Original article

doi: 10.1111/jcal.12066

bs_bs_banner

Game immersion experience: its hierarchical

structure and impact on game-based
science learning
M.-T. Cheng,* H.-C. She† & L.A. Annetta‡
*Department of Biology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan
†Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
‡College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Abstract Many studies have shown the positive impact of serious educational games (SEGs) on
learning outcomes. However, there still exists insufficient research that delves into the impact
of immersive experience in the process of gaming on SEG-based science learning. The dual
purpose of this study was to further explore this impact. One purpose was to develop and
validate an innovative measurement, the Game Immersion Questionnaire (GIQ), and to further
verify the hierarchical structure of game immersion by construct validity approaches, includ-
ing exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 257) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
(n = 1044). The second purpose was to investigate the impact of game immersion on science
learning through SEG play (n = 260). Overall, the results supported the internal structure of
the GIQ with good reliability and validity, and the inter factor bivariate correlations for each
construct indicated a high internal consistency. Players did learn from playing an SEG, and
game immersion experience did lead to higher gaming performance. Moreover, players’
gaming performance plays a role in mediating the effect of immersion on science learning
outcomes through SEG play. However, as players became more emotionally and subjectively
attached to the game, the science learning outcomes were not definitively reliable.

Keywords immersion, science learning, serious educational games.

cathartic elements highly motivate players (Ferguson

Introduction
Video games are appealing to millions of people
around the world and have become an integral part of
our daily lives. Because of the rapid growth of the
technology industry, these games have become more
sophisticated, easily attracting our attention and
causing great excitement (Takatalo, Häkkinen,
Kaistinen, & Nyman, 2010). Their fun/excitement and
Accepted: 28 February 2014
Correspondence: Meng-Tzu Cheng, Department of Biology,
National Changhua University of Education, no. 1, Jin-De Road,
Changhua 500, Taiwan. Email: mtcheng@cc.ncue.edu.tw
& Olson, 2013), and players can become so absorbed
in the games that their perceptions may become dis-
torted to a certain degree. The games of today also
provide players with more opportunities for social
interactions, which can produce feelings of relatedness
and belonging (Chen, Duh, Phuah, & Lam, 2006; Cole
& Griffiths, 2007). The line between reality and virtual
reality can become blurred, as games involving imagi-
nary worlds evoke ‘mental images of physical or social
situations that do not exist’ (Malone & Lepper, 1987, p.
240). Today’s learning generation is extremely video
game-literate and spends much more time playing
video games than participating in other types of

