Learning from Animations: The effect of High

and Low Domain knowledge on learning from

Animations with or without Auditive feedback.

Jaap Kabbedijk0444332

j.kabbedijk@cs.uu.nl

Bachelor Research ProjectInformation Science Utrecht University

Supervision: dr. H. van Oostendorp

October 20, 2009

Abstract

A lot of information is passed through by animations. Because of this, it is of great importance

to know what the best conditions are to present an animation to different types of persons, in

order to transfer the most information. This paper examines the difference between persons with

High Domain Knowledge and persons with Low Domain Knowledge in the way they learn from

animations. We test whether the mental model of a person with LDK is higher when an animation is

shown to him with auditive comment, than when an animation is shown without auditive comment.

Also we test if a reversed effect is found with persons with HDK, where an animation with auditive

comment can possibly give a worse mental image than an animation without auditive comment.

This paper shows that there is no significant difference of mental image between people with LDK

or HDK and also no difference between auditive comment and the lack of auditive comment when

showing the animation. There is no difference in mental image whatsoever that we could prove by

our experiment.

1 Introduction

Let’s start by stating what an animation exactly is. An animation is a pictorialrepresentation that depicts apparent movement and consists of objects that areartificially created (Mayer & Moreno, 2002).

More and more information is transferred by animations. Previously thetransfer of information was done through static media. Paper was the primarymedium, on which text illustrated with static images was presented. Nowadaysa lot of information is presented to people in the form of animations and this isthe reason why a whole new research area with a lot of new questions has beenestablished. You can imagine that if you, for example, need to learn somethingnew and you are no expert, you would like a lot of information about the specifictopic. For someone who has a lot of domain knowledge about this topic andtherefore is a expert on the topic, information that will be useful to you, will beredundant. This redundant information that is crucial for you as a low domainknowledge user (LDK), can give an unnecessary load on the limited working ca-pacity of the high domain knowledge user (HDK). This redundant informationfor the HDK user can result in a lower understanding of the information thanthe HDK user would have if the redundant information was not present. Thiseffect is known as the ”expertise reversal effect” (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Givingpeople information through animations, you want them to make a mental im-age of the animation and interpret this, to extract the information you put inthe animation. The use of animations for giving information to a user can bepreferred above normal static representation, when the information is about acertain process. Think about the flushing of a toilet, this is something that ishard to explain by words and static images, but people can make a good mentalimage of it when they are presented an animation (Hegarty et al., 2003).

People with a HDK on a certain topic have better mental images after beingshown an animation an that specific topic (Hegarty & Kriz, 2007), but accordingto Kalyuga et al. (2003) this mental image can be negatively influenced by a toohigh amount of redundant information. The expertise reversal effect is not aneffect that is only applies to visual representations (visuospatial sketchpad), butit can also occur when information is offered in different modalities. Think abouta visual representation, with additional information given in an auditive way.

1

This auditive information that is meant to give extra information to personswho have low domain knowledge, can lead to a cognitive overload by personswho already have high domain knowledge on the specific topic, and by thispossibly give them a worse mental model of a topic than users without thisextra auditive information. To see if this is true, we will test in this paper ifthere is a relation between the mental model people create with, or withoutextra auditive information, based on the level of their domain knowledge.

There has been earlier research about the possible effect of multiple inter-acting elements of information that is presented at the same time. Sweller &Chandler (1994) stated that people have a limited cognitive workload and thatby designing learning material in a way that take this cognitive load theory intoaccount, spectacular gains in learning efficiency could be seen. When someonehas to split his attention between two different sources of materials, he uses alot of his limited working memory and therefore has less working memory avail-able for the learning process (Kalyuga et al., 1999). These studies indicate thata larger amount of interacting elements of information will make the learningprocess less efficient. This is true, but another element also has to be taken intoaccount. This is the domain knowledge a person has. As discussed before thisdomain knowledge has an effect on the effectiveness of the learning process (Ka-lyuga et al., 2003). Kalyuga et al. (2003) showed the existence of the expertisereversal effect on multiple interacting elements of information, but did this by aliterature study and not by an experiment that puts an animation and auditivefeedback together to test this effect.

