CHANGE NOTE Please list the changes you have made to your paper as a result of reviewer comments and feedback. In some circumstances we may return this change note to reviewers. Reviewer Number 1 Changes Made as a Consequence of Comments and Suggestions 1. Sentences that reviewer identified as suitable for supporting by citation was properly referenced (added a total of 10 new sources of information) and the meaning was specified. 2. It was added a detailed description of the procedure and a wider research plan (this study is part of) was described. In this regard it was explained why there were also gifted children included in the research sample. 3. The discussion was supplemented by information about the direction in which research continues. 4. The text of the article then has been edited by the professional fluent English editor and proofreading was carried by native speaker. Suggestions Rejected, With Reasons for Rejection 1. Referee recommended adding more empirical studies about this topic but in available databases (WoS, Scopus, Erih) there is no study about this topic. Lehman study from 1972 is described and referred. 2. The practical implementations we have already published as a chapter in a monograph, which we cite in the text. That's why we add to the text only link to this chapter (it is published in English). The International Journal of Early Childhood Learning Volume #, Publication Year, <Community URL>, ISSN # © Common Ground, Havigerová J.M., Burešová I., All Rights Reserved, Permissions: firstname.lastname@example.org THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING Reviewer Number 2 Changes Made as a Consequence of Comments and Suggestions 1. The title of the article was accompanied by subtitle. Now it contains adjectivum intelligent and better refers to the focus of the study. 2. The key word “readiness to ask” was changed to a more concise “ability to ask". 3. Sentences that reviewer identified as suitable for supporting by citation was properly referenced (10 new sources of information was added to reference list) and the meaning was specified. In one statement was removed bold. 4. It was added a detailed description of the procedure and a wider research plan (this study is part of) was described. In this regard it was explained why there were also gifted children included in the research sample. 5. The discussion was supplemented by information about the direction in which research continues. 6. Description of the research participants was moved above next to the research objectives. 7. The text of the article then has been edited by the professional fluent English editor and proofreading was carried by native speaker. Suggestions Rejected, With Reasons for Rejection 1. Referee recommended to add the description how the method can be used in class to develop the questions skills. About this subject we have already published a chapter in a monograph, which we cite in the text. That's why we add to the text only link to this chapter (it is published in English). HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? Jana Marie Havigerová, University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic Iva Burešová, Masaryk University, Czech Republic Abstract: The focus of paper is the ability to ask questions - originally a natural manifestation of children's inquisitiveness, which should be grown and developed at school. The study deals with the question skill at preschool and early school age (children 5 to 7, N=161). Ready2ask method had been created to measure the number of question asked via visual and linguistic stimulus. It was verified that the ability of children to ask questions varies consistently, regardless of stimulus type. An average of 5±3 questions on visual stimulus and 2±2 questions on linguistic stimuli have been recorded. Ability to ask questions was correlated with IQ (Pearson r= .321 to .454). Children with higher intelligence ask usually more questions with both visual and linguistic stimulus. It was found that the number of questions generated by the indifferent visual stimulus is a good predictor of IQ, especially its verbal component (r= .503). Short tasks similar to our ones (Here is a footprint of unknown animal, what should we know about it? or Think of as many questions beginning with the word ‘what’.) This might be a simple tool that can help and assistance to teachers in kindergartens for nominating gifted children in preschool age. Keywords: Ability to Ask Questions, Visual and Linguistic Stimuli, Preschool Children Introduction C ommunication takes up the largest proportion of observable human activities. Most people spend up to 70 % of waking hours engaged in some form of communication: listening and responding to messages of others occupies most of this time, talking, reading and writing the rest (Mortensen, 2008). Communication among individuals occurs in two major forms: verbal (spoken, written, visual-motoric…) and non-verbal (Petříková, Štěpánek, 1997). Communication has changed over the past fifteen years (Rebore, & Walmsley, 2009), but verbal based communication still have the major importance in today knowledge society (Ferencová, 2008). The topic of asking questions is one of the most interesting and perhaps most needed subtopics in