232 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2015), 31, 232–253
Impact of immersion on learning
learning activities (Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013;
Olthouse, 2009; Prensky, 2001). Hence, the huge
potential for educational application that video
games could offer is now being taken into serious
consideration.
Serious educational games (SEGs) refer to those
video games that are used as a teaching and learning
tool, particularly in k-20 educational settings (Annetta,
2008). Although most of the available evidence has
shown that SEGs did have a positive influence on learn-
ing, these previous studies investigating the effective-
ness of SEGs often focus merely on the aspect of
learning outcomes (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur,
Hainey, & Boyle, 2012). Namely, most of the past
research generally examines the issue of what are the
cognitive and affective consequences of using SEGs.
Yet, there is still a lack of research attempting to delve
into the questions about how players feel and what they
experience through playing SEGs and how the subjec-
tive feelings through using SEGs affect learning out-
comes. Practical evidence supporting how games are
engaging and effective is really needed (Van Eck,
2006).
When people are focusing on playing video games,
they can reach a so-called flow experience where every-
thing but the game itself is ignored and forgotten
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The experience of flow is
fundamental to all learning because it is a major incen-
tive of intrinsically motivated behaviour (Schiefele,
2001). However, some studies suggest that immersion,
rather than flow, might be a more appropriate term
describing video game play experience, as immersion
is considered a suboptimal and non-extreme state and
is used to describe the degree of involvement (Brown &
Cairns, 2004; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005; Jennett et al.,
2008).
People generally agree that a very important reason
why video games have positive influences on learning
is because they provide players with the experience of
immersion. However, can SEGs also provide students
with immersive experience if the games have been inte-
grated with learning content that is generally consid-
ered abstruse? How does immersion affect students’
science learning through SEG play? Empirical studies
that actually investigate game immersion and the rela-
tionship between immersion and science learning out-
comes remain few. Hence, this study will attempt to
answer these questions.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
233
Literature review
Video games and science learning
We are living in a digital era where technology is
shaping the way we live, think and learn. Various
methods have been created to harness the power of
technology to support our education. The use of video
games in learning environments is one of the increas-
ingly relevant trends transforming our education,
because new digital innovations have significantly
changed our pedagogical perspectives (Lajoie & Derry,
1993).
Video games were once considered to be a negative
activity, but recognition of the educational potential of
playing video games is now increasing. More than half
of parents now believe that video game play provides
mental simulations and is a positive part of their child’s
life (Entertainment Software Association, 2013). Gee
(2008) argues that good video games are a perfect
metaphor for the human mind, because the way our
mind works is just like a simulator. Video games can be
a good way to study and encourage our thinking and
learning, and furthermore, to make us smarter, as long
as they can be put to good use (Gee, 2013).
Video game play facilitates learning and cognitive
development (Oblinger, 2006). The challenges and
tasks included in the games, which engage players
while also allowing players to be successful, create a
continuous cycle of what Piaget calls cognitive dis-
equilibrium and resolution (Van Eck, 2006). Players
learn through performing actions and movements in
the games, which then provides them with opportu-
nities to experiment and try repeatedly. This activity
may even increase the possibility of applying related
abilities to similar situations in the real world
(Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). Many
cognitive abilities, such as strategic thinking, problem
solving, decision making and visual-spatial process-
ing, are likely to be improved because of video game
play (Green & Bavelier, 2006; Kirriemuir &
McFarlane, 2004).
SEGs – video games used for k-20 education – are
particularly important for science learning, because
many scientific concepts that are invisible in the real
world and generally are abstract and difficult to grasp
can be portrayed in the virtual world (Cheng, Su,
Huang, & Chen, 2013). In addition, scientific inquiry
234
ability and problem-solving skills often require
long-term cultivation and repeated practice. The
complex structure of science, the difficulties involved
with abstract concept reasoning, and the challenges
that arise in problem solving and scientific inquiry can
cause anxiety and confusion to students in learning
science, as compared with other subjects (Halff, 2005).
However, SEGs that combine game characteristics with
scientific content motivate and absorb students in the
embedded science learning activities and also increase
the probability of bridging virtual reality into reality in
numerous dimensions. Additionally, they provide stu-
dents with authentic learning wherein they are allowed
to repeatedly experience things that would be impos-
sible to experience in the real world without concerns
for real life consequences (Annetta, Minogue, Holmes,
& Cheng, 2009; Cheng & Annetta, 2012; Cheng,
Annetta, Folta, & Holmes, 2011).
Clark et al. (2011) investigate the effectiveness of a
self-developed game, SURGE, and the results demon-
strate that students’ understanding of Newtonian
mechanics is improved and that learner engagement is
enhanced. Klisch, Miller, Beier, and Wang (2012)
design a multimedia game, N-Squad, for conveying
knowledge about the consequences of alcohol con-
sumption for secondary students. It is found that stu-
dents did acquire content knowledge after game play
and their attitudes towards science also significantly
increased. Moreover, Annetta et al. (2009) examine the
impact of a self-created game, Mr. and Mrs. I. M.
Megabucks, on student learning of genetics. Although
no difference in learning outcomes is found, a signifi-
cantly higher level of learning engagement is revealed.
Despite the fact that the positive impact of SEGs on
science learning outcomes from either cognitive or
affective perspective has been evidenced by many
empirical studies, what is lacking, however, is the
research which attempts to investigate the subjective
feeling and experience of players in the process of
gaming and how such experience affects science
learning.
Researchers argue that video game play provides
people with a flow experience in which individuals
enjoy and engage themselves, and the flow experience
might be the key of video game play to learning
(Rieber, 1996). While playing video games, people
reach flow using both experiential and reflective cog-
nition (Norman, 1993). As people continue to engage
M.-T. Cheng et al.
in video games and gradually master them, learning is
spontaneously furthered and knowledge and skill are
increased. Neuroscience research provides some direct
evidence to support the relationship between video
game play and flow experiences. The activation of the
mesocorticolimbic dopamine system is believed to
provide a hedonic reward, pleasure, which motivates
and reinforces people to engage in activities (Bear,
Connors, & Paradiso, 2001). Marr (2001) argues that
the mesocorticolimbic dopamine release might be the
neurochemical processes underpinning flow experi-
ence, and playing video games actually induces the
release of mesocorticolimbic dopamine (Hoeft,
Watson, Kesler, Bettinger, & Reiss, 2008; Koepp et al.,
1998).
Some studies have made efforts to examine the rela-
tionship between SEG-based learning and flow experi-
ence, yet few of them emphasize science learning. For
instance, research conducted by Admiraal, Huizenga,
Akkerman, and Dam (2011) indicates that flow has an
effect on student game performance, but not on learn-
ing outcomes. The SEG used, Frequency 1550, is for
high school students to learn the medieval history of
Amsterdam. Also, Hsieh, Lin, and Hou (2013) demon-
strate a positive relationship between flow and learning
performance, but their SEG, Happy Black-faced
Spoonbill, is designed for elementary school students
to construct knowledge of resource classification and
environmental protection. However, whether SEG-
based science learning also provides students with
experience that is engaging and absorbing remains
obscure, as the games have been integrated with scien-
tific content that is generally considered abstruse.
Moreover, whether flow is the most appropriate term to
describe the experience of video game play remains a
question, as some researchers suggest that immersion
might be better than flow for portraying the degree of
involvement while playing games.
Game immersion
The state that an individual is in when he/she is
intensely absorbed in an activity is often described
