# Immersion

**TL;DR** **Immersion** is not a single thing the hardware does to you. It’s a the shift in attention that dissociates you from your immediate surrounding, a **three-part phenomenon** that arises when (1) the **system** surrounds and affords action, (2) **narrative** gives meaning and coherence, and (3) participants exert **agency** that matters (from immediate operations to strategic choices). **Presence** (the feeling of “being there”) is related but **not the same construct**. The shift in attention, immersion, can take place regardless or not of that feeling.

## Why the term is slippery Different traditions load “immersion” with different meanings. Technical accounts often treat it as a property of devices and affordances (e.g., FOV, tracking, spatial audio, haptics). Psychological work has at times equated immersion with the feeling of “being there,”[1](#ref-1) now discussed more precisely as **Presence**[2](#ref-2), [3](#ref-3). Literary and game studies emphasize how storyworlds and player agency shape whether experiences become engrossing[4](#ref-4), [5](#ref-5). Even within technically rich virtual reality, *plausibility* (the credibility of circumstances and one’s ability to act) strongly conditions responses[6](#ref-6). Bottom line: immersion is multifaceted; reducing it to optics, latency, or any single factor misses what drives learning relevance and engagement[3](#ref-3), [7](#ref-7). ## A three-dimensional framework Treat immersion as emerging from **three interlocking conceptual dimensions**[3](#ref-3), [7](#ref-7): 1. **System (technological environment).** The substrate that surrounds the learner and affords perception and action: rendering, interaction fidelity, tracking, input, etc. System qualities enable possibilities; they do not guarantee immersion on their own.[3](#ref-3) 2. **Narrative (meaning and coherence).** The diegetic/task framing that makes activity matter: roles, goals, stakes, and internal logic, be it literary or instrumental (mission brief, clinical case). Narrative organizes attention and expectations.[4](#ref-4) Notice that symbolic meanings, even cultural meanings such as colors and other non-verbal cues such as positioning of people, convey mearning, which is part of this dimension.[13](#ref-13) 3. **Agency (doing and deciding).** What the learner can actually do when commited to be meaningful: moment-to-moment operations, tactical choices, higher-order strategy, and how the environment responds with consequences.[5](#ref-5), [10](#ref-10), [11](#ref-11), [12](#ref-12) *Terminology note.* Earlier work labeled this third axis “challenge”; subsequent work prefers "agency" as a label, because the word expresses more clearly the wide range of operational interventions and tactical/strategic decision-making.[10](#ref-10), [11](#ref-11), [12](#ref-12) ## Immersion vs Presence - Abstract tasks or observer roles can yield strong cognitive immersion without a strong place-illusion.[3](#ref-3) - A technically convincing place-illusion can still be non-immersive if narrative motivation or meaningful agency is weak.[6](#ref-6) Designers and evaluators should therefore **analyze immersion and presence separately** and select measures appropriate to each.[8](#ref-8) ## What counts as an “immersive environment”? An **immersive environment** is the full surround in which immersion can occur: the **virtual setting** (rendered spaces, objects, agents), the **physical setting** (room, equipment, safety), and the **contextual conditions** (cultural, organizational, social, logistical, historical). Within this whole, **system** properties are enacted, **narrative** reaches the learner, and **agency** is afforded and constrained.[9](#ref-9) ## Practical implications for standards - **Design:** Treat system, narrative, and agency as **co-requirements**: plan S, N, and A together.[3](#ref-3), [7](#ref-7) - **Evaluation:** Avoid single-metric shortcuts. Use distinct instruments for presence and for immersion-relevant factors (agency affordances, narrative coherence, system fidelity).[8](#ref-8) - **Reporting:** When documenting experiences, explicitly describe S–N–A components and how they interrelate (e.g., strategic options, motivational framing, indispensable system features).[10](#ref-10), [11](#ref-11), [12](#ref-12) - **Plausibility matters:** Favor credible circumstances and consequential action over photorealism alone.[6](#ref-6) --- ## Attribution This synthesis is adapted from: [Morgado, Beck & O’Shea (2025)](#ref-13), with additional references to works cited therein. Synthesis drafted by [Leonel Morgado](https://codex.immersivelrn.org/user/leonel-morgado) on Nov 12, 2025, with editorial assistance of ChatGPT-5 Thinking. ## References 1. Murray, J. H. (2017). *Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace*. MIT Press. 2. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. *Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments*, 7, 225–240. [https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686](https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686) 3. Nilsson, N. C., Nordahl, R., & Serafin, S. (2016). Immersion revisited: a review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. *Human Technology*, 12, 108–134. [https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201611174652](https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201611174652) 4. Ryan, M.-L. (2015). *Narrative as Virtual Reality 2: Revisiting Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media* (2nd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. 5. Frasca, G. (2001). Rethinking agency and immersion: video games as a means of consciousness-raising. *Digital Creativity*, 12, 167–174. [https://doi.org/10.1076/digc.12.3.167.3225](https://doi.org/10.1076/digc.12.3.167.3225) 6. Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*, 364, 3549–3557. [https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138) 7. Agrawal, S., Simon, A., & Bech, S. (2019). Defining immersion: literature review and implications for research on immersive audiovisual experiences. *147th AES Pro Audio International Convention*. Audio Engineering Society. 8. Tran, T. Q., Langlotz, T., & Regenbrecht, H. (2024). A survey on measuring presence in mixed reality. In F. Mueller (Ed.), *CHI ’24: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. ACM, Article 543, pp. 1–38. 9. Beck, D., Morgado, L., & O’Shea, P. (2020). Finding the gaps about uses of immersive learning environments: A survey of surveys. *Journal of Universal Computer Science*, 26, 1043–1073. 10. Beck, D., Morgado, L., Lee, M., et al. (2021). Towards an immersive learning knowledge tree—A conceptual framework for mapping knowledge and tools in the field. In: *2021 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN)*. 11. Pedrosa, D., & Morgado, L. (2024a). Immersive virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality for self-regulated learning: a review. In D. Crawford, J. Foss, N. Lambert, et al. (Eds.), *Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Education*. Springer, Cham, pp. 64–81. 12. Pedrosa, D., Morgado, L., & Beck, D. (2024b). Immersive learning environments for self-regulation of learning: a literature review. In M.-L. Bourguet, J. M. Krüger, D. Pedrosa, et al. (Eds.), *Immersive Learning Research Network*. Springer, Cham, pp. 497–511. 13. Morgado, L., Beck, D., & O’Shea, P. (2025). Bridging the gaps: an updated mapping of the uses of immersive learning environments. *Virtual Reality*, 29, 134. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-025-01208-y](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-025-01208-y)