the area of verbal communication, we think. Why? Verbal communication is communication of meanings by words (Ferencová, 2008). The verbal communication is expressed through speech and language (Trzepacz, & Baker, 1993). The traditional concept (the expression theory of meaning derived from the time of ancient Greece), says that language is an expression of thought (Davis, 2007). The questions are as mediator for both communication and thinking. Verbal communication skills are important for both today and future successful life (most of the school communication is held on spoken or written language, Rebore, & Walmsley, 2009, most commonly used types of the corporate communication are verbal based, Ferencová, 2008). School is an environment where the skills needed for a successful life should be identified and developed. From the above mentioned information it implies that schools should encourage and develop children's ability to ask questions. This article is about the relationship between the questions and the ability to think (extended to general intellectual ability, operationalized as IQ). Communication The topic of asking questions belongs to the communication topic. Although it is not easy to define communication, modern dictionaries and handbooks mostly define communication as the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium; THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING sending or receiving information; connection between people or places, and to communicate means to share or exchange information, news, or ideas; impart or pass on (information, news, or ideas); convey or transmit (an emotion or feeling) in a non-verbal way; succeed in conveying one’s ideas or in evoking understanding in others; be able to share and understand each other’s thoughts and feelings (Oxford dictionary, 2013). The original meaning of the word is derived from late Middle English and then from Latin verb communicare, which originally meant “participation in something common” and “making something common, sharing something” (Vybíral, 2009). Language and speech The language is the main although not the only tool of communication. The skill of mastering a language is learned gradually (for example syntax developed from holophrastic speech to a strictly structured two-term system using open and pivot words, Hart et al., 1999), and it develops and changes throughout life of both an individual and society (for example changing the active dictionary, Bussmann et al., 2013, language adaptation, Coulmas, 1989). The latest research proves that a child is not just a passive learner who learns only by hearing and absorbing the language patterns of older speech emitters (Craighead, & Nemeroff 2002 state it was a frequent attitude in early 1960´s), and that children´s speech starts to develop in the period long before the very first verbal utterances. The roots of language acquisition can be traced as early as to prenatal stage when specific communication occurs mainly between the mother and the fetus (see for example Janik 2004). Even before a child starts using meaningful words, he or she produces a range of pre-speech and non-verbal products in the course of the first year of life. The child may cry, produce baby talk, laughs or shouts, repeats various speeches sounds, imitates lip movement, and uses gestures. Before the child himself or herself starts speaking, he or she demonstrates comprehension of verbal stimuli from adults (already between 9-10 month children show comprehension of at least a few words and phrases, Schlinger, 1995). As for William Stem (1924, as cited in Gagarina, & Gülzow, 2006) described it, children understand the meaning of words and simple sentences usually a few months earlier before they utter their first words and two-word sentences (f.e. Friedenberg, & Silverman, 2012). Before mastering speech itself, children between 9 and 18 months of age learn basic communication rules. Their non-verbal messages are adapted to the recipient, and during their communication they follow rules which are analogous to verbal communication. Children are motivated to communicate by their need to express wishes and to maintain contact. These needs stimulate the development of language competences (Spodek, & Saracho 2005). After the above-mentioned development of language skills at the toddler stage verbal competences improve at pre-school age as far as both the form and the content are concerned. Such development is mainly realised through the communication with adults, peers, and also through the influence of media. In this period children are already able to express their attitudes, requirements and feelings (Vágnerová, 2005). Question as a concept A question is any sentence which has an interrogative form or function (Weber 1993). According to Chomsky we can say that the ability to question is innate to human, because questions are a natural part of language and the language is innate to human, our mind is constructed for (Gross, 2012). The first signs of questioning occur very soon. Children are able to express non-verbally (wordless questions) or with a question intonation of one or more words, without using grammatical form of interrogative sentences (Crystal, 2010). The first observable manifestations of