as ‘flow’. The idea of flow was proposed by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) to describe a positive experi-
ence in which individuals perceive a congruence of
skills and challenges. It is a state that people attain
when they are intensely involved in an activity and are
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Impact of immersion on learning
experiencing a high level of enjoyment and fulfilment.
Because this gratifying state is so enjoyable, people are
willing to put forth effort to reach and sustain that state
with little concern for their surroundings or what they
will be achieving by it.
It is clear that video game play provides people with
a flow-like experience in which individuals are con-
stantly engaged and enjoying themselves at the same
time. Because flow is an optimal and extreme state,
researchers often employ the term ‘immersion’ instead
of flow to describe the experience of video game play
(Brown & Cairns, 2004; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005; Jennett
et al., 2008). Immersion is considered a suboptimal and
non-extreme state, because it is the precondition of
flow. Immersion is generally a term that is used to
describe the degree of involvement, whereas flow is
mainly used to delineate an optimal state where indi-
viduals are entirely involved and absorbed by the activ-
ity. Immersion would be a more appropriate term
describing video game play experience than flow,
because it is possible for individuals to be very much
immersed in a game but not experience flow during the
process. Jennett et al. (2008) described the situation as:
A person can be highly engaged in playing a videogame
but still be aware of things like needing to leave the
game soon in order to catch a bus or go to a lecture. The
player is still immersed in the game to some extent but
they are not immersed to the exclusion of all else and
therefore not in flow (p. 642).
The contention that considers immersion to be a sub-
optimal state is also supported by other studies which
refer to immersion as ‘describing the experience of
becoming engaged in the game-playing experience
while retaining some awareness of one’s surroundings’
(Banos et al., 2004; Brockmyer et al., 2009; Singer &
Witmer, 1999). Brown and Cairns (2004) conducted
in-depth interviews with seven experienced gamers to
attempt to form a clear definition for immersion. They
employed grounded theory to investigate game immer-
sion and pointed out that immersion is actually com-
prised of three stages: engagement, engrossment, and
total immersion, respectively. Finally, they contend that
certain barriers exist among these three stages and that
players will not be able to enter into a particular stage
until these barriers are overcome during the course of
the activity. The three stages of immersion are intro-
duced below.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
235
Engagement
Engagement is the first stage of immersion, and it con-
tains two barriers, access and investment, that must first
be overcome in order to enter this stage. Access is
relative to the gamers’ preference and is the initial
barrier which players encounter, because they need to
first like the type and/or style of the game. Otherwise,
they will not even attempt to try the game. They will
then invest their time and effort into the game and focus
their attention on it. As individuals place increasingly
more time and effort into the game, they gradually
become more focused, thus increasing their engage-
ment with the game.
Engrossment
As gamers become further involved in a game, they
enter into the second stage, engrossment. There are
also two barriers that individuals will need to over-
come to enter into this stage. Firstly, their perceptions
of their physical surroundings and physical needs
become lower and their emotions are directly attached
to the game. While experiencing engrossment, the
game then becomes the most important part of the
gamers’ attention; hence, they will have less aware-
ness of their surroundings and less self-awareness.
During this period, they will have become so
engrossed with the game with a highly emotional
attachment such that their emotions are affected
directly by the game, and they will feel emotionally
drained when they stop playing.
Total immersion
The final stage is total immersion whereby gamers
experience feelings of presence (the sense of ‘being
there’). Gamers by now will have entirely lost their
self-awareness as if their consciousness has trans-
ferred from reality into the game world. They will
feel entirely attached to the in-game characters and
empathize with their situations. They will be detached
from reality to the extent that they feel like they
are actually in the game and the game is all that
matters.
The idea or concept of immersion by Brown and
Cairns (2004) is somewhat evidenced by Ermi and
Mäyrä (2005), who classified immersion into three
components: sensory, challenge-based and imaginative
immersion. In their opinion, sensory immersion is
236
related to the audiovisual execution, while challenge-
based immersion is when players are able to reach a
balance between challenge and skills, and imaginative
immersion is the area wherein players empathize with
the characters and/or enjoy the fantasy and virtual
reality of the game. The definition overlaps with Brown
and Cairns (2004) contention, as imaginative immer-
sion actually delineates the experience players have in
engrossment and total immersion, and the depiction of
sensory and challenge-based immersion and the
description of engagement are very similar.
Research purposes
The idea of immersion to describe video game play
experience has gradually evoked much attention.
However, a well-structured instrument which can be
used to investigate the immersion experience while
playing video games is yet to be developed. Moreover,
research remains short of tackling the relationship
between game immersion and science learning through
SEG play. Hence, two purposes are addressed in this
research:
1. Developing and validating an innovative measure-
ment to verify the internal structure of game immer-
sion will be attempted.
2. The developed GIQ will then be used to investigate
the impact of game immersion on science learning
through SEG play.
Video games have a broad definition indicating any
kind of electronic games played on different platforms,
including computers, consoles, arcade machines and
even mobile devices. In this study, however, we will
only be using the term to refer to computer games
specifically, as computer games remain the most
popular and prevailing form of gaming among adoles-
cents and adults. Hence, in this study video games will
be used interchangeably with computer games.
Materials and methods
To achieve the two research purposes, this study
includes two stages. In the first stage, we created an
inventory, Game Immersion Questionnaire (GIQ), on
the basis of immersion theory (Brown & Cairns, 2004),
and employed construct validity approaches including
M.-T. Cheng et al.
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the internal structures
of the GIQ and to test different models to explain the
GIQ responses. By definition, EFA is a statistical
approach used to explore the possible underlying factor
structure of a measure, and CFA is a statistical tech-
nique to verify the hypothetical factor structure of a
measure. Hence, in this study EFA was used first to
explore the possible factor structure of immersion, and
CFA was employed in the next step to verify the hypo-
thetical factor structure of immersion derived from
EFA. Then, in order to eliminate the distortion of
immersion experience resulting from the recall
process, an experimental research design was con-
ducted to reconfirm the structure of game immersion
and examine its impact on science learning through
SEG play in the second stage.
Stage 1: developing and validating the GIQ
Development and validation of the GIQ and verifica-
tion of the internal structure of immersion included
three phases: item generation, scale construction, and
questionnaire confirmation.
Phase I: item generation
In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 experi-
enced game players (8 males and 7 females) to generate
an operational definition of game immersion and to
produce questionnaire items. These interviewees were
all college students (ages 18 to 22) who play computer
games regularly (and with more than five years of game
experience). Each interview lasted approximately one
hour and was recorded with the permission of the inter-
viewees and transcribed verbatim into interview
transcriptions.
Based on the theory of game immersion (Brown &
Cairns, 2004), an operational definition was put forth, as
stated later, through discussions by four researchers,
whose research interests have widely focused on the use
of games and simulations in education, after reading
these transcriptions repeatedly and individually:
When an individual plays computer games, they enter
into a state of exclusion whereby they forget one’s self,
and their mood fluctuates as if they are within the game
itself. This immersion experience is temporal and in
stages. Firstly, the ‘engagement’ stage requires the
player to favor this category of games, with the game
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Impact of immersion on learning 237