The research question: ”Is there an expertise reversal effect on animationswith or without auditive feedback”, will be answered in this paper.

2 Hypotheses construction

In order to explore the research question stated above, several hypothesis haveto be formed and tested.

• The first hypotheses is (1): People with Low Domain Knowledge and audi-tive comments, will have a better mental image of the process than peoplewith Low Domain Knowledge and no auditive comments.

• The second hypotheses we will test is (2): People with High DomainKnowledge and no auditive comments will have a better mental imagethan people with High Domain Knowledge and auditive comments.

These two hypotheses are summarized in figure 1, where the hypothesesare depicted as arrows. Hypothesis 1 states a better cognitive model for personswith low domain knowledge, when they get auditive comments. Hypothesis 2shows the expertise reversal effect on the cognitive model of a person. It statesthat the cognitive model at persons with a high domain knowledge will be betterif no auditive comment is provided.

2

Figure 1: Hypotheses

3 Method

3.1 Subjects

The 40 subjects that were tested within this experiment are mostly students.All people tested have a reasonably high educational level and no experience onthe domain of flush-systems or heart systems. All subject did the experimentalone, under the same conditions.

3.2 Materials

Before the animation was shown, the participants were presented a questionnaireto test their prior domain knowledge. These questionnaires can be found inappendix A. For this experiment a representation of two different systems waspresented to the subjects. The representations were designed in a way that noprerequisite knowledge about the system was needed. One system presented wasthe working of the human hart (figure 2). The second system presented was atoilet flush and its refilling process (figure 3). The reason that we chose thesetwo different systems was to make it possible in the end to give a more genericanswer to the research questions. Therefore a representation of a biologicalsystem (the working of a human hart) as well as a diagram of an artifact (theworking of a toilet flush) was chosen. Off these two systems three differentconditions were made. For every condition a textual description of the mainsteps was shown on top of the screen. The used background was made of aninconspicuous gray color.

There were two possible conditions a test subject could get. In one condi-tion there was no auditive feedback to the animation shown and in the secondcondition, the test subject would get auditive feedback to the animation he wasshown. To measure the cognitive load a generated by the experiment on a per-

3

Figure 2: Heart animation

son, questions were asked about the system to test a persons understanding.This is a subjective objective way of measuring (Brunken et al., 2003).

3.3 Apparatus

The animations used in the experiment are made with Macromedia Flash 81 andconverted to a XVID2 movie file to implement in a Superlab 43 environment.The experiment was shown to the test subjects at a resolution of 1152X864 ona 17” computer screen.

3.4 Procedure

All test subjects were randomly assigned between the condition with or thecondition without auditive comment.

All participants are first presented with a document that contains extrainformation about the domain that will be tested. First they will get some infor-mation about flush systems (another system than is shown in the experiment),and after that some information about the vascular system of humans. Thesedocuments (in Dutch) can be found in the appendix. With these documentshigh domain knowledge could be created. After the information is read, eight

1http://www.adobe.com/2http://www.xvid.org/3http://www.superlab.com/

4

Figure 3: Flush animation

Condition: Contents:Condition LDK NoCom Low Domain Knowledge, with

no auditive informationCondition LDK AudCom Low Domain Knowledge, with

auditive informationCondition HDK NoCom High Domain Knowledge, with

no auditive informationCondition HDK AudCom High Domain Knowledge, with

auditive information

Table 1: Conditions of the experiment.

”true or false” questions are asked to test the subject on the topic they readabout. Based on the answers to these eight questions it is determined whethersomeone has high or low domain knowledge. After this, all four conditionsare shown the same animation of a flush system twice. Two conditions get tosee an animation with no additional auditive comment (Condition LDK NoComand HDK NoCom) and the two other conditions (Condition LDK AudCom andHDK AudCom) get to see the same animation, but with auditive comment.After the animations are shown, the participant has to fill in a ”Flags Test”Thurstone & Jeffreys (1956). This test consists of several tasks in which an ex-ample flag and a serie of rotated or else way altered flags are shown and the testsubject has to select the flags that are the same as the example flag. This testhas two reasons. within the experiment. The first reason is to test the visualspatial ability of the person and next it is meant to erase all the informationabout the animation from the short term memory. By this, we will test theactual mental image someone has developed and not his ability to rememberinformation for a short time.