this ability are already apparent at the age of eighteen months (a period referred to by linguists as the first age of questions) when the questions “who” and “what” appear. After the second year, children begin to use more first interrogative pronouns and interrogative adverbs HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? (where, when, how). Children first learn the structure of closed questions, which usually does not cause any problems for them. Later, questions are starting to be open ones, initially with inadequate word order, which is then adapted (Pinker 1996). The division between the toddler and preschool developmental periods (around the 3rd year) is a period that includes a rapid development of the skill of asking questions; all other types of questions appear, including the most significant questions for this age – those starting with "why" (Lechta, 1990). From that moment a person anchors his or her experience with asking questions. With age, children develop the physical and cognitive skills that allow them to interact with others and they also develop the linguistic skills necessary to express their ideas and address the substance of questions asked of them (DeRuiter, 2012). From the age of around three years questions become a permanent part of the cognitive structures and communication skill (or should become, if their production is supported, because the question skill, just like any other skill, if not strengthened, it may disappear, Paas, Renkl, & Sweller 2003). As the child develops, asking questions is becoming more sophisticated. Firstly, it extends the range of questions (how many ways he asks), secondly, the child expands the sources of information (whom's asking) (De Ruiter, 2012). Fitneva and Dunfield (2010, as cited in DeRuiter, 2012) found that even three-years-olds prefer the reliable informant and by age six, children clearly prefer to direct questions about games to children and question about cooking and driving to adults. The ability to ask questions is not an isolated phenomenon; it is associated with a variety of mental functions. First, a question is a product of thinking and experiencing processes. A question naturally arises in the human mind in a situation where the individual lacks some information – he or she is thinking about something and the stream of thought stops because he/she a) does not know something, or b) is not sure of something. At this moment, experience of a feeling comes into a play (a feeling of insecurity, curiosity, etc.) and the need for information arises (I want to know, I would like to know, I need to know, I should know, etc.). (Wilson 1981). On the other hand, a question acts as a trigger to the cognitive processes. Ramey and Meegan (2011) literally say that “questions generate thinking.” The two basic types of questions evoke two different types of thinking: closed questions trigger convergent thinking, while open questions trigger divergent thinking. Ramey and Megan, in the same breath, add: “The problem is that questions generate thinking, while answers stop thinking in its tracks. Only through questions do our minds truly think.” (Ramey & Meegan 2011) Questioning promotes memory, inquiry and acts as a stimulus for student talk, engagement and in-depth processing of complex concepts (Feldman, 2003; Noor et al, 2012; Richards & Lockhart, 1996). Ability to ask questions is related to problem solving. Blank & Covington (1965, as cited in Dillon, 1998) were trained certain group of student to ask questions, in a post-test questioners were able to solve 16 % more problems (Science Achievement Test) than non-questioners. It is therefore very important that the educational process activates thinking and supports the ability to ask questions, instead of the traditional transfer of complete knowledge, or passive responses in terms of the pupil. The ability to ask questions not only develops and activates thinking and cognitive abilities, but also strengthens the experiencing and sociability and Truhlářová (2003) presumes it can also take off the prevention of social exclusion and deprivation of the child (the child who is questioned feels to be part of society and is experiencing more positive feelings). The ability to ask questions is also closely related to the level of curiosity in someone´s character (Havigerová, & Haviger 2012), the support of which plays an important role in positive education (the aim of positive education is to foster the positive strengths of personality and uniqueness is one of them, Slezáčková 2012). All these are the reasons why we are dealing with the ability of ask questions. The relationship between intelligence and the ability to ask questions Robert Sternberg once stated that the ability to ask questions is “a vital half of intelligence” THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING (Sternerg 1987, 11). Dillon (1998) aptly stated that we cannot measure intelligence without requiring examinees to ask questions as well as to answer them. Tizard and Hughes (1984, as cited in DeRuiter, 2012) provided numerous examples what they called “passages of intellectual search”. These passages reveal the persistence of children looking information and their active attempts to reconcile the new information with