Table 1. Demographics of the

Participants for Phases 2 and 3 Phase 2 Phase 3

n Percentage n Percentage

Gender
Male 151 58.8% 611 58.5%
Female 106 41.2% 433 41.5%
Age (years)
11–20 92 35.8% 481 46.1%
21–30 160 62.3% 478 45.8%
Over 31 5 1.9% 85 8.1%
Game experience
Less than 1 h/week 30 11.7% 255 24.4%
2–7 h/week 126 49.0% 508 48.7%
Over 8 h/week 101 39.3% 281 26.9%

itself providing adequate control and feedback, and the
player’s ability needs to be sufficient to handle any
challenges set in the game and the player needs be
willing to invest the time and energy to learn how to
play. Next is the ‘engrossment’ stage whereby the
players must have emotional involvement so that their
attention and emotions are affected by the game, with
their behavior awareness merged into one, and their
focus exclusively on the game, as their sense of time and
self-awareness reduces. Finally they will move into the
‘total immersion’ stage where the player’s sense of
existence and feelings will be alienated from the real
world, with all their visual, aural senses, and even their
mind, entirely focused on the game.
In accordance with the operational definition, each of
the four researchers excerpted relevant descriptions for
three stages of game immersion from the pool of inter-
view transcriptions. They then discussed these descrip-
tions together to generate potentially relevant items and
finally reached an agreement to delete redundant and
inappropriate ones and combine some items into one to
eliminate content overlap, thus shortening the instru-
ment. The GIQ contains a total of 30 items consisting of
three dimensions of engagement (12 items), engross-
ment (10 items) and total immersion (8 items), and a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree)
to 5 (Strongly Agree) was generated. The demographic
information included gender, age and game experience,
with the questionnaire being anonymous, thus allowing
the integrity of responses to remain intact.
Phase II: scale construction
One senior researcher whose research interests have
focused on digital learning, and four game experts who
have played video games for more than 5 years were
consulted to ensure the content and face validity of the
GIQ. Some items were slightly reworded and rephrased
to be more understandable and to better fit the purpose
of the scale according to expert opinions. The question-
naire was then finalized (appendix-item) and distrib-
uted to experienced players who were recruited from
cybercafés or colleges to examine its construct validity.
Two criteria were set to screen the participants. These
criteria required at least one year of game play experi-
ence and the participants needed to have played video
games within the preceding two weeks. Participants
were then asked to reflect on a specific incident where
they had been very much immersed in a game, and to
then answer the GIQ based on the instructions (Appen-
dix I) in relation to that particular experience to ensure
sufficient samples of game immersion experience were
included in the analyses.
A total of 274 samples were collected. Seventeen
invalid data were deleted because of missing values for
the items. Finally, 257 valid responses were obtained to
run item analysis and EFA. Table 1 reports the demo-
graphics of these participants. Item–total correlation
was used for item analysis. A correlation coefficient
less than 0.4 was regarded as inappropriate and was
deleted from the questionnaire. The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s spherical test were
employed to illustrate whether the rest of the items of
the GIQ were suited for factor analyzing. Principal
component analysis with varimax rotation was then
used to clarify the structure of the GIQ. The items that
loaded lower than 0.4 on all factors after rotation were
eliminated, as factor loading of 0.4 or greater are con-
ventionally considered acceptable (Manly, 1994).

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

238 M.-T. Cheng et al.

Figure 1 Five Tested Models

Note. (a) Engagement: a Model Consisting of Three First-Order Factors in Which Correlations Among the Three First-Order Factors Were
Freely Estimated; (b) Engrossment: Two First-Order Factors Included in Which Correlations between the Two First-Order Factors Were
Freely Estimated; (c) Total Immersion: a Model Including Two First-Order Factors in Which Correlations between the Two Factors Were
Also Examined; (d) Global: a Model Comprised of Three First-Order Factors (Engagement, Engrossment and Total Immersion) in Which
Correlations Among the Three Factors were Estimated; and (e) Higher-Order Global: a Model with Three Second-Order Factors in Which
Correlations Among Attraction, Time Investment and Usability Were Hypothesized to Reflect a Single Higher-Order Factor ‘Engage-
ment’, Emotional Attachment and Decreased Perceptions Were Loaded on a Higher-Order Factor ‘Engrossment’, and Presence and
Empathy Reflected a Higher-Order Factor ‘Total Immersion’, with Correlations Among the Three Dimensions Freely Estimated

Finally, Cronbach’s α was used to measure the reliabil-
ity of each dimension of the GIQ.
Phase III: questionnaire confirmation
According to the results obtained from phase II, the
questionnaire was then modified accordingly. Six items
were deleted from the GIQ, which resulted in a modi-
fied version with 9 items of engagement, 7 items of
engrossment and 8 items of total immersion (appendix-
item’). A modified version of the GIQ was constructed
as an online survey, and the link was posted on various
gamer forums to collect player responses. In total, 1097
gamers participated and 1044 respondents completed
the items thoroughly (Table 1). The fitness of the
internal structure of the GIQ was tested further using
CFA, and five models were tested (Figure 1). Support
for the first three models may support the multidimen-
sionality within the engagement, engrossment and total
immersion component separately, and support for the
global model may support the multidimensionality of
the immersion construct originally proposed by Brown
and Cairns (2004), whereas support for the higher-
order global model may support the hierarchical struc-
ture of immersion. Convergent validity was assessed by
examining the value of composite reliability (>0.6) and
standard factor loading (SFL) for each item (>0.5)
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998), and discriminate