After this Flags test, the test subjects were asked to answer different typesof questions. To test users understanding of the different systems, three groups

5

of different types of questions of both systems were made up based on (Awan& Stevens, 2006); (Paas, 1993) and (Betrancourt et al., 2003) The retentionprocess followed the conventional paradigm for studying construction of men-tal model (Schnotz, 2001). First they participants were asked some retentionquestions. For example: ”What is the name of part A in figure 3?”. These typeof questions are meant to test how much of the explicit parts they remember.Participants received one point for every part that was labelled correct. Sincethere were respectively 8 parts in the flush system and 9 parts in the heart sys-tem, participants could get 8 and 9 points for these questions. When the testsubject has answered the retention questions, five multiple choice questions areposed about the animation shown.

An example of such a question is: ”Why does the floater go down?”.

1. a) Because the lever is pulled down

2. b) Because the water throughput valve opens

3. c) Because the water inlet valve opens

4. d) Because the water goes down

These questions measure the comprehension of the user about the system.One point was given for each good answer and 5 multiple choice questions wereposed for both system. Finally five ”troubleshooting questions” were asked. Inthis kind of question a problem with the system is given to the subject. Thesubject is then asked to diagnose the cause of the problem. This is an openquestion looking for example like: ”The toilet was used one hour ago. Water isstill running into the toilet. What could be wrong?”.

When all questions are answered, the subjects is shown an animation again,but this time it is about the human heart. This animation is shown twice aswell and the same kind of questions are asked afterwards. There was no timeconstraint for the participants to complete the experiment, but the time theyneeded to complete each subtask was measured. This measurement was doneautomatically by the software in which the experiment was conducted. Thetime measurement started the moment the experiment started (this includesthe reading of the explanation by the participant) and ended the moment thelast question was filled in.

4 Results

4.1 Variable Construction

The hypotheses make statements about High or Low Domain Knowledge, so itis important to divide the participants in these two groups first. Before they didthe actual experiment, their domain knowledge of flush system and the heartwas measured (separately) and a score was attached to their knowledge. Thereis no significant correlation between their domain knowledge on flush systemsand their knowledge on the heart, r(38) = .273, p > 0.05, so we have to analysethe flush and the heart system separately, and can not create one variable ondomain knowledge.

6

Since there is a condition with and a condition without auditive comment,the participants will be split into two domain knowledge groups, within one ofthese conditions.

DK Score (Flush) Cumulative percent3 54 205 506 857 958 100

Table 2: Frequency of Domain Knowledge scores (Flush).

As can be seen in table 2, 50% of the participants have a domain knowledgescore of 3, 4 or 5 on the flush subject. Because of this we state that people witha score ≤ 5 on the flush subject have a Low Domain Knowledge, and everyonewith a score > 5 has a High Domain Knowledge. Summarized: DK ≤ 5 =LDK; DK > 5 = HDK.

DK Score (Heart) Cumulative percent6 57 458 100

Table 3: Frequency of Domain Knowledge scores (Heart).

The frequency distribution of the Domain Knowledge scores on the heartsubject differs from the one on the flush subject, as can be seen in table 2. 45%of the participants had a score of 6 or 7, so the separation between HDK andLDK is as follows: DK ≤ 7 = LDK; DK > 7 = HDK. When we apply thisdivision of high and low domain knowledge on the flush and heart system to theparticipants of the experiment we get 4 groups of approximately the same size.

Low Domain Knowledge High Domain KnowledgeFlush 20 20Heart 19 21

Table 4: Number of participants per condition

The results of the experiment are summarized in table 5. In this table westated all means and standard deviations for the different kind of questions inthe experiment.