pre-existing concepts. The relationship between intelligence and the ability to ask questions was measured by Lehman (1972). He found significant correlation (r=.31) with ninth-grade students. The relationship between intelligence and the ability to ask questions can be derived from the relationship between intelligence and creativity. The same study of Lehman shows the higher correlation between ability to ask questions and creativity. The studies of similar nature in younger children are not available. Method Objectives This study presents partial results of a larger research project called “Ready to ask?” (Information behaviour of children in pre-literate period, giftedness based study), which was in the years 2011-2013 supported by the Czech Science Foundation. The aim of the project was to describe the information behaviour of children in the preschool age (at the time when the child has not fully developed reading literacy). Within this project it was translated and validated on a population of Czech preschool children method for giftedness screening Characteristics of Giftedness Scale (CGS), manipulative questionnaire was created to measure information resources used by preschool children to acquire information about topic they enjoy (IB -A) and its paper-pen version for their parents (IB- R). The basis of information behaviour is the ability to ask (the ability to formulate, what exactly I want to find out?), therefore our essential attention was focused on the ability of children to ask questions. A method for measuring ability to ask questions Ready2ask (R2A) was developed, that is described in this. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a relation between the level of intellectual ability and the ability to ask questions, depending on the type of stimulus that encourages the questioning in the preschool age. We have formulated the following research questions: 1. Is there a relation between the level of intellectual ability and the number of questions which are generated by children in reaction to an indifferent visual stimulus? 2. Is there a relation between the level of intellectual ability and the number of questions which children ask when provided with linguistic hints? Type of study The research derives from postpositive knowledge claim (Creswell, 2003) and has quantitative design. Quantitative design for this study was chosen because 1, the study aims to generalization (can it be generalized that ability to ask question is a manifestation of intellectual abilities?), 2, this correlational research attempts to determine the extent of a relationship between two or more variables using statistical data (the more intelligent child, the more question she or he is able to ask?), 3, the variables are not manipulated (they are only identified). Participants Within the framework of the whole research data were obtained and proceeded from about 1,106 children who came from 18 kindergartens and 2 primary schools (with first class for gifted children), 606 parents, 26 kindergarten teachers and 4 primary school teachers participated as informants. The research data for this study were obtained in the course of two years from the HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? total of 161 children aged 5 years 5 months to 7 years and 1 month. Conditions to be included in research were as follows: he or she is in the preschool age (in our country's compulsory education started in 6 years), his/her parents agreed on the participation in research and he or she was present in a kindergarten during testing (mostly during May and June to have perhaps the oldest children). In the first year there were 61 children tested from three cooperating nursery schools (one town nursery school, one housing estate school and one village nursery school, one rural), always the whole preschool class. Of these children, only 1 appeared to be gifted (according to the rules used in our country is the main criterion of giftedness IQ > 130). At the turn of December and January we conducted all-over screening of children in the preschool age in all 18 kindergartens under our municipality (there were registered 935 pre-schoolers, we received CGS scores about 885 of them). From these 93 children showed above-average scores on CGS (according to parents and / or teachers filling-out) during the second year we went to test these children into their nurseries. During May and June were tested 65 children, 7 of them gain in the method WISC total score > 130. Because our study focuses attention on gifted children, we have decided to expand the research group and in September (immediately after the onset of the first class) we attended primary school for gifted children, where we tested 44 children ( 22 children in a class for gifted children and 22 in parallel first class). The final research sample consist of 161 children, 19 of them have been measured IQ > 130. Procedure At the beginning we should point out that we are in a long term cooperation with the participating kindergartens, most of their teachers have passed through our 80-hour training on gifted child topic during 2007-2009 period (project Nadané dítě.eu – Gifted child.eu), they are used to informing us if they have potentially gifted children in their class (younger