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Impact of immersion on learning 239

Table 2. Recommended Fit Index Cut-Off

Values for ‘Good’ Models Fit index Cut-off value

Normed Chi-square (χ2/df) <3

Goodness of fit index >0.9
Normed fit index >0.9
Comparative fit index >0.9
Incremental fit index >0.9
Standardized root mean square residual <0.08
Root mean square error of approximation <0.08

validity was explored by comparing the correlation
between the constructs and the square root of average
variance extracted (AVE) (Hair et al., 1998). For inter-
pretation, recommended fit index cut-off values for
‘good’ models were shown as Table 2 (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988; Henry & Stone, 1994; Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999;
McDonald & Ho, 2002). All statistical analyses were
performed with spss and amos 18.0.0 for Windows
(Chicago, IL, USA).
2. Concretization: Appropriate visualization of game
scenes and in-game characters are designed to
concretize the relevance of evolution that is gener-
ally difficult for students to see in their daily lives.
3. Gamification: As competition is often used to
describe a part of the mechanism of evolution, the
competition game format between player characters
and non-player characters (NPCs) with the integra-
tion of game features is adopted.

Stage 2: reconfirming the structure of game
immersion and examining its impact on science
learning through SEG play
To reconfirm the structure of game immersion experi-
ence and examine the impact of game immersion on
science learning through SEG play, an experiment with
260 participants (seventh graders, aged 12–13) was
conducted.
Virtual age
Teaching and learning about biological evolution is
generally considered instructive but challenging.
Because it is impossible for students to see the rel-
evance of evolution in their daily lives, students gener-
ally possess a number of misconceptions about
biological evolution (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Smith,
2010). In order to help students understand evolution,
researchers suggest that helping them to see the world
in a new and different way is needed (Sinatra, Brem, &
Evans, 2008). Hence, Virtual Age is an SEG developed
by our research team in an attempt to harness the power
of gaming to assist student learning of evolution. Three
principles are set in advance after lengthy discussion to
ensure that Virtual Age is an effective SEG:
1. Realization: Actual geological age and representa-
tive creatures with which students are familiar are
used as game scenes and in-game characters.
Hence, the concepts of evolution are embedded in the
game format, with Mesozoic Era and Cenozoic Era as
the setting for the game scenes and levels, and the
representative creatures of each Era as in-game char-
acters. For instance, many types of dinosaur species as
game characters are included in Mesozoic Era and bird
and mammal species are included in the Cenozoic Era.
Each character has an introduction describing its char-
acteristics, habitat, and game attributes (Figure 2).
Users learn the mechanism of natural selection by com-
peting with NPCs for existence. From playing the
game, the user will also come to understand the origin
and development of life, the morphology of representa-
tive creatures of each Era, as well as the various envi-
ronments the creatures have become adapted to.
Virtual Age is a turn-based game. Mutations resulting
in different traits randomly occur while reproduction
and a natural disaster system are randomly triggered at
the beginning of each turn to determine which species
and with what traits can survive (Figure 3).
To integrate more game features, such as excitement
and competitiveness, a scoring system assessing
players’ gaming performance and ranking board are
also created in the game. Players’ performance in the
game is represented as a game score shown when the
game is over and is calculated basically according to
whether they accomplish the level, the number and
what type of characters are used – alive or dead – and

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

240
Figure 2 A Game Screenshot of an Introduction Describing the Characteristics, Habitat, and Game Attributes of a Game Character
how many resource areas are occupied or anti-occupied
by NPCs. Bonus points can be earned if continuous
attacks on the same NPC are performed.
Knowledge assessment
The knowledge assessment consists of two parts: a
multiple-choice test and an open-ended exam. Two bio-
logical education experts and one middle school
biology teacher were invited to review and modify the
assessment, so that expert and face validity were
ensured. The multiple-choice test includes 26 items
that examine four main educational objectives
addressed in the game; namely, after playing Virtual
Age students are expected to understand:
1. The birth of the earth, the origin and development of
life on earth, and the course of evolution (9 items).
2. The various environments of the Mesozoic and
M.-T. Cheng et al.
Cenozoic Eras and the morphology and characteris-
tics of representative creatures of each Era (9 items).
3. The mechanism of evolution (5 items).
4. The relationships between creatures and the environ-
ment they have become adapted to (3 items).
The open-ended exam includes 10 questions: five
address the features of and relationships between the
environment and representative creatures of the Meso-
zoic Era, and five focus on the Cenozoic Era.
Research procedure
The recruited participants were asked to play Virtual
Age for 2 weeks. The instructors took participants
to computer classrooms in biology classes where
students learned through playing Virtual Age by
themselves. A link for Virtual Age was given to
students, so that those students could also carry out
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Impact of immersion on learning
Figure 3 A Game Screenshot of the Natural Disaster System in the Game
their own individual playing during their time outside
the classroom. A learning worksheet designed to scaf-
fold the students’ understanding of the embedded con-
cepts was distributed to students as an assignment
during their study. Students were required to immedi-
ately complete the GIQ after 2 weeks according to their
game experience of playing Virtual Age. Moreover,
students were asked to complete a knowledge assess-
ment before the experiment as a pretest to determine
their prior understandings of evolution and related con-
cepts. Following the experiment, the knowledge
assessment was re-administrated as a posttest to evalu-
ate what they had learned after the treatment
(Figure 4).
Figure 4 Flowchart Showing the
Research Procedure
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
241
Data analysis
Reconfirming the structure of game immersion The
fitness of the internal structure of the GIQ was re-tested
using CFA to verify the higher-order global model in
order that the hierarchical structure of the game immer-
sion experience was reconfirmed with an experimental
design.
Knowledge assessment Participant responses to each
item of the multiple-choice test were scored as 1 point
for a correct answer and 0 for an incorrect one, with a
maximum of 26 points given for the whole assessment.
The KR20 of the pretest and posttest was 0.65 and 0.78,
respectively. A scoring rubric with expert validity (con-
sulting with two science educators and two biology
242 M.-T. Cheng et al.