7

LDK NoCom LDK AudCom HDK NoCom HDK AudComResults Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDFlushDomain Knowledge (0-8) 4.5 .707 4.4 .516 6.4 .699 6.2 0.422Retention of part names (0-8) 3.5 .850 3.7 .939 4.1 .876 3.8 .1.033Comprehension questions (0-5) 3.6 1.350 3.1 1.101 4.0 .943 4.1 .1.287Transfer of knowledge (0-15) 3.8 1.398 4.3 .949 4.4 1.075 5.20 1.619Proportional Combined questions .47 .117 .46 .101 .54 .074 .55 .126Time (minutes) 23.1 4.679 20.3 9.130 24.3 .815 19.0 7.991HeartDomain Knowledge (0-8) 6.9 .333 7.0 .000 8.0 .000 8.0 .000Retention of part names (0-9) 5.1 1.691 4.5 1.780 5.0 1.483 5.7 2.263Comprehension questions (0-5) 3.1 1.054 2.6 .1.075 3.2 .751 3.3 .675Transfer of knowledge (0-11) 3.1 1.537 2.5 .972 3.1 .701 3.8 .632Proportional Combined questions .49 .148 .42 .123 .49 .101 .55 .116Time (minutes) 10.2 1.296 11.5 1.573 15.2 3.531 10.9 3.694

Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of test scores.

There is a weak correlation between the three different types of questions.This correlation is too weak to create one variable out of the three separatevariables, but for the sake of explorative research we will create one variable totest the the understanding of the flush system and one variable for understandingthe heart system. Possible significant results found by using this variable couldindicate a direction for future research. We created the variables by taking theaverage of the relative result of the three different types of questions. For theflush system this means the following:

18/RetentionScore

+ 15/ComprehensionScore

+ 115/T ransferScore

3For the heart system this will mean:

19/RetentionScore

+ 15/ComprehensionScore

+ 111/T ransferScore

3

4.2 Effect of Auditive Information

To validate the first hypothesis, we will need to examine the effect of auditivecomment on people with low domain knowledge.

• H0: There is no difference in mental model of a process between peoplewith low domain knowledge that got auditive comment with the animation,in comparison to people with low domain knowledge that got no auditivecomment with the animation.

• H1: People will have a better mental model of a process when they getauditive comment with an animation, then people who don’t get auditivecomment with an animation.

Since we have to test the two different systems separately, we startedby testing the flush system. The mental model of people was tested by pos-

8

ing three different kind of questions. Looking at the retention questions, wecan see no significant difference after doing an independent sample T-test:t(18) = −.497, p = .63 (appendix B). When testing the difference between audi-tive comment and no auditive comment on comprehension questions, we againdid not found a significant difference: t(18) = .908, p = .38. Finally on thetroubleshoot questions there also was no significant difference according to anindependent sample T-test: t(18) = −.936, p = .36. No differences were foundbetween people who watched the animation on the flush system with, or withoutauditive comments and have a low domain knowledge. For the heart system,also no significant differences were found. Retention: t(17) = .765, p = .46, Mul-tiple Choice: t(17) = 1.044, p = .31 and Troubleshoot: t(17) = 1.048, p = .31(See appendix B). Based on this, we can not accept H1 and conclude there isno difference in mental image between people with LDK that got no auditivecomment, compared to people that did get auditive comment.

The second hypothesis is also based on the effect of auditive comment onthe mental image of a person. This hypothesis is as follows:

• H0: There is no difference in mental model of a process between peoplewith high domain knowledge that got auditive comment with the animation,in comparison to people with high domain knowledge that got no auditivecomment with the animation.

• H1: People will have a worse mental model of a process when they getauditive comment with an animation, then people who don’t get auditivecomment with an animation.