children who we tested are not included in this research sample) and in those nurseries commonly implemented training of our students. With several students we rehearsed program for the whole class. Firstly we went to the nursery and introduced ourselves as researchers. To underline the impression we had white coats. We were talking to the children about the work of researchers (it was checked, however, the question that would be heard in the context of individual interviews was not asked). Followed by controlled activities that are somehow related to the work of researchers (activities were rotated according to the material that was available and in relation to both children and students, to keep them enjoyed) - the most popular was drawing a UFO. During the joint activities that led students, the two of us (psychologists) we called individual children (in the first wave and in the primary school of all children in the class, in the second wave of nominees) to participate in some kinds of “a job interview” to be a new member of our research team (see below). All of the children were given a sticker like a badge of our research team at the end of the interview and a small reward (pencils, erasers, sharpeners and sometimes candy). The students were instructed to avoid as far as children talk about what we were asking during the individual interviews. We had also asked the children to try to keep our research as a secret, but of course cannot exclude that answers of some children were partly contaminated by information from other children. The vast majority of children enjoyed the testing, often arguing over who goes first (for the sake of completeness, I remember one child who did not want to come to us, it turned out that the reason was the activity he did not want to lose – outside it was warm and the other children went to the garden with a pool – and one child refused to generate questions on indifferent stimulus as considered the task to be primitive, however the same boy at the same meeting generated many questions with a linguistic hint – his IQ was 131). With each child we met twice, sometimes three times. Data acquisition methods THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING Two methods have been used to achieve the research goal. To verify the level of intellectual ability a standardized intelligence test Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III (WISC III) was used. It is a generally known method; therefore we do not provide its closer description in this paper. To verify the ability of children to ask questions we used the Ready to Ask method, which was specifically created for the purposes of our research. The method consists of four continuously connected parts that appear as a compact unit. 1. Contact – the first part of the administration is the initial contact with the child in the nursery school. It was established through a neutral interview with questions such as “What´s your name?”, “How old are you?”, etc. 2. Initial motivation – we motivated children by telling them about a research team which was looking for a new researcher. From the child´s point of view, the whole questionnaire was thus a sort of “a job interview” for a vacancy of a researcher in our research team. We motivated the children with questions such as: Do you have an idea how to recognize a good researcher? Would you like to be a part of our team? Do you know what a researcher does? 3. Spontaneous generating of questions with the visual stimulus – here we moved to the part where a child is exposed to indifferent visual stimuli (a shadow and a footprint of an unknown animal). Administrator says to child: “Look here. Here is the picture of animal footprint. No one has seen before such a track. Nobody has seen the animal the track belongs to.” After taking a look at the picture, the children were encouraged to ask spontaneous questions about the picture. In this part we tried to motivate the child through thought encouraging questions: What could we find out about the animal? What would you like to find out about it? What could your mum/dad/teacher be interested in? What else would you have to find out if you wanted to tell other children about it? What else would you like to know? What would the most interesting question be? What could its name be? 4. Directed generating of questions upon linguistic hints followed. Administrator says: “Have you noticed that some of the questions are similar, it should start at the same word? Try to think of questions that begin with what.” The child is provided with the open question word, and asked to come up with as many questions starting with this word as possible. The question words were chosen and ordered in the sequence as they appear in child´s development. The words included to this research: Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? At this stage the child is only encouraged with recommendations, such as: Try to say the word aloud. Each interview is recorded on the voice recorder and questions generated by children are also written to the answer sheet. Results Description of the research sample with regard to the measured IQ HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? Table 1: Research sample with regard to IQ distribution: descriptive