teachers) was developed for rating students’ perfor-
mance on the 10 questions of the open-ended exam.
Inter-rater agreement was assessed by correlating two
raters’ ratings. The Pearson’s correlation is impressive
(r = 0.99), indicating a high inter-rater consistency.
Paired t-tests were then run to see the differences
between the pretest and posttest of knowledge
assessment.
Relationship between immersion, gaming performance
and science learning outcomes We collected student
game scores from the database and employed their
highest game score as their gaming performance.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated for
examining the relationship between students’ under-
standing, game performance and immersion experi-
ence. Finally, mediator effect was tested by conducting
linear regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986) to
examine whether game performance serves as a media-
tor directly accounting for a portion of the relationship
between game immersion and science learning
outcomes.
Results
EFA
Engagement
The results of item analysis indicated that item A5, A8
and A9 should be deleted. The KMO (KMO = 0.77)
and Bartlett spherical test [χ2 = 507.32, degrees of
freedom (df) = 36, p < 0.01] illustrated that the remain-
ing nine items were suited for factor analysis. EFA was
then conducted, and three factors, further defined as
attraction, time investment and usability were
extracted. Although the third factor of usability only
includes two items, it is still retained because the factor
loading of the two items was much greater than 0.4 and
the factor of usability is considered an important com-
ponent of engagement by our research team. The three
factors accounted for 62.02% of the variance.
Cronbach’s α for the three factors ranged from 0.61 to
0.71, which are acceptable for subscales (Tait,
Entwhistle, & McCune, 1998), and the whole dimen-
sion was 0.76 (Table 3).
Engrossment
For the component of engrossment, items B1, B6 and
B7 were deleted after item analysis. The KMO was
0.80, and the Bartlett spherical test (χ2) was 597.33
(df = 21, p < 0.01). Two factors, further defined as
emotional attachment and decreased perceptions, were
extracted using EFA, which totally accounted for
62.56% of the variance. Cronbach’s α for each factor
and the whole dimension was 0.77, 0.74 and 0.81,
separately (Table 4).
Total immersion
With no items deleted by item analysis for total immer-
sion, EFA was then conducted (KMO = 0.88;
χ2 = 883.30, p < 0.01). Two factors were extracted and
they cumulatively accounted for 66.19% of the vari-
ance. The two factors were further defined as presence
and empathy. Cronbach’s α for each factor and the
whole dimension was 0.83, 0.82 and 0.87, separately.
(Table 5).

Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Dimension of Engagement

Factor loadings

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Cumulative percentage

Item (attraction) (time investment) (usability) of variance explained Cronbach’s α

A3 0.83 −0.00 −0.10 23.10% 0.71

A2 0.76 0.12 0.26
A10 0.51 0.41 0.32
A7 0.50 0.24 0.38
A12 −0.11 0.84 0.12 42.93% 0.61
A11 0.27 0.76 −0.74
A1 0.42 0.50 0.20
A6 0.10 0.06 0.85 62.02% 0.62
A4 0.12 0.05 0.79
0.76

The highest loading for each construct is presented in bold.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Impact of immersion on learning 243

Table 4. EFA Results for the Dimension of Engrossment

Factor loadings

Factor 1 Factor 2 Cumulative % of

Item (emotional attachment) (decreased perceptions) variance explained Cronbach’s α

B3 0.83 0.30 29.81% 0.77

B5 0.77 0.05
B10 0.76 0.38
B4 0.01 0.78 62.56% 0.74
B2 0.28 0.75
B8 0.26 0.68
B9 0.30 0.64
0.81

The highest loading for each construct is presented in bold.

approximation (RMSEA) was slightly above 0.8, the

CFA
Table 6 reports the estimates obtained by CFA tests.
The absolute values of skewness and kurtosis of all
items were less than 2, implying satisfactory normal-
ity assumptions (Bollen & Long, 1993). Multivariate
normality was also satisfied, as Mardia’s coefficients
of the three tested models were all less than p(p + 2,
where p indicates number of observed variables;
Bollen, 1989). SFL of all items were between 0.55
and 0.86 with t-value that reached statistical signifi-
cance (p < 0.01), and composite reliability of all
seven factors were greater than 0.6, indicating good
convergent validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell &
Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 1998). Cronbach’s α for
each dimension and their constructs1 implied good
reliability, as they were ranged between 0.70 and
0.92. The fit statistics for each of the three tested
models are presented in Table 7. Although the χ2/df
was greater than 3 and root mean square error of
other indicators showed an acceptable model fit in the
three models. Finally, we tested the global and corre-
sponding higher-order global models to support the
multidimensionality and hierarchical structure of
immersion. Table 7 indicates that none of the recom-
mended fit indices satisfied the cut-off values for
‘good’ models in terms of the global model, whereas
the fitness values [comparative fit index (CFI), incre-
mental fit index (IFI), standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) and RMSEA] were all above the
cut-off level for the higher-order global model. The
results suggested that the higher-order global model
had a more acceptable model fit and that it better
fitted the data than the global one. Furthermore, the
interfactor bivariate correlations for each construct
were significantly positive, promising high internal
consistency (Table 8). Satisfactory discriminant valid-
ity was also shown, as the square root of AVE for
each construct was greater than the correlations

Table 5. EFA Results for the Dimension of Total Immersion

Factor loadings

Item Factor 1 (presence) Factor 2 (empathy) Cumulative percentage of variance explained Cronbach’s α

C3 0.79 0.22 33.97% 0.83

C2 0.77 0.16
C6 0.76 0.34
C7 0.75 0.29
C5 0.23 0.83 66.19% 0.82
C1 0.20 0.82
C4 0.29 0.82
C8 0.43 0.52
0.87

The highest loading for each construct is presented in bold.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

244 M.-T. Cheng et al.

Table 6. Confirmatory factor analysis Results for Tested Models

Variables M SD SK KU SFL SE SMC EV CR AVE α

Engagement 0.86
Attraction 0.82 0.53 0.81
A’2 4.07 0.88 −0.81 0.57 0.77** 0.11 0.60 0.32
A’3 3.92 0.91 −0.71 0.48 0.66** 0.12 0.43 0.47
A’6 3.83 0.92 −0.60 0.35 0.70** 0.12 0.50 0.43
A’7 4.18 0.85 −1.04 1.19 0.77** 0.11 0.59 0.30
Time investment 0.69 0.44 0.70
A’1 4.09 0.91 −0.94 0.77 0.77** 0.12 0.60 0.33
A’8 3.57 1.12 −0.53 −0.36 0.64** 0.16 0.41 0.74
A’9 3.69 1.09 −0.62 −0.23 0.55** 0.16 0.30 0.83
Usability 0.73 0.58 0.73
A’4 3.99 0.90 −0.89 0.87 0.78** 0.13 0.60 0.36
A’5 4.02 0.93 −0.86 0.57 0.74** 0.13 0.55 0.34
Maria’s coefficient 32.89 p(p + 2) = 99

Engrossment 0.86
Emotional attachment 0.81 0.59 0.79
B’2 3.47 1.16 −0.49 −0.59 0.84** 0.14 0.71 0.40
B’4 3.74 1.03 −0.70 0.09 0.58** 0.14 0.34 0.71
B’7 3.36 1.16 −0.35 −0.64 0.85** 0.14 0.72 0.38
Decreased perceptions 0.79 0.49 0.79
B’1 3.14 1.15 −0.30 −0.73 0.71** 0.15 0.51 0.65
B’3 2.68 1.15 0.28 −0.67 0.70** 0.15 0.48 0.68
B’5 3.52 1.16 −0.50 −0.53 0.70** 0.16 0.49 0.69
B’6 2.86 1.25 0.03 −1.04 0.70** 0.17 0.49 0.80
Maria’s coefficient 12.06 p(p + 2) = 63

