On the Impact of the Dominant Intelligences of Players on Learning Outcome and Game Experience in Educational Games: The TrueBiters Case

  • Pejman SajjadiEmail author
  • Eman El Sayed
  • Olga De Troyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10056)


This paper presents a digital educational game, TrueBiters, developed in order to help students practice the use of the truth tables to compute the truth-value of logical expressions in proposition logic. Next to improving the pass rate of our logic course, we also use the game to investigate whether there is a difference in learning outcome and game experience for students with different dominant types of intelligences. The results of a pilot study show that the use of TrueBiters resulted in an improvement of the learning outcome for logically-mathematically intelligent players. The results of a pilot study on game experience show differences for kinesthetically intelligent and logically-mathematically intelligent players with respect to certain game experience aspects. The number of participants was too small to draw definitive conclusions, but the results are an indication that the dominant types of intelligences do matter for the effectiveness of an educational game.


Proposition Logic Truth Table Game Design Game Experience Educational Game 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Sajjadi, P., Vlieghe, J., De Troyer, O.: Evidence-based mapping between the theory of multiple intelligences and game mechanics for the purpose of player-centered serious game design: VS-Games 2016. In: 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (2016, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sajjadi, P., Vlieghe, J., De Troyer, O.: Relation between multiple intelligences and game preferences: an evidence-based approach. In: 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning: ECGBL2016 (2016, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gardner, H.: Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brody, N.: Geocentric theory: a valid alternative to Gardner’s theory of intelligence. In: Howard Gardner Under Fire Rebel Psychol. Faces His Critics, pp. 73–94 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waterhouse, L.: Multiple intelligences, the mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: a critical review. Educ. Psychol. 41(4), 207–225 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waterhouse, L.: Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories. Educ. Psychol. 41(4), 247–255 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.: Theory of multiple intelligences: is it a scientific theory? Teachers Coll. Rec. 106(1), 17–23 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burbules, N.C., Reese, P.: Teaching logic to children: an exploratory study of Rocky’s Boots. In: Assessing the Cognitive Consequences of Computer Environments for Learning (ACCCEL), no. 4, pp. 1–12 (1984)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schäfer, A., Holz, J., Leonhardt, T., Schroeder, U., Brauner, P., Ziefle, M.: From boring to scoring – a collaborative serious game for learning and practicing mathematical logic for computer science education. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23(2), 87–111 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waraich, A.: Using narrative as a motivating device to teach binary arithmetic and logic gates. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36(3), 97–101 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hicks, D.J., Milanese, J.: The logic game: a two-player game of propositional logic. Teach. Philos. 38(1), 77–93 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jing, L., Sujuan, M., Linqing, M.: The study on the effect of educational games for the development of students’ logic-mathematics of multiple intelligence. Phys. Procedia 33, 1749–1752 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P.: Multiple intelligences profiling questionnaire. In: Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P. (eds.) Measuring Multiple Intelligences and Moral Sensitivities in Education, pp. 1–13. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IJsselsteijn, W., Van Den Hoogen, W., Klimmt, C., De Kort, Y., Lindley, C., Mathiak, K., Poels, K., Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Vorderer, P.: Measuring the experience of digital game enjoyment. In: Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, pp. 88–89 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A., Bellotti, F.: Characterising and measuring user experiences in digital games. In: International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, vol. 620, pp. 1–4 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Components of MI. Accessed 16 Mar 2016
  17. 17.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webster, J., Trevino, L.K., Ryan, L.: The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9(4), 411–426 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graesser, A.C., D’Mello, S.K., Craig, S.D., Witherspoon, A., Sullins, J., McDaniel, B., Gholson, B.: The relationship between affective states and dialog patterns during interactions with AutoTutor. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 19(2), 293 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pejman Sajjadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eman El Sayed
    • 1
  • Olga De Troyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, WISEVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations