臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究是依據Vygotsky(1978) 所提出的近側發展區的主張，參考Campione和Brown(1985)的漸進提示評量模式，透過「前測-學習-遷移-後測」的實施程序，探討八年級學生學習浮力概念歷程中心智模式的轉變情形，以浮力概念前測試卷來偵測96位學生迷思概念類型並將40位學生分為對照組和實驗組，二組受試者除了接受前後測和晤談外，對照組學生並接受浮力概念學習題的教學，實驗組則接受實作活動階段及概念教導階段的動態評量。
本研究提出四個研究目的：一、經由評量工具的測驗及對學生的晤談結果，探究國二學生在有關浮力的概念內容中，所具有的迷思概念類型。二、藉著評量工具及對學生進行晤談，由評量結果及訪談資料探究國二學生對於浮力概念所具有的心智模式類型。三、探討學生對於浮力內容所呈現的迷思概念及心智模式在動態評量中的變化情形。四、探討學生在非動態評量中及動態評量中是否發生概念改變及其發生的機制為何。
本研究的研究結果為：經過迷思概念偵測前測卷測試的結果，可以將學生的概念類型分為體積、密度、混合及科學概念類型，而經過動態評量與非動態評量後，二組全部的學生在測驗三的成績達到顯著差異；在體積內容的作答情形上，二組整體學生在測驗三的成績達到顯著差異；在物質題及過程題的表現上二組達到顯著差異；在理解及應用層次的表現上，二組在測驗三達到顯著差異。
對體積模式的學生而言，實驗組在經過動態評量之後，其心智模式會轉變成密度模式；非動態評量使對照組學生產生混合及密度模式。對密度模式學生而言，實驗組及對照組經教學後皆使學生產生混合模式。對混合模式學生而言，實驗組及對照組學生最終的心智狀態呈現密度或混合模式。
綜合以上所述，動態評量可以使學生的測驗成績表現較佳，而在心智模式部分，動態評量則使學生產生較一致的心智模式，而非動態評量則會使學生呈現較為混雜變動的心智模式。

Based on the Vygotsky’s principle: zone of proximal development, according to Campione & Brown’s graduated prompting procedure, through the implement of pretest-learning-transfer-posttest, investigated 8th students’ conceptual change mechanism and mental models on buoyancy, developed a pretest to probe ninety six students’ misconception of buoyancy, and divided forty students into contrast and experiment group. These forty students all accepted pretest-posttest and interviews, the students of contrast group accepted the teaching of buoyancy exercises, the students of experiment group accepted hands-on activity and dynamic assessment of buoyancy.
The research hands in 4 research purposes: (1) According to the results of tests and interviews, we can probe students’ misconception of buoyancy. (2) By assessing and interviewing students, investigated 8th students’ mental models on buoyancy. (3) Probing the variances of students’ misconception and mental models of buoyancy at dynamic assessment. (4) Studying the effect of non-dynamic assessment and dynamic assessment, which teaching method would promote students’ conceptual change and what mechanism is occurred.
The results of this study revealed: by analyzing the results of pretest, we can divide students into volume, density, and complex conception types. Pass through dynamic assessment and non-dynamic assessment, the experimental group showed significant higher scores in test-3 and in volume content of test-3. The experimental group also showed significant higher scores in matter and process content of test-3. In understanding and applied level questions of test-3, the experimental group is significant better than contrast group.
To the students of volume conception type, passing dynamic assessment and non-dynamic assessment, students’ mental models of experimental group turn to become density type, students’ mental models of contrast group become density or complex types. To the students of density conception type, experimental and contrast students become complex type. To the students of complex conception type, all students become density or complex types.
In summary, dynamic assessment can promote students’ test scores. Referring mental models, dynamic assessment would enable students to become coincident mental models, non-dynamic assessment make students become intermix models.

第一章　緒　論 1
第一節　研究背景與研究動機-------------------------- 2
第二節　研究目的------------------------------------ 4
第三節　研究問題------------------------------------ 4
第四節　名詞釋義------------------------------------ 5
第五節　研究範圍及限制------------------------------ 6
第二章　文獻探討 7
第一節　動態評量的相關研究-------------------------- 7
第二節　概念改變的理論研究-------------------------- 19
第三節　心智模式------------------------------------ 30
第四節　浮力相關的迷思概念-------------------------- 35
第三章　研究方法 43
第一節　研究設計理念-------------------------------- 43
第二節　研究對象------------------------------------ 46
第三節　研究工具------------------------------------ 47
第四節　研究步驟------------------------------------ 57
第五節 資料分析------------------------------------ 61
第四章　研究結果與討論 63
第一節　學習成就之比較------------------------------ 63
第二節　迷思概念類型-------------------------------- 78
第三節　實驗組概念表現與預測率、提示量之關係-------- 92
第四節　學生之概念作答情況-------------------------- 98
第五節　心智模式------------------------------------ 110
第六節　學生之概念改變情況-------------------------- 131
第伍章　結論與建議 153
第一節　結論---------------------------------------- 153
第二節　建議---------------------------------------- 157
參考文獻 161
附錄 171
附錄一　對照組教材一-------------------------------- 171
附錄二　對照組教材二-------------------------------- 175
附錄三　對照組教材三-------------------------------- 178
附錄四　實驗組教材一-------------------------------- 182
附錄五　實驗組教材二-------------------------------- 190
附錄六 實驗組教材三-------------------------------- 198
附錄七　浮力迷思概念偵測卷-------------------------- 205
附錄八　浮力概念測驗一------------------------------ 209
附錄九　浮力概念測驗二------------------------------ 211
附錄十　浮力概念測驗三------------------------------ 213

江新合、許榮富、林寶山(1991)。我國學生自然科概念發展與診斷教學之研究;(1)中學生浮力相關概念發展及其相關迷思概念的分析研究。國科會專題研究報告:NSC 79-0111-S-017-07-D。
何佳燕（民91）：探討粒子概念對國二學生學習溫度與熱的學習成就與心智模式之影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
余淑君（民91）：以動態評量探究五年級學童酸鹼概念的概念改變機制。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
吳昆勇（2002）阿基米得原理與引導式發現教學法對學生學習浮力概念的影響。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
李暉（民89）：科學話語與科學概念的學習：以國中生理化課學習為例。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
李維（1998）：思維與語言。台北市：桂冠。
沈中偉（民83）：魏考斯基理論在認知策略上的應用。教學科技與媒體（2），頁23-31。
周天賜（民87）：動態評量：發展與改進兒童學習潛能的媒介式學習。台北：心理出版社。
林世華、劉子鍵（民86）：整合認知心理學、心理計量學與教學的理想模式：結合認知設計、反應產生模式、認知診斷評量系統以及動態評量系統。教育測驗新近發展趨勢學術研討會論文彙編，頁229-235。國立台南師範學院測驗發展中心。
林素微（民85）：國小六年級學童數學解題彈性思考動態測量之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
林清山（1994）：心理與教育統計學。台北市：東華。
林福榮（2001）。高雄市國二學生浮力的另有概念研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育教育研究所碩士論文。
邱美虹(1998)：概念改變研究的省思。中華民國第十四屆科學教育學術研討會。國立高雄師範大學, 620-627。
邱美虹(2000)：概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊, 8(1), 1-34。
邱美虹和翁雪琴（1995）：國三學生「四季成因」之心智模式與推理歷程之探討。科學教育學刊，3(1)，23-68。
邱皓政（2003）：量化研究與統計分析。台北市：五南。
邱顯博（民91）：國二、國三學生的擴散作用概念與概念改變之研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張靜嚳（民84）：何謂建構主義？建構與教學，3。[online].Available：http:// macro.bio.ncue.edu.tw/~biowww/c&t/issuel-8/v3-1.htm
莊麗娟(民85 )：國小六年級浮力概念動態評量的效益分析。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。
莊麗娟(民89)：系統化多元評量模式之發展研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文。
許嘉玲(1997)。浮力學習之概念改變。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
郭重吉（1988）：從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報，13，352-378。
郭重吉（1989）利用晤談方式探查國中學生對重要物理概念的另有架構。發表於第五屆科學教育學術研討會。
郭重吉（1992）：從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，20（5），548-570。
陳嘉成（民90）：以動態評量AMS模式探究國小學童光合作用概念之改變。國立台北師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。
黃湘武、黃寶鈿(1987)。學生推理能力與概念發展之研究。認知與學習研討會專集。台北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
蘇育任〈1993〉。自然科教學之新趨勢─促進學生認知發展。國教輔導，33(1)，16-18。
Anastasi, A. (1981). Coaching, test sophistication, and developed abilities. American Psychologist, 36(10), 1086-1093.
Budoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded. (Final Report Project No. 312312). Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Education Problem. Cambridge Mental Health Association.
Camacho, F. F., & Cazares, L. G. (1998). Partial possible models: An approach to interpret students'''''''' physical representation. Science Education, 82(1), 15-29.
Camp, B. W. (1973). Psychometric tests and learning in severely disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities., 6(7), 512-517.
Campione, J. C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities., 22(3), 151-165.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Dynamic assessment: One approach and some initial data. (Technical report No. 361). Washington. DC.: Nation Inst. Of Child Health and Human Development.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT press.
Carlson, J. S., & Wieedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing the limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in chilidren with learning difficulties. American Journal of Deficiency., 82, 559-564.
Carlson, J. S., & Wieedl, K. H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing the limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323-344.
Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1982). A causal model of students achievement in a college physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 299-309.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson, J. H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074-1079.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in sciences. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: university of Minneosota Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S.M.Smith & J.Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: AN investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 209-234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & deLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Craik, K. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dearborn, W. F. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 210-212.
DeWeerdt, E. H. (1927). A study of the improvability of fifth grade school children in certain mental functions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 547-557.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien , A. (1985). Children''''''''s ideas in science: Open University Press.
Embretson. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluation learning potential (pp. 141-170). New York: Guilford Press.
Ferretti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1992). Intelligence-related differences in the learning, maintenance, and transfer of problem-solving strategies. Intelligence, 16, 207-224.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment divice, theory, instrument, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Fisher, K. M., & Lipson, J. I. (1986). Twenty questions about student errors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(9), 783-803.
Freksa, C., & Barkowsky, T. (1999). On the duality and on the integration of propositional and spatial representations. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Mental Models in Discourse Processing and Reasoning (pp. 195-212). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B. V.
Glaser, R. (1981). The future of testing: A research agenda for cognitive psychology and psychometrics. American Psychologist, 36(9), 923-936.
Glover, P., & Thomas, R. (1999). Coming to Grips with Continuous Assessment. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 117-127.
Gordon, J. E., & Haywood, H. C. (1969). Input deficit in cultural-familiar retardates: Effect of stimulus enrichment. American Journal of Mental Deficiency., 73, 604-610.
Haeussermann, E. (1958). Developmental potential of preschool children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Hall, L., & Day, J. D. (1982). Comparison of the zone of proximal development in learning disabled, mentally retarded and normal children. Paper presented at the The 66th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED218829).
Harison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students'''''''' mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509-534.
Haywood, H. C. (1992). Psycho-educational assessment from a transactional perspective. New York: Spring-Verlag, Inc.
Haywood, H. C., Brown, A. L., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411-422.
Haywood, H. C., & Switsky, H. N. (1974). Children''''''''s verbal abstracting: Effects of enriched input, age, and IQ. American Journal of Mental Deficiency., 78(5), 556-565.
Haywood, H. C., & Switzky, H. N. (1986). The malleability of intelligence: cognitive process as a function of polygenic-experiential interaction. School Psychology Review, 15(2), 245-255.
Head, J. (1986). Research into ''''''''alternative frameworks'''''''': promise and problem. Research in Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203-211.
Heim, A. W., & Watts, K. P. (1957). An experiment on practice, coaching, and discussion of errors in mental testing. British Journal of Education Psychology, 27, 199-210.
Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students'''''''' prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
Hildebrandt, B., Moratz, R., Rickheit, G., & Sagerer, G. (1999). Cognitive modeling of vision and speech understanding. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Mental Models in Discourse Processing and Reasoning (pp. 213-236). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B. V.
Hutson, B. A., & Niles, J. A. (1974). Trial teaching: The missing link. Psychology in the School, 11(2), 188-191.
Jedrysek, E., Klapper, A., Pope, L., & Wortis, J. (1972). Psychoeducational evaluation of the preschool child. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Jensen, A. R. (1961). Learning abilities in Mexican-American and Anglo-American chilidren. California Journal of Education Research, 12(4), 147-159.
Jensen, A. R. (1963). Learning abilities in retarded, average, and gifted chilidren. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9(2), 123-140.
Jensen, A. R. (1966). Verbal mediation and educational potential. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 99-109.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). Intelligence, learning ability and socioeconomics status. Journal of Special Education, 3(1), 23-33.