Total immersion 0.92

Presence 0.88 0.64 0.88
C’2 2.59 1.19 0.23 −0.89 0.78** 0.14 0.61 0.55
C’3 2.38 1.17 0.46 −0.73 0.79** 0.14 0.61 0.54
C’6 2.74 1.17 0.04 −0.92 0.81** 0.14 0.65 0.48
C’7 2.37 1.14 0.43 −0.77 0.83** 0.13 0.68 0.41
Empathy 0.87 0.63 0.87
C’1 2.62 1.23 0.28 −0.89 0.75** 0.15 0.56 0.66
C’4 2.40 1.16 0.47 −0.70 0.86** 0.13 0.74 0.35
C’5 2.54 1.17 0.26 −0.86 0.84** 0.14 0.70 0.40
C’8 2.31 1.17 0.52 −0.68 0.71** 0.15 0.51 0.68
Maria’s coefficient 26.54 p(p + 2) = 80

Note. **p < 0.01.

p = number of observed variables; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; SK = skewness; KU = kurtosis; SFL = standardized factor
loading; SE = standard error of factor loading; SMC = squared multiple correlation; EV = error variance; CR = composite reliability;
AVE = average variance extracted; α = Cronbach’s α.

between the construct and the other constructs. At this
point, a well-structured GIQ with a total of 24 items
was generated.
Finally, we reconfirmed the hierarchical structure of
immersion using an experimental research design. The
results showed that the fitness values (χ2/df, CFI, IFI,
SRMR and RMSEA) were all above the cut-off level
(Table 7), and Cronbach’s α for each dimension ranged
between 0.82 and 0.92, reconfirming a good model fit
and promising reliability of the hierarchical structure of
immersion.
Impact of immersion on science learning
Table 9 shows the results of paired t-tests displays a
significant improvement in both multiple-choice test
(t = 3.47, p < 0.01) and open-ended exam (t = 6.59,
p < 0.01). Overall, students’ performance on knowledge

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Impact of immersion on learning 245

Table 7. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Each of the Five Tested Models and Experiment

Fit index χ2 χ2/df GFI NFI CFI IFI SRMR RMSEA

Engagement 177.94** 7.41 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.04 0.08

Engrossment 186.54** 14.35 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.04 0.11
Total immersion 199.49** 10.50 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.03 0.10
Global 2162.27** 8.68 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.08 0.09
Higher-order global 1572.93** 6.45 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.07 0.07
Experimental design 493.57** 2.02 0.87 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.06 0.06

Note. **p < 0.01. Fit index that satisfies the cut-off value for good models is presented in bold. AVE = variance extracted;
CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

assessment had significantly improved after treatment
(t = 7.04, p < 0.01), illustrating that learning through
playing Virtual Age can be effective. Then,
we ran a series of Pearson’s correlations (Table 10).
As bivariate correlations between engagement, engross-
ment and total immersion were significantly positive,
the internal consistency of game immersion was again
verified. Moreover, game score had a significantly posi-
tive correlation to engagement (r = 0.38, p < 0.01),
engrossment (r = 0.21, p < 0.01), total immersion
(r = 0.26, p < 0.01), and posttest of overall knowledge
assessment (r = 0.26, p < 0.01), and only engagement
was significantly related to knowledge posttest
(r = 0.24, p < 0.01).
As engrossment and total immersion had no signifi-
cant relationship to science learning outcomes, we only
investigated the mediator effect of game performance
on the relationship between engagement and science
learning. As shown in Figure 5, engagement was sig-
nificantly related to game performance and science
learning outcomes (β = 0.24, p < 0.01); however, the
effect of engagement on science learning was partly
mediated by game performance when both variables,
engagement and game performance, were included in
the linear model for predicting science learning out-
comes (β = 0.17, p < 0.05).
Discussion
Video games provide us with a life-like virtual envi-
ronment, allowing us to become immersed within it.
However, it is only when we cognitively evaluate and

Table 8. Intercorrelations between the Constructs and Average Variance Extracted Square Roots

A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

A. Attraction 0.73
B. Time investment 0.65** 0.66
C. Usability 0.56** 0.40** 0.76
D. Emotional attachment 0.41** 0.55** 0.22** 0.77
E. Decreased perceptions 0.31** 0.50** 0.18** 0.66** 0.70
F. Presence 0.24** 0.37** 0.12** 0.51** 0.61** 0.80
G. Empathy 0.27** 0.39** 0.14** 0.44** 0.49** 0.78** 0.79

Note. **p < 0.01. The square root of AVE for the construct is presented in bold.

Table 9. Results of Paired t-Tests Showing the Difference between the Pretest and Posttest of Knowledge Assessments

Pretest Posttest

Mean SD Mean SD t-Value (post–pre)

Multiple-choice test 13.47 3.87 14.20 4.77 3.47**

Open-ended exam 10.09 9.06 14.39 13.80 6.59**
Overall knowledge assessment 23.56 11.24 28.58 16.56 7.04**

Note. **p < 0.01. SD = standard deviation.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

246 M.-T. Cheng et al.

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson’s Correlations between Game Immersion Experience, Students’ Performance on
Knowledge Assessment and Game Score

Mean SD Engagement Engrossment Total immersion Pretest Posttest

Engagement 3.90 0.82

Engrossment 2.73 0.88 0.50**
Total immersion 2.53 0.98 0.52** 0.69**
Pretest 24.66 11.60 0.22** 0.04 −0.05
Posttest 30.07 18.00 0.24** 0.01 −0.05 0.68**
Game score 3176.19 3162.58 0.38** 0.21** 0.26** 0.13 0.26**

Note. **p < 0.01. n = 174 (only participants who had game score recorded were analysed). Pretest and posttest represent pretest
and posttest of overall knowledge assessment (multiple-choice test plus open-ended exam). SD = standard deviation.

emotionally attach ourselves to it that the game play
experience will then become meaningful and valuable
(Dewey, 1934; Takatalo, Häkkinen, Kaistinen, &
Nyman, 2007). Flow is a well-defined psychological
concept that has been substantiated in many settings.
Nevertheless, it is prone to be confused with immersion
when it comes to evaluating video game play experi-
ence. Researchers have argued that the term flow seems
too excessive to be used to describe game play experi-
ence, as it is a rare and extreme experience (Jennett
et al., 2008), whereas game play is normally an experi-
ence that is graded, with game environments full of
avatars that players can empathize with. It is a subjec-
tive feeling that can vary from person to person. In
order to delineate game experience appropriately, the
idea of immersion, which considers different degrees
of involvement and is deeply dependent upon game
play from an affective perspective, was proposed
(Brown & Cairns, 2004).
Although the notion of immersion has been gener-
ally accepted and hypothesized to include varying dif-
ferent constructs by researchers, few of these
constructs have a solid empirical foundation and/or
been carefully tested. Hence, in this study, we used
Brown and Cairns’s (2004) theory as a hypothetical
Figure 5 Results of Mediator Analysis
model in an attempt to develop a psychometrically
reliable and valid inventory, GIQ, for assessing game
immersion experience. Brown and Cairns argued that
immersion actually consists of three dimensions
(engagement, engrossment and total immersion). The
results of our study confirmed that the three dimensions
of immersion did adequately explain more than half of
the variance in the GIQ responses. Moreover, several
constructs for each dimension were further extracted
through using EFA. Engagement consisted of attrac-
tion, time investment and usability. Engrossment
included emotional attachment and decreased percep-
tions, while total immersion was comprised of pres-
ence and empathy. Good reliability was ensured, and
support for the hypothesized factor structure was prom-
ising. Furthermore, several indicators of goodness-of-
fit statistics demonstrated that a higher-order global
model was better than a global one, further confirming
the hierarchical structure of immersion.
Although it was not optimal, the fitness of higher-
order global models was acceptable. This is not to say
that the model was not good enough to explain the GIQ
responses, but some limitations needed to be discussed.
This is a preliminarily empirical investigation of
Brown and Cairns’s (2004) game immersion. In order
to have a larger sample size to increase the validity and
reliability of CFA results, an online format survey was
used in place of questionnaire confirmation. Hence, the
recruited participants cannot be assured to represent
what was really required, although links of the online
survey were posted on various gamer forums in order to
target experienced video game players. Moreover, it is
also uncertain if participants really responded on the
basis of previous immersion experience and if they
had filled out the questionnaire honestly. The relative