statistics (N=161) Min Max Mean SD WISC total IQ 67 152 109,97 17,817 WISC verbal IQ 69 148 108,88 17,836 WISC performance IQ 68 143 108,75 15,712 With regard to the presence of extraordinarily gifted children, the average of the research sample is obviously higher than a statistical average of a random representative sample. The minimum, maximum and standard deviation figures confirm that otherwise, with regard to IQ it is a “normal” research sample. Number of generated questions Table 2 shows the number of questions generated by the children in reaction to an indifferent visual stimulus (the first line), and the number of questions generated upon linguistic hints. Table 2: Numbers of generated questions according to different types of stimuli: Descriptive statistics (N=161) Number of questions Mean SD Min Max Median generated upon visual stimuli 5,14 3,355 0 10 5 generated upon linguistic stimuli WHO? Questions 2,02 1,785 0 5 2 WHAT? Questions 1,95 1,639 0 5 2 WHEN? Questions 2,04 1,742 0 5 2 WHERE? Questions HOW? Questions 2,19 1,634 0 5 2 2,32 1,801 0 5 2 WHY? Questions 2,34 1,854 0 5 2 There were 10 spontaneously generated questions recorded, and the most first 5 questions with linguistic hints, the measured maxima correspond with these figures. On average the children generated 5 questions spontaneously and 2 questions when given linguistic hints. Relation between the number of questions and the level of intellectual abilities The relation between ability to ask questions (operationalized as a number of generated questions) and the level of intellectual abilities (operationalized as an IQ score) was verified through the calculation of the correlation coefficient. Table 3: Relation between the number of generated questions and IQ: Pearson correlation (N=161) Questions upon Who? What? When? Where? the visual stimulus questions questions questions questions WISC total IQ ,454 ,406 ,398 ,321 ,345 WISC verbal IQ ,503 ,432 ,421 ,341 ,356 WISC performance ,328 IQ Significance of all correlations is p<0.01. ,293 ,280 ,229 ,248 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING The value of the correlation coefficient ranges from 0.229 to 0.503. All correlations are statistically significant at 1% level of significance. Higher correlations occur between the number of questions and verbal IQ. This result can be freely interpreted in the way that the higher the verbal IQ of a respondent is, the more questions concerning an indifferent stimulus he or she is able to generate. The highest correlation value was observed between verbal IQ and the number of questions generated upon the visual stimulus, the number of these types of questions thus appears to be the most reliable indicator of verbal IQ in this context. Discussion The paper deals with the main research question whether there is a relation between the level of intellectual ability, expressed through an IQ score, and ability to ask questions of preliterate children (within the meaning of both children in the preschool age, i.e. around 6 years old, who are not fully literate, i.e. have not fully developed reading skills). We expected that, in accordance with the results of Lehman in older children (sixth and ninth grades), will also be in the group of younger children (pre-schoolers and first grade pupils) confirmed the relationship between the ability to ask questions and level of cognitive ability. We found out that the value of IQ positively correlates with both the number of questions generated upon indifferent visual stimuli, and the number of questions generated upon linguistic hints. These findings are consistent with the existing knowledge of intellectually gifted children: “Gifted children making more demands of their parents — asking more questions and asking for more challenges, and getting more answers and opportunities — than did non-gifted children” (Lewis, & Feiring, 1998, 14). “Young gifted children may also be exceptionally curious, ask more questions than other children, be excellent problem solvers, and exhibit more resourcefulness” (Charlesworth 2011, 467). It seems that gifted children have higher intrinsic need to ask. The results of our study suggest that the higher the IQ, the more questions children ask, even if they are provided with the external stimulus (and external stimulus may be replaced with extrinsic motivation) and regardless of whether it is a visual or linguistic one. The relationship between the number of questions and intelligence may be mediated by the level of creativity. Current knowledge about gifted children poses that these children manifested inter alia high level of originality (the behaviour that reflects a new idea or a new combination of ideas and that has a low probability of happening), fluency ideas that are easily developed from previous knowledge) and flexibility (seeing new use for an idea or material that no one else has seen) (Charlesworth 2011): the three components of creative thinking (Torrance). The relationship between the number of questions and intellectual ability may be mediated by especially its component fluency. This component includes familiarity with the factual knowledge of the domain in question: facts, principles, opinions about various issues (Amabile 1996). The number of studies has confirmed that there are gender differences in creativity and various forms of its manifestation. Girls generally have better performance in tasks aimed at verbal fluency and flexibility, verbal creative thinking, while boys have better performance in tasks focused on originality (Maccoby, & Jacklin, 1974). These studies were mainly focused on older children (8-12 years). It is possible that the results of our study are conditioned rather on results of girls in the research sample - this hypothesis should be verified. Study limitations: The results of our study appear relatively clear. However, it is necessary to take into account the limitations of the study. The obvious limit is the method for measuring the level of cognitive giftedness – there has been only used a test of intelligence. Test WISC III was used, as recommended by the methodology of the Ministry of Education for the pedagogicalpsychological counselling for testing giftedness and some of our kids have been identified in PPP (pedagogical-psychological counselling centre) as gifted using this method. Our aim was to HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? preserve the uniformity of the criterion, so we also used the same test as the research tool. The second limitation of the study may be internal factors of the subjects – especially the level of motivation and interest: images that have been used as the visual stimulus may not have enough pay attention of a child, the sticker certifying membership and small gifts for the child may not have been sufficiently attractive reason for filing optimal performance, and the current influences couldn’t have been forgotten (e.g. weather). The application and implementation into the school environment: Method R2A may be used not only as a research tool, but also as a tool for the development of the ability to ask questions. The methods and techniques suitable for encouraging and the development of ability to ask questions were described in our other paper (Havigerová, 2011). Continuity: Based on this research parents of 65 children nominated in the second wave and their classmates were asked to give consent to the continuation of research. The children now attend the first and second class. Some teachers of these children are currently being trained in the topic: how to support the cognitive development of children through asking questions (see, e.g., Havigerová, 2011). We will continue to monitor the ability of children to ask questions and also the ability of critical thinking in relation to intelligence. We assume that children whose teachers support the ability to ask questions will (compared with a control group - children with untrained teachers) achieve better results in both tests focused on the very ability to ask questions, and in tests of critical thinking and intelligence test (or their verbal subtests). Conclusion The ability of children to ask questions is diverse. Children with higher intelligence are able to ask more questions with both indifferent visual and linguistic stimulus. The number of questions generated by the indifferent visual stimulus is a good predictor of the amount of IQ, especially its verbal component. Short tasks similar to those just presented (Here is a footprint of an unknown animal, what should we know about it? or Think of as many questions beginning with the word ‘what’.) might be a simple tool that can help and assist to teachers in nursery schools for nominating gifted children in preschool age. Acknowledgement The paper presents partial results of research project No. GAP407/11/0426 entitled “Ready to ask?” Project is supported by the Czech Science Foundation. REFERENCES Amabile, Teresa M. 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder: Westview Press. Bussmann Hadumod, Kazzazi Kerstin, Trauth Gregory 2013. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge. Charlesworth Rosalind. 2011. Understanding Child Development. 8th Ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Communication [Def. 1-3]. 2013. In Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communication. Coulmas, Florian (Ed.). 1989. Language Adaptation. Cambridge University Press. Craighead, Edward W., & Nemeroff, Charles B. 2002. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. 3rd Ed, Vol. 4. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons. Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebrasca. Crystal, David. 2010. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 3rd ed. Part VII: Child Language Acquisition, 236–265. New York: Cambridge University Press. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING Davis, Wayne A. 2007. Meaning, Expression and Thought. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. DeRuiter, Jan P. 2012. Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (Language Culture and Cognition). Cambridge University Press Dillon, James T. 1998. Theory and Practice of Student Questioning.. In Karabenick Stuart A. (Ed.) 1998. Strategic help seeking: implications for learning and teaching. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 171-193. Feldman, Sandra. 2003. The Right Line of Questioning. Teaching preK-8, 33 (4): 8. Ferencová, Martina. 