Conducting a independent-samples T-test shows no significant differencesfor the flush system. The result for the flush system are: Retention: t(18) =.701, p = .49, Multiple Choice: t(18) = −.198, p = .85 and Troubleshoot:t(18) = −1.302, p = .21. When testing the results for the heart system, wecan see a significant difference in the troubleshoot questions. The results forthe hearts system are: Retention: t(19) = −.846, p = .41, Multiple Choice:t(19) = −.378, p = .71 and Troubleshoot: t(19) = −2.425p = .03 (See appendixB). People with a HDK did a significant better job when they get auditivecomment, compared to when they don’t. We can not accept H1, since only oneof the results had a significant difference, but this difference is something thatshould be researched in more detail.

4.3 Effect of Combined Variables

When testing the combined variable for both the flush and the heart system,we can see no significant result for the people with high domain knowledge onthe flush system: t(18) = −.259, p = .80. Concerning people with LDK we didnot find any significant results at the flush systems (t(18) = .284, p = .78), norat the heart system, where the results for LDK were t(18) = 1.210, p = .24 andfor HDK were t(18) = −1.167, p = .26 (see appendix B).

4.4 Effect of Time

There was no time constraint for participants to complete the experiment andalso there was not stated to the participants that their time was measured. Still

9

it is possible that there is a correlation between the time they needed to completethe experiment and the result they had. When we test this correlation, we cansee there is no significant correlation between the participants final result andthe time the took to do the entire experiment (r(38) = .240, p > 0.05 for theflush system and r(38) = .084, p > 0.05 for the heart system). This correlationhowever does not take the different levels of domain knowledge into account.When low and high domain knowledge are tested separately for the flush andheart system however, still no significant correlation can be found. Based onour results no significant correlation between time and the quality of the mentalimage participants have,can be found.

5 Conclusion and Discussion

When we look again at figure 1 we can conclude, based on section 4.2, that thereis no significant difference on the mental image people create, between peoplewith LDK and HDK. Hypothesis 1 could not be accepted based on our research.Also we can conclude that there is no difference between auditive comment andthe lack of auditive comment. Hypothesis 2 could not be accepted as well. Thereis no provable difference between the mental image of people with high domainknowledge after they were shown an animation with auditive comment, com-pared to people who were shown an animation without auditive comment. Wedid not find any significant differences for the heart or flush system on retentionquestions. This means the ability for people to remember elements in a systemdoes not differ when they get auditive comment, compared to when they donot receive auditive comment. The same goes for the comprehension questions(multiple choice), where we did not find any difference between auditive com-ment and the lack of auditive comment. We did find a significant difference onthe troubleshoot questions about the heart system between people with a LDKand people with a HDK. This could mean that people with HDK do benefitfrom auditive comments. This benefit is not there for knowledge retention orcomprehension, but can benefit them in troubleshoot situations.

The fact that we did find a significant result when we combined the vari-ables does not necessarily mean there really is a differences between the mentalimage of people high domain knowledge. Future research has to be performedto see if there really is a difference.

The research question: ”Is there an expertise reversal effect on animationswith or without auditive feedback”, therefore has to be answered with a ’no’.Since all two hypotheses could not be proved or accepted, the research questionproved to be negatively answered. This means we did not find an expertisereversal effect on animations. The effect may be there, but with the experimentwe conducted, we could not find it. This could be caused by the way we definedour high domain knowledge participants. People were classified as HDK partic-ipant when they had a score that was higher than 50% of the other participants.By classifying people in this way, it is possible that the HDK participants didnot really had that much of domain knowledge, but they only relatively hadmore knowledge than the other participants. The use of both a not naturalsystem (flush) and a natural system (heart) has been done before ((Oosten-dorp & Beijersbergen, 2007), so this should not have given any problems in theexperiment.

10

Based on this research we conclude that we did not find the expertisereversal effect on animations, but future research has to prove this is not dueto the classification method used for creating people with low or high domainknowledge.

References

Awan, R. N., & Stevens, B. (2006). Static animated diagrams and their effect onstudents perceptions of conceptual understanding in computer aided learning(cal) environments. (P. H. C. I. 2005, Ed.). Springer-Verlag.

