TYPE Correction

PUBLISHED 30 June 2023

DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

Corrigendum: A proposal for

OPEN ACCESS monitoring the process of
internalization following
EDITED AND REVIEWED BY
Peter Klaver,
Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik
(HfH), Switzerland

*CORRESPONDENCE
Galperin’s conception
Leonardo Daniel Rivera Valdez
leonardo.riv.val@gmail.com
RECEIVED 12 May 2023
Leonardo Daniel Rivera Valdez*, Vicente Arturo López Cortés and
ACCEPTED 13 June 2023 Marco Antonio García Flores
PUBLISHED 30 June 2023

CITATION
Facultad de Psicología, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
Rivera Valdez LD, López Cortés VA and García
Flores MA (2023) Corrigendum: A proposal for
monitoring the process of internalization KEYWORDS
following Galperin’s conception. private speech, internalization, activity theory, cultural-historical psychology,
Front. Psychol. 14:1221706.
developmental psychology
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Rivera Valdez, López Cortés and García
Flores. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, A corrigendum on
distribution or reproduction in other forums is A proposal for monitoring the process of internalization following
permitted, provided the original author(s) and Galperin’s conception
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited, in by Rivera Valdez, L. D., López Cortés, V. A., and García Flores, M. A. (2023). A proposal for
accordance with accepted academic practice. monitoring the process of internalization following Galperin’s conception. Front. Psychol.
No use, distribution or reproduction is 14:1152541. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1152541
permitted which does not comply with these
terms.

In the published article, the inclusion of the separate references, “Vygotsky (2012a)”
and “Vygotsky (2012b)”, was incorrect. Instead, all in-text citations should be written as
“Vygotsky (2012)” and linked to the following reference details: Vygotsky, L. S. (2012).
Obras Escogidas II: Pensamiento y lenguaje. Machado Nuevo Aprendizaje. The reference
“Vygotsky, L. S. (2012b). The science of psychology. J. Russian East Eur. Psychol. 50, 85–106.
doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-0405500404” was not used in the text and should be deleted from the
reference list.
In the published article, there were also errors in the text. The word “speech” was
incorrectly added to the mental form of action. A correction has been made to the Abstract.
The corrected Abstract is shown below.
Since the era of Piaget and Vygotsky, private speech (PS) has been widely discussed,
but in recent years, the avenues for its study have greatly expanded. In this study, we
explored the use of a recoding scheme for PS inspired by the studies of Pyotr Galperin.
A coding scheme for social speech, PS, and the lack of speech, as the form of action (FA)
has been proposed (i.e., external social speech, external audible speech, inaudible speech,
and mental FA when no speech was produced). An exploratory study was conducted to
elucidate the appropriateness of the coding scheme, both ontogenetically and during tasks.
The results showed that both the coding scheme by type of speech and FA were adequate
for differentiating ontogenetically between children. However, only the coding schemes
of the FA were appropriate for differentiating between children as a function of their
performance (i.e., time and scores) in a Tower of London task. Moreover, Galperin’s scheme
was more suitable when there was redundancy in performance between those with audible
and inaudible external speech.
Additionally, there were errors in the Introduction. Firstly, the intention was to say that
Vygotsky attributed a self-regulation role to private speech. A correction has been made

Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org

Rivera Valdez et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

to the section Introduction: Vygotsky and the internalization Second, PS utterances were coded following Berk (1986)’s
process, Paragraph 1. The corrected paragraph is shown below: classification: (1) level 1 if PS (PS1) is irrelevant to the task, word
The process of internalizing speech was deeply studied and play or repetition, emotional expression irrelevant to the task, or
theorized by Vygotsky (2012). He proposed that private speech commentaries to absent or imaginary characters; level 2 if PS (PS2)
(PS) was an intermediate step between social speech and inner was relevant to the task, described the child’s own activity and were
speech, but he also attributed it a role in self-regulating activity. self-guided commentaries, were self-answered questions, or were
For him regulation first occurred due to the influence of adults in emotional expressions relevant to the task; Finally, level 3 of PS
social speech and later transferred to self-regulation because of PS. (PS3) was coded if externalized inner speech was relevant to the task
Finally, the regulation became internalized in inner speech. (e.g., verbal murmurs, whispers, and lip and tongue movements).
Secondly, the text of Introduction, Paragraph 3, is incorrect. It Finally, a degree of internalization measure was computed by
says that the lack of commentaries should be classified as private summing the amounts of PS2 and PS3 and dividing it by the
speech of type 1, while it should have said that speech that was amount of time (in minutes) when such utterances were coded (i.e.,
Total PS2 + Total PS3
directed to an absent character should be coded as private speech Total Time (min) ; Fernyhough and Meins, 2009; Winsler, 2009).
of type 1. A correction has been made to the section Introduction: In addition to this, the correct intention was to state that
Vygotsky and the internalization process, Paragraph 3. The the room was provided by the school, not that the cameras and
corrected paragraph is shown below. the room were provided by us. A correction has been made
One of the most influential coding schemes for studying this to the section Methodology, Free play. The corrected section is
process of internalization was proposed by Berk (1986). In this shown below.
coding scheme, one first needs to separate the utterances produced Since the group of first-graders was very young, we followed
by the child in the condition selected by the experimenter (e.g., Fernyhough and Meins (2009) suggestions of recording free play
play) according to temporal and semantic criteria (Winsler et al. sessions in groups of four kids for a maximum of 16 min.
2005). Then, one divides the speech according to whether it is Two cameras were positioned in a silent room provided by the
social or PS. Social speech is coded when there is physical or visual schools. Their speech was coded following the abovementioned
contact, when the context refers to someone or something that was coding schemas.
said, or when it is temporarily related to the speech of another The text also should have said that there were two copies of the
individual. Everything else is considered PS. Further, PS is classified Tower of London. One for the children, and another one for the
as follows: (1) level 1 if PS (PS1) is irrelevant to the task, word researchers to show the target model of the trial. Additionally, it
play or repetition, emotional expression irrelevant to the task, or should have expressed that they cannot move and leave the piece on
commentaries to absent or imaginary characters; (2) level 2 if PS the table. A correction has been made to the section Methodology,
(PS2) is relevant to the task, describes the child’s own activity, is self- Tower of London. The corrected section is shown below.
guided commentary, is a self-answered question, or is an emotional Following Fernyhough and Fradley (2005), we applied the
expression relevant to the task; and (3) level 3 of PS (PS3) if PS is Tower of London (ToL) to the second and third grades of preschool
externalized inner speech relevant to the task (e.g., verbal murmurs, to elicit their PS. The ToL consists of three pegs and three rings
whispers, and lip and tongue movements). of different colors (e.g., blue, red, and green), one copy for the
Additionally, the text should have expressed that the objective participant and another for the researcher to model the target of
was to explore if the re-coding by the form of the action the trial. The experimenter told the participant, “That they need
was effective at discriminating between the different groups of to make sure that their toy looks equal to this one (the model),”
preschool. A correction has been made to the section Galperin’s presenting them with four different levels (i.e., 2, 3, 4, and 5 moves)
notion of internalization, Paragraph 6. The corrected paragraph is of the task. Further, participants were told some rules: (1) they
shown below. should use one hand only; (2) they cannot move more than one
Because of the previous considerations, an exploratory analysis piece at a time; and (3) they cannot leave the pieces on the table
was performed to discern if the proposed re-coding by the and then move another piece, they should place the piece first on
FA is an appropriate categorization for studying the process of the pegs, and then they can move another one. Finally, children are
internalization across the preschool years. Does the classification told that “Some children like to talk out loud when they resolve this
of the FA distinguish between different preschool children (e.g., task, if you want you can talk. While you play, you can talk and say
first and second grade of preschool)? Is this classification better what you want” to encourage children to talk, otherwise they may
in some respects to other kinds of classification of private speech? not talk even if that is helpful for them. The session was recorded
Is the reclassification by FA redundant, or does it present new and coded as specified before.
information compared to other classifications? Additionally, there was an error in the section Results. It should
As in the error above, the text should have said that the have been expressed that the second grade had a lower degree of
speech that was directed to absent characters should be considered internalization than the third grade.
private speech of type 1. Additionally, the word “separated” was A correction has been made to the section Results, Differences
used incorrectly here, since the calculation of the degree of in degree of internalization across preschool grades. The corrected
PS2 + Total PS3
internalization is Total
Total Time (min) so the correct action should section is shown below.
have been to divide. Corrections have been made to section ANOVA analyses were performed following Wilcox (2017),
Methodology, Private speech coding, Paragraph 2. The corrected who recommended the use of trimmed means for incrementing the
paragraph is shown below. power of the analyses (for some computational and implementation

Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org

Rivera Valdez et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

details, see Mair and Wilcox, 2020; Love and Mair, 2022). The those with PS2 type did not differ from those with PS3 type (W
analyses revealed that there were significant differences between = −1.69, p = 0.756). Finally, those with a lack of speech showed
preschool groups (F = 25.1, p < 0.001). Post-hoc analyses were faster executions than those with social speech (W = 3.92, p
conducted (see Table 4), and it was found that the first grade of = 0.044), but no difference from those with PS1 (W = −2.07,
preschool had a lower degree of internalization than the second p = 0.586), PS2 (W = 2.22, p = 0.515), or PS3 (W = 1.59,
grade (ψ̂ = −1.52, p = 0.002); that the first grade had a lower degree 0.793) types.
of internalization than the third grade (ψ̂ = −2.85, p < 0.001); and Lastly, in the original article, there was a mistake in the
that second grade had a lower degree of internalization than the Figures 4–7 as published. The y-axis text should have said “FA
third grade (ψ̂ = −1.32, p = 0.035). Preschool 2 and 3” for Figures 4, 5, and “FA Galperin Preschool
The text is also incorrect with respect to the differences between 2 and 3”, for Figures 6, 7. In addition, due to this amendment the
the Tower of London times. As the statistic shows, there was no following text in the caption of Figures 4, 5 is not required and has
difference between those with PS2 and PS3 types. A correction been removed: “1, external social speech; 2, external audible speech;
has been made to the section Results, Differences in performance 3, external inaudible speech; 4, mental”. The corrected Figures 4–7
as a function of speech type and FA, Paragraph 3. The corrected appear below.
paragraph is shown below. The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do
An analysis of ANOVA for the type of speech with trimmed not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The
means was not possible; thus, classical non-parametric tests were original article has been updated.
performed (i.e., Kruskal–Wallis test). No significant difference was
found for ToL points as a function of speech type (χ2 = 8.90,
df = 4, p = 0.064), while a significant difference was found for Publisher’s note
time (χ2 = 29.3, df = 4, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons (see
Table 5) showed that participants with social speech took more All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
time resolving the ToL than those with PS2 (W = −5.28, p = authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
0.002) and PS3 (W = −6.55, p < 0.001) types of speech but not organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
more time than those with PS1 type (W = −2.33, p = 0.467). reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
Those with PS1 type did not differ from those with PS2 (W = claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
2.30, p = 0.479) or PS3 (W = 2.35, p = 0.459) types. Moreover, endorsed by the publisher.

References
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Obras Escogidas II: Pensamiento y lenguaje. Machado Nuevo
Aprendizaje.

Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org

Rivera Valdez et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

FIGURE 4
ToL points as a function of FA.

FIGURE 5
ToL times as a function of FA.

Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org

Rivera Valdez et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221706

FIGURE 6
ToL points as a function of FA (Galperin).

FIGURE 7
ToL times as a function of FA (Galperin).

Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org