Does Language Help Children Invent?

• In Event: Poster Session 13
  In Poster Session: PS 13 Topic - Cognitive Processes

Abstract

The ability to invent, or produce novel creations to solve problems, is a defining attribute of the human species that has facilitated extensive cultural and technological progress. In addition to inventions often being highly useful, the mental process of inventing is considered valuable because it teaches individuals to recognize problems and generate ideas. Children display early forms of invention from a young age, as they solve everyday problems and create imaginary scenarios during play. However, empirical studies, which typically employ a task with a single possible solution, indicate that children struggle to invent until they are 8 years old (e.g., Beck et al., 2011). We propose that the existing experimental paradigm lacks the generative quality of true invention and, therefore, may fail to capture young children’s potential as resourceful inventors. Thus, to investigate whether children are capable of invention under different circumstances, we designed an open-ended, playful, and narrative-based task. Additionally, because invention requires considerable mental coordination, we suspect that children’s metacognitive speech may be related to their ability to invent. Metacognitive language, or language that reflects the monitoring of one’s own thought processes, may aid children in inventing because it offers a way to organize and evaluate one’s own ideas and behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize that priming children with metacognitive language may help them become better inventors.

In the present study, 4- to 6-year-old subjects (N = 84) engaged in an open-ended, playful, and narrative-based task in which they had to invent two solutions to help toy characters cross a river. During the first stage of the task, children were asked questions by the experimenter as they worked on an initial invention. Children in the priming condition were asked questions designed to elicit metacognitive language, while subjects in the non-priming condition were asked the same amount of neutral questions. During the second stage of the task, subjects were presented with an additional problem and invited to work on a second invention without input from the experimenter.

The results show that all 84 subjects were able to successfully complete the task. Additionally, subjects in the priming condition were significantly more likely than those in the non-priming condition to use metacognitive speech as they worked alone on their second invention (X2 (1) = 3.913, p = 0.048). Lastly, to assess the strength of the inventions, children’s second inventions were coded by two independent coders for physical complexity and conceptual novelty. Children in the priming condition created significantly stronger inventions than those in the non-priming condition (X2 (2) = 7.183, p = 0.028).

Overall, our findings indicate that, under certain circumstances, 4- to 6-year-old children are capable of invention. Further, priming children with metacognitive language led them to use more metacognitive language themselves and create stronger inventions. Together, these results suggest that children’s capacity for invention can be fostered by adding a few simple features to both the context and conversation surrounding the task – a finding which could help inform educational practices and contribute to our understanding of children’s intellectual development.

Authors

• Whitney Sandford, Williams College
  Presenting Author

• Susan Engel, Williams
  Non-Presenting Author