Betrancourt, M., Dillenbourg, P., & Clavien, L. (2003). Reducing cognitiveload in learning from animation: Impact of delivery features. In Earli 2003symposium comprehension processes in learing with animation.

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitiveload in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist , 38 , 53-61.

Hegarty, M., & Kriz, S. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learningfrom animations. Human Computer Studies, 65 , 911-930.

Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations andexternal animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition andInstruction, 21 , 325-360.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversaleffect. Educational Psychologist , 38 , 23-31.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention andredundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 13 ,351-371.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning.Educational Psychology Review , 14 , 87-99.

Oostendorp, H. van, & Beijersbergen, M. (2007). Animated diagrams: their ef-fect on understanding, confidence and mental effort. Proceedings 12th EARLIConference.

Paas, G. W. C. (1993). Instructional control of cognitive load in training ofcomplex cognitive tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Twenty Univer-sity.

Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge(J. F. Rouet, J. Levonen, & A. Biardeau, Eds.). Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.Cognition and Instruction, 12 , 185-233.

Thurstone, L., & Jeffreys, T. (1956). Flags: A test of space thinking. ChicagoIndustry Service.

11

A Appendix

Domeinkennis doortreksysteem

Een ’ballcock’ is een mechanisme voor het vullen van waterreservoirs, zoalsbijvoorbeeld gevonden kan worden in het doortreksysteem van een toilet, wat er-voor zorgt dat het reservoir niet overstroomt. Het is uitgevonden door ThomasCrapper. Het bestaat uit een klep, verbonden met een drijver door middel vaneen hefboom, gemonteerd aan de bovenkant van de tank. De klep is verbondenmet de toevoer van het water, en wordt geopend of gesloten door middel van dehefboom die de drijver aan zijn andere kant gemonteerd heeft. Het systeem kanschematisch als volgt weergegeven worden:

Figure 4: Ballcock systeem in rust.

1. Drijver

2. Watertoevoer, ges-loten door klep

3. Hefboom

4. Vulpijp

5. Toilet vulpijp

6. Afsluitstop

7. Overloopbuis

8. Doortrekhendel

9. Ketting

10. Vullijn

11. Klepverbinding

12. Doorspoelbuis

Zie ommezijde.

12

Wanneer het water de hoogte van de vullijn heeft behaald, zorgt de drijverer via de hefboom voor dat de watertoevoer wordt afgesloten. Wanneer dedoortrekhendel naar beneden wordt getrokken, wordt de afsluitstop omhooggetrokken via een ketting. De stop is dusdanig ontworpen, dat het zachterdaalt dan het water, wat onderuit het reservoir stroomt, zodat het reservoirleeg raakt. Als het waterniveau zakt, zakt de drijver ook, wat ervoor zorgt datde watertoevoer geactiveerd wordt.

(a) Hendel naar beneden (b) Terug in startpositie

Figure 5: Ballcock systeem in verschillende fasen

Wanneer de afvoerstop weer beneden is, vult het water het reservoir weer totde vullijn bereikt is en is het systeem weer klaar voor gebruik.

13

Vragenlijst Domeinkennis Flush

1. De hendel zorgt ervoor dat de watertoevoer weer wordt afgesloten.Goed / Fout

2. De drijver zakt mee met het water.Goed / Fout

3. De stop in het systeem daalt sneller dan het water.Goed / Fout

4. Een hefboom verbindt de drijver met de doortrekhendel.Goed / Fout

5. De watertoevoer wordt afgesloten door een klep.Goed / Fout

6. Wanneer het water de vullijn bereikt, wordt de watertoevoer geactiveerd.Goed / Fout

7. De doorspoelbuis wordt afgesloten door een klep.Goed / Fout

8. Als de afvoerstop beneden is, vult het systeem zich vanzelf met water.Goed / Fout

14

Domeinkennis hart

De bloedsomloop is nodig om het lichaam en organen van bloed te voorzien.Er is een grote en een kleine bloedsomloop.