Jitendra, A. K. (1991). An Investigation of Third-grade Students'''''''' Mathematic Word Problem-solving utilizing Dynamic Assessment. Unpublished doctoral dessertation, University of Oregon.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 14(5), 6-18.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1994). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment appproach: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education (RASE), 14(5), 6-18.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 469-499). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1995). Mental models, deductive reasoning, and the brain. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 999-1008). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Formal rules versus mental models in reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 586-624). Cambridge, MA: MIT Presss.
Katherine, H. G. (2000). Inside professional practice: A collaborative, systems orientation to linking dynamic assessment and intervention. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: prevailing models and applications. (Vol. 6). New York: ELSEVIER SCIENCE Inc.
Kessler, K., Duwe, I., & Strohner, H. (1999). Grounding mental models-Subconceptual dynamics in the resolution of Linguistic reference in discourse. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Mental Models in Discourse Processing and Reasoning (pp. 169-193). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Kragler, S. (1986). Dynamic versus static testing: Impact on reading placement of reading underachievers.(CD-ROM). Abstract from: Pro-Quest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 8618684.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students'''''''' and teachers'''''''' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
Lidz, C. S. (1987a). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guiford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1987b). Historical Perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner''''''''s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guiford Press.
Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic Science Assessment: A New Approach for Investigating Conceptual Change. The Journal of the Learning Science., 6(1), 91-142.
Messick, S. (1981). The controversy over coaching: Issues of effectiveness and equity. In B. F. Green (Ed.), New directions for testing and measurement: Issues in testing-Coaching, disclosure, and ethnic bias (Vol. 11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mullet, E., & Montcouquiol, A. (1988). Archimedes'''''''' effect, information integration and individual differences. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 285-301.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observation on mental models. In A. L. Stevens (Ed.), Mental Models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ortar, G. R. (1959). Improving test validity with coaching. Educational Research, 2, 137-142.
Palincsar, A. S., & Winn, J. (1992). Dynamic Assessment (Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan.
Penrose, L. S. (1934). Mental Defect. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.
Peters, P. C. (1982). Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 501-508.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
Ponser, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., & Glasser, R. (1998). Why Does It Go Up? The Impact of the MARS Curriculum as Revealed through Changes in Student Explanations of a Helium Balloon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547-567.
Rickheit, G., & Sichelschmidt, L. (1999). Mental Models: Some answers, some questions, some suggestions. In G. R. C. Habel (Ed.), Mental Models in Discourse Processing and Reasoning (pp. 9-40). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Rohwer, W. D., & Rohwer, J. (1971). Learning, race, and school success. Review of Educational Research, 41(3), 191-210.
Ross, A. O. (1976). Psychological aspects of learning disabilities and reading disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rowell, J. A., & Dawson, C. J. (1977). Teaching about floating and sinking: an attempt to link cognitive psychology with classroom practice. Science Education, 61, 243-251.
Schucman, H. (1960). Evaluating the educability of the severely mentally retarded child. Psychological Monographs, 74.
Severson, R. A. (1976). Environmental and emotionally-based influences upon the learning process. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, DC.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior(2nd ed.). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams.
Simrall, D. (1947). Intelligence and the abillity to learn. Journal of Psychology, 23, 27-43.
Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students'''''''' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basics for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3), 373-400.
Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight , L. (1992). Using Conceptual Models to Facilitate Conceptual Change: The Case of Weight-Density Differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221-283.
Stevens, A. L., & Collins, A. (1980). Multiple conceptual models of a complex system. In R. E. Snow, P. Federico & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. T. West & a. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231): Academics press, Inc.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, Cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: SUNY press.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387-404.
Vernon, P. E. (1954). Symposium on the effects of coaching and practice in intelligence tests. British Journal of Education Psychology, 24, 57-63.
Vosniadou, S. (1991). Conceptual development in astronomy. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany & B. Brotton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science. (pp. 149-177). N.J.: Erlbaum.
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in children. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An international approach to evaluation learning Potential (Vol. 327-359). New York: Guildford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teahing and learning (pp. 177-204): Macmillan Publishing Company.
Wiseman, S., & Wrigley, J. (1953). The comparative effects of coaching and practice on the results of verbal intelligence tests. British Journal of Education Psychology, 44, 83-94.
Woodrow, H. (1946). The ability to learn. Psychology Review, 53, 147-158.
Zigler, E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1968). Motivational aspects of changes in IQ test performance of culturally deprived nursery school children. Child Development, 39(1), 1-14.