2008. Verbal Communication in Corporation and Consigning the Knowledge. In Štefko Robert, & Frankovský Miroslav. Management 2008. In Times of Global Change and Uncertainity. Prešov: University of Prešov, pp. 30-39. Friedenberg, Jay, & Silverman, Gordon. 2012. Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Gagarin,a Natalia, & Gülzow, Insa (Eds.). 2006. The Acquisition of Verbs and Their Grammar: The Effect of Particular Languages. Dordrecht: Springer. Gross, Richard. 2012. Being Human: Psychological and Philosophical Perspectives. Hodder Education. Hart Hilary, Whitmore Kingsley, & Willems Guy (Eds.). 1999. A Neurodevelopmental Approach to Specific Learning Disorders. London: MacKeith Press. Havigerová, Jana Marie. 2011. Pupils’ Information Behaviour – Introduction, Survey and Theoretical Background. In: Nowosad Inetta & Miłkowska Grażyna (Eds.). A Child in School Setting. Toruń: Adam Maszalek, 2011. Pp: 203-216. Havigerová, Jana M. & Haviger, Jiří. 2012. Questions in the School. World academy of science and technology 66: 449-452. Janik, Daniel S. 2004. A Neurobiological Theory and Method of Language Acquisition. Muenchen: Lincom GmbH. Lechta, Václav. 1990. Logopedické repetitorium. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatelství. Lehman, Robert A. 1972. The effects of creativity and intelligence on pupils' questions in science. Science Education, 56, 1, 103-121. Lewis, Michael, & Feiring, Candice. 1998. Families, Risks, and Competence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maccoby, Eleanor E. & Jacklin, Carol N. 1974. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford University Press. Mortensen, David C. (Ed). 2008. Communication Theory. 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Noorizah, Mohd N., Idris, Aman, & Rosniah Mustaffa. 2012. “Teachers’ Questioning in the Malaysian ESL Classroom.” The International Journal of Learning 18 (7): 313-325. Paas Fred, Renkl Alexander, & Sweller John. 2003. Cognitive Load Theory: A Special Issue of Educational Ppsychologist. London: Routledge. Petříková Jana, & Štěpánek David. 1997. Média – prostředky transferu informací. [Media – resources of information transfer]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Pinker, Steven. 1996. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ramey, Laura, & Meegan, Gary. 2011. The Criticial Thinking Community. Retrieved: June, 2011 from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/index.cfm. Rebore, Ronald W., Walmsley, Angela L. E. 2009. Recruiting and Retaining Generation Y Teachers. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Rusell, James. 2004. What Is Language Development?: Rationalist, Empiricist, and Pragmatist Approaches to the Acquisition of Syntax. Oxford: Oxford university Press. Schlinger, Henry D. Jr. 1995. A Behavior Analytic View of Child Development. New York: Plenum Press. Slezáčková, Alena. 2012. Průvodce pozitivní psychologií. Nové přístupy, aktuální poznatky, HAVIGEROVÁ: The Ability of Young Children to Ask Questions: More Questions, More Intelligent Child? praktické aplikace. Praha: Grada Publishing. Spodek, Bernard, & Saracho, Olivia N. (Eds.) 2005. International Perspectives on Research in Early Childhood Education. Information Age Publishing. Stern, William. 1924. Psychology of Early Childhood Up to the Sixth Year of Age. New York: Holt. Sternberg, Robert J. 1987. Most Vocabulary Is Learned from Context. In McKeown M.G., Curtis M.E. (Eds.) The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trzepacz, Paula T., & Baker, Robert W. 1993. The Psychiatric Mental Status Examination. NewYork: Oxford University Press. Truhlářová, Zuzana. 2003. Deprivace šikanované školní mládeže. In K sociální analýze mládeže. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní conference. Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus, 321-325 Vágnerová, Marie. 2005. Vývojová psychologie I. Dětství a dospívání.[ Developmental Psychology Childhood and Adolescence] Praha: Karolinum. Vybíral, Zbyněk. 2005. Psychologie komunikace. [Psychology of Communiation] Praha: Portál. Weber, Elizabeth G. 1993. Varieties of Questions in English Conversation (Studies in Discourse and Grammar). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wilson, Timothy D. 1981. On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation 37, 3-15. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jana Marie Havigerová (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Primary and Preprimary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. She is a lecturer and a researcher in the field of educational psychology. Her theoretical background: cognitive, positive and folk psychology. Her research deals with the questions: how differently people perceive the implicit content of concepts of normality, giftedness, learning, family and how to encourage and develop the cognitive abilities in the school with a focus on developing the question skill. She leads workshops on how to speak positively. Iva Burešová (Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk’ University of Brno, Czech Republic. She is a lecturer and a researcher in the field of counselling psychology. Her research activities focus on the issue of measurement and assessment in psychology, psychology of giftedness and self-harm behaviour in the childhood and adolescence.