Kleine bloedsomloop:Deze begint in de rechterkamer en pompt zuurstofarm en koolzuurgasrijk bloednaar de longen via de longaders. In de longen vind de gaswisseling plaats,zuurstof wordt opgenomen en koolzuurgas wordt afgegeven aan de lucht. Hetzuurstofrijk en koolzuurarm bloed stroomt dan weer in de linkerboezem.

Grote bloedsomloop:Deze begint in de linkerkamer, het bloed wordt de aorta ingepompt en brengtzuurstofrijk bloed naar de weefsels in het hele lichaam. De zuurstof en voed-ingsstoffen worden afgegeven en de afvalstoffen en koolzuurgas uit de weefselsopgenomen. Deze komt via de bovenste en de onderste holle ader. (vena cavasuperior en vena cava inferior) via de rechterboezem in de rechterkamer waarde kleine bloedsomloop weer kan beginnen.

Het hart zelf wordt door bloed voorzien door een stelsel van slagaders diehet hart als een krans omgeven, de kransslagaders. De gemiddelde hartslag isongeveer 70 slagen per minuut.

Figure 6: Bloedsomloop

15

In figuur 6 is te zien dat het zuurstofarme bloed (blauw van kleur) vanuit derechter hartkamer naar de longen wordt gepompt. De longen zijn gepositioneerdaan de linker en rechter kant van de afbeelding. Er moet opgemerkt wordendat het hart van voren is weergeven en de rechter hartkamer dus links op deafbeelding staat. Wanneer het bloed in de longen van zuurstof is voorzien (roodvan kleur) wordt het terug naar de linker hartkamer gepompt, van waar hetverder door het hele hart wordt gepompt.

16

Vragenlijst Domeinkennis Hart

1. De kleine bloedsomloop begint in de rechter kamer.Goed / Fout

2. De grote bloedsomloop brengt zuurstofrijk bloed naar het lichaam.Goed / Fout

3. De gemiddelde hartslag is ongeveer 90 slagen per minuut.Goed / Fout

4. Zuurstofarm bloed komt binnen in de rechter kamer.Goed / Fout

5. In de longen wordt koolzuurgas afgegeven aan de lucht.Goed / Fout

6. De kransslagaders voorzien het hart van bloed.Goed / Fout

7. Bloed vanuit de longen wordt de rechter kamer ingepompt.Goed / Fout

8. In de kleine bloedsomloop kunnen ook afvalsstoffen opgenomen worden.Goed / Fout

17

B SPSS output

Figure 7: Correlation between the three different flush questions

Figure 8: Correlation between the three different heart questions

18

Figure 9: Independent sample T-test Flush system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

Figure 10: Independent sample T-test Flush system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on multiple choice questions

Figure 11: Independent sample T-test Flush system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on troubleshoot questions

Figure 12: Independent sample T-test Heart system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

Figure 13: Independent sample T-test Heart system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on multiple choice questions

19

Figure 14: Independent sample T-test Heart system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment on troubleshoot questions

Figure 15: Independent sample T-test Flush system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

Figure 16: Independent sample T-test Flush system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on multiple choice questions

Figure 17: Independent sample T-test Flush system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on troubleshoot questions

Figure 18: Independent sample T-test Heart system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

20

Figure 19: Independent sample T-test Heart system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

Figure 20: Independent sample T-test Heart system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment on retention questions

Figure 21: Independent sample T-test Flush system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on retention questions

Figure 22: Independent sample T-test Flush system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on multiple choice questions

Figure 23: Independent sample T-test Flush system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on troubleshoot questions

21

Figure 24: Independent sample T-test Heart system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on retention questions

Figure 25: Independent sample T-test Heart system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on multiple choice questions

Figure 26: Independent sample T-test Heart system with NoComment -LDK/HDK on troubleshoot questions

22

Figure 27: Independent sample T-test Flush system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment combined variable

Figure 28: Independent sample T-test Flush system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment combined variable

Figure 29: Independent sample T-test Heart system with LDK - Com-ment/NoComment combined variable

Figure 30: Independent sample T-test Heart system with HDK - Com-ment/NoComment combined variable

23