Borkowski, J.G. & Peck. V.A. (1986). Causes and consequences of metamemory in gifted children, In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 182-201). Cambridge. MA: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Congdon, P. (1985). Why identify gifted children? Early Child Deuelopment and Care. 21, 107119.
8.
Davis, G.A., & Rimm. S.B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
Diaz, R.M. (1986). Issues in the empirical study of private speech. A response to Frawley and Lantolf's commentary. Developmental Psy chology, 22, 709-711.
10.
Hewes, D.E., & Evans. D. (1978). Three theories of egocentric speech: A contrast analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, 17-32. Howieson, N. (1981). A longitudinal study of creativity: 1965-1975 . Journal of Creative Behavior, 15. 117-135.
11.
Kohlberg, L., Yaeger. J. & Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: Four studies and a review of theories . Child Development, 39, 691-736
12.
Manning. B.H. (1990). Sources of individual differences in private speech . Unpublished manuscript. University of Georgia.
13.
Manning, B.H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction (CSI) for classroom processes. Albany. NY: State University of New York Press.
14.
Manning. B. H., White, C.S., & Daugherty , M. (in press). Young children's private speech as a precursor to metacognitive strategy use during task engagement . Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
15.
Meichenbaum. D. (1977). Cognitiue behavior modification: An inteyratiue approach. New York: Plenum.
16.
Milgram, R.M., & Milgram, N.A. (1976). Self-concept as a function of intelligence and creativity in gifted Israeli children. Psychology in the Schools , 13, 91-96.
17.
Morgan, G. (1990). Influence of intelligence and creatiuity on balance scale task performance of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation . University of Georgia, Athens .
18.
Moss, E. (1990). Social interaction and metacognitive development in gifted preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 16-20.
19.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.
20.
Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition . Phi Delta Kappan,60, 180-184.
21.
Roedell, W.C. (1982, April). The development of giftedness in young children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
22.
Ross, A., & Parker, H. (1980). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd & Mead.
23.
Rubin, K.H. (1973). Egocentrism in childhood: A unitary construct?Child Development, 44, 102-110.
24.
Shore. B.M. (1986). Cognition and giftedriess: New research directions . Gifted Child Quarterly.30, 24-27.
25.
Sternberg. R.J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness . Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-92.
26.
Sternberg. R.J. (1988). Three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). The nature of creativity (pp. 125-147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Tannenbaum, A.J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21-52). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
30.
Torrance. E.P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and mouement. Bensenville. IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
31.
Torrance, E.P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153-1.56.
32.
Torrance. E. P., & Ball, O.E. (1984). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Streamlined (revised) manual. figural A and B. Bensenville. IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
33.
Treffinger, D.J. (1986). Research on creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 15-19.
34.
Vygotsky. I., (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
35.
White. C.S. (1985). Alternatives for assessing the presence of advanced intellectual abilities in young children. Roeper Review, 2. 73-76.