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Impact of immersion on learning
usefulness of the higher-order global models cannot be
fully evaluated until the GIQ has been used much more
extensively. A diverse sample is necessary to provide
additional evidence as to its potential generalizability.
Similar to any other scale attempting to investigate
game play experience regardless of immersion or flow,
the retrospective approach to data collection by asking
participants to respond according to a previous experi-
ence, might not fully capture the instant when feelings
of immersion were felt. The recall process might result
in distortion of the immersion experience. However,
the difficulties seem inevitable because immersion/
flow is realistically a mystical, complex, phenomeno-
logical state (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). There is no one
best way to investigate immersion, as any form of
investigation would interrupt the state of immersion
even if the retrospective recall were avoided. In this
study, we have attempted to eliminate the distortion of
the immersion experience resulting from the free recall
process using an experimental design, and better indi-
cators of goodness-of-fit statistics were obtained so that
the hierarchical structure of immersion seemed recon-
firmed. However, we still suggest that multi-method
studies examining game experience from different per-
spectives would be the next logical step. To some
extent, our study did reveal a plausible and empirical
theoretical framework explaining game immersion,
although further research that systematically explores
the construct validity of immersion in multidimen-
sional ways is still needed.
Another issue worth considering is that numerical
scoring was used in our study. Namely, the GIQ
reported in this paper used a total score as an indicator
to demonstrate the extent of immersion that gamers
experience, as most of the questionnaires do. However,
if game immersion is really a graded experience that
could further be divided into three stages as suggested
by Brown and Cairns (2004), could we not then be able
to find a way, a cut-off point, to turn numerical scores
into categorical variables? In other words, would we be
able to determine which stage the gamer experienced
according to their responses to the GIQ, in addition to
conducting in-depth interviews with the gamer? This
work on categorization that we are currently involved
in should give us a finer understanding of game immer-
sion at its completion.
In general, students were able to learn from playing
Virtual Age, as they significantly improved their overall
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
247
understandings of evolution and related concepts in this
study. It is also reasonable to conclude that game score
had significantly positive correlations with engagement,
engrossment, total immersion and science learning out-
comes. The positive correlations between game score
and these variables have two significant implications.
The more that players were immersed in the game, the
better they performed in the game. And as learners
achieved higher game scores, they had better under-
standing after playing Virtual Age. Our findings further
confirmed that players’ gaming performance partly
plays a role in mediating the effect of immersion on
science learning outcomes through SEG play.
What is surprising is that, although engrossment and
total immersion both had a positive relation with game
performance, they had no significant effect on science
learning outcomes. Namely, getting more emotionally
attached and empathizing with the game does not affect
science learning outcomes. Three explanations may
account for the interesting findings. First, when we
checked the values of descriptive statistics (Table 10),
it was found that participants generally reported a posi-
tive engagement experience [means (M) = 3.90, stand-
ard deviation (SD) = 0.82], but a negative experience of
engrossment (M = 2.73, SD = 0.88) and total immer-
sion (M = 2.53, SD = 0.98). The results imply that
players might have only undergone engagement
without deeply experiencing engrossment and total
immersion while learning through playing Virtual Age
in this study. And as players did not experience
engrossment and total immersion, their impact on
science learning obviously cannot be determined.
Secondly, although it is generally hypothesized that
the flow/immersion experience is the key element of
video game play to learning, more recent research indi-
cates that the actual impact of game immersion and/or
playfulness on learning outcomes seems more compli-
cated when it comes to the use of video games for
educational purposes. Schrader and Bastiaens (2012)
reveal that the emotional feeling of virtual presence
might positively influence the acquisition of game
knowledge and trivial learning outcomes (i.e., retention
and comprehension), yet although it is insufficient for
more complex learning outcomes in the form of trans-
fer. Cognitive load is the key factor handicapping the
impact of virtual presence on learning. In other words,
the greater the emotional feeling of being virtually
present in a virtual environment the players have, the
248
less they learn because of the increase of cognitive
load. This is very much in line with our findings that
players might have better game performance, but their
science learning outcomes were not improved as they
got more immersed in the game (i.e., engrossment and
total immersion). Cheng et al. (2013) also indicate that
the more the players feel the game is playful and enjoy-
able, the less they learn. The perceived playfulness
determining players’ emotional feelings serves as a
negative predictor for learning outcomes through SEG
play. Therefore, it remains questionable whether a
well-developed environment, which highly evokes the
immersive experience and emotional attachment of
users, is really straightforward for SEGs, as too much
game playfulness and/or feelings of virtual presence
might lead students to focus too much and place all of
their mental resources on the game play itself. The
increase of cognitive load in the game aspect as players
get more immersed in the game may inversely result in
ignoring the educational targets that the SEGs really
intend to cover.
Finally, evidence from cognitive neuroscience
research might also give us an insight into the relations
between emotionally subjective experience and cogni-
tive processes. The amygdala, which is located adjacent
and anterior to the hippocampus, has been identified as
playing a crucial role in emotion and also has extensive
connections to brain areas underlying cognitive func-
tions (the hippocampal complex and prefrontal cortex;
Phelps, 2006). The neural basis of the broad connectiv-
ity of the amygdala demonstrates an intertwining inter-
action between emotion and cognition, and research has
suggested that emotion can enhance the formation and
retrieval of episodic memory (Murray, Holland, &
Kensinger, 2013). Different from semantic memory
related to the understanding of the world, episodic
memory refers to the concerns of personally experi-
enced events (Tulving, 1993). Therefore, it is reasonable
to hypothesize that the stage of engrossment and total
immersion wherein players become emotionally and
subjectively attached to the game through playing
Virtual Age have a positive impact on episodic memory.
However, the knowledge assessment targeting the sci-
entific concepts embedded in the game often examines
players’ semantic rather than episodic memory; this
might be the reason that somewhat accounts for no
relationship existing among engrossment and total
immersion and science learning outcomes.
M.-T. Cheng et al.
It turns out that the impact of game immersion on
science learning through SEG play seems more com-
plicated than would be generally expected. This study
is a beginning – the relationship between immersion
and science learning outcomes through SEG play
requires researchers to make more investigative efforts.
For example, to what extent does the game immersion
experience have a positive influence on learning, what
kind of learning outcomes game immersion affects,
what factor(s) causes players to place most of their
mental resources on the game aspect rather than edu-
cational objectives while getting engrossed or totally
immersed in the game, and what variables are involved
in mediating or modulating the impact of immersion on
learning through SEG play? These are the kind of
issues we will attempt to deal with in the next steps.
Conclusions and implications
People are no longer under the impression that video
games are invariably bad. Many studies have endeav-
oured to employ video games as design platforms,
learning environments and/or instructional tools to
facilitate a variety of knowledge acquisition and ability
cultivation (Cheng & Annetta, 2012; Cheng et al.,
2011; Cheng et al., 2013; Hsu, Tsai, & Liang, 2011;
Lee, Linn, Varma, & Liu, 2010; Spires, Rowe, Mott, &
Lester, 2011). The rational underpinning to support the
so-called ‘entertainment’ and/or ‘SEGs’ relies a lot on
the immersive state, whereby players become
cognitively and emotionally absorbed. Therefore, the
measurement of immersion and investigation on rela-
tionships between learning by gaming and game
experience become of greater importance. Our study
considered different dimensions of immersion and pro-
vided empirical evidence that the GIQ was, to some
extent, a valid and reliable method of determining
game immersion experience. Using an experimental
research design, we further reconfirmed that immersion
has a hierarchical structure and verified that game
immersion experience did lead to higher gaming per-
formance. However, to determine whether game
immersion has a straightforward impact on science
learning outcomes through SEG, play must be further
examined.
Three implications regarding the use of SEGs in
science education were derived from our research. First,
although the impact of immersion on SEG-based
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Impact of immersion on learning
science learning still needs more investigation, it is
certain that the use of SEGs improves students’ science
learning. However, in order to prevent the consequence
that students ignore the learning materials because of
becoming too immersed in the game, the facilitation of
teachers and provision of scaffoldings by appropriately
integrating instructional strategies are suggested.
Second, the impact of immersion on SEG-based science
learning might be underestimated, as knowledge acqui-
sition is often used as the only indicator of science
learning outcomes. However, science learning actually
includes many dimensions, which are knowing, doing
and talking science, and acquiring attitudes and values
(Lee & Fradd, 1998). A variety of methods of assessing
students’ science learning outcomes, including
problem-solving skills and scientific reasoning, were
encouraged for future work so that the question that how
immersion affects SEG-based science learning might be
further revealed. Finally, the investigation of the impact
of player gaming behaviours on immersion is also sug-
gested for future research. For example, how many
times and at what duration do players spend playing the
game and viewing the scientific information embedded
in the game? What is the relationship between the
gaming behaviours, immersion and science learning
outcomes? The log data retrieved from the database
might provide more insights into immersion and SEG-
based science learning.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Science
Council (NSC), Taiwan, under grant contract no. NSC
99–2511-S-018–027. All the supports are highly
appreciated.
Notes
1
In this study, the terms construct and factor are used interchangeably to refer
to the subscales of dimension of engagement, engrossment and total
immersion.
References
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T.
(2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185–
1194.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
249
Annetta, L. A. (2008). Serious educational games. The Neth-
erlands: Sense Publishers.
Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T.
(2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high
school students’ engagement and learning about genetics.
Computers and Education, 53, 74–85.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Banos, R. M., Botella, C., Alcaniz, M., Liano, V., Guerrero,
B., & Rey, B. (2004). Immersion and emotion: Their
impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychology and
Behavior, 7, 734–741.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173–1182.
Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W., & Paradiso, M. A. (2001).
Neuroscience: Exploring the brain (2nd ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent vari-
ables. New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equa-
tion models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E.,
Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The
development of the game engagement questionnaire:
A measure of engagement in video game-playing.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624–
634.
Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of
game immersion. Paper presented at the CHI ’04 extended
abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM
Press. pp.1297–1300.
Chen, V., Duh, H., Phuah, P., & Lam, D. (2006). Enjoyment
or engagement? Role of social interaction in playing
massively mulitplayer online role-playing games
(MMORPGS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4161,
262–267.
Cheng, M.-T., & Annetta, L. A. (2012). Students’ learning
outcomes and learning experiences through playing a
serious educational game. Journal of Biological Educa-
tion, 46(4), 203–213.
Cheng, M.-T., Annetta, L. A., Folta, E., & Holmes, S. Y.
(2011). Drugs and the brain: Learning the impact of meth-
amphetamine abuse on the brain through virtual brain
exhibit in the museum. International Journal of Science
Education, 33(2), 299–319.
Cheng, M.-T., Su, T., Huang, W.-Y., & Chen, J.-H. (2013).
An educational game for learning human immunology:
250
What do students learn and how do they perceive? British
Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet
.12098
Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H.-Y., Martinez-Garza,
M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring New-
tonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital
game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for
students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers and
Education, 57(3), 2178–2195.
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in
massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(4), 575–583.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., &
Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review
of empirical evidence on computer games and
serious games. Computers and Education, 59(2), 661–
686.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of
optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper-Perennial.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Capricorn
Books.
Entertainment Software Association. (2013). Essential facts
about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved
from http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2013.pdf
Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of
the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In S. de
Castell & J. Jenson (Eds.), Changing views: Worlds
in play. Selected papers of the 2005 DiGRA’s Second
International Conference (pp. 15–27).
Ferguson, C., & Olson, C. (2013). Friends, fun, frustration
and fantasy: Child motivations for video game play. Moti-
vation and Emotion, 37(1), 154–164.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
urement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Good videogames, the human mind, and
good learning. In T. Willoughby & E. Wood (Eds.), Chi-
ldren’s learning in a digital world (pp. 40–63). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Gee, J. P. (2013). The anti-education era: Creating smarter
students through digital learning. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as
new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-
analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(3), 207–219.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). The cognitive neurosci-
ence of video games. In P. Messaris & L. Hmphreys (Eds.),
Digital media: Transformations in human communication
(pp. 211–224). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
M.-T. Cheng et al.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
Halff, H. M. (2005). Adventure games for science education:
Generative methods in exploratory environments. Paper
presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, the Netherland.
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming mis-
conceptions: Using transformative experience to promote
positive affect and conceptual change in students learning
about biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723–
744.
Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. (1994). A structural equation
model of end-user satisfaction with a computer-based
medical information systems. Information Resources Man-
agement Journal, 7(3), 21–33.
Hoeft, F., Watson, C. L., Kesler, S. R., Bettinger, K. E., &
Reiss, A. L. (2008). Gender differences in the
mesocorticolimbic system during computer game-play.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(4), 253–258.
Hsieh, Y.-H., Lin, Y.-C., & Hou, H.-T. (2013). Exploring
the role of flow experience, learning performance
and potential behavior clusters in elementary students’
game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.834827
Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2011). Facilitating
preschoolers’ scientific knowledge construction via com-
puter games regarding light and shadow: The effect
of the prediction-observation-explanation (POE) strategy.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 482–
493.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance
structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized
model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4),
424–453.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional cri-
teria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and
validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The
flow state scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
18, 17–35.
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A.,
Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the
experience of immersion in games. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review
in games and learning. Retrieved from http://archive
.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Games
_Review.pdf, November 4, 2006.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Impact of immersion on learning
Klisch, Y., Miller, L. M., Beier, M. E., & Wang, S. (2012).
Teaching the biological consequences of alcohol
abuse through an online game: Impacts among se-
condary students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1),
94–102.
Koepp, M. J., Gunn, R. N., Lawrence, A. D., Cunningham, V.
J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., et al. (1998). Evidence for striatal
dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266–
268.
Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (1993). Computers as cognitive
tools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How
do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact
classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 47(1), 71–90.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including
students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educa-
tional Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun:
A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E.
Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruc-
tion: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223–
253). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Manly, B. F. J. (1994). Factor analysis. In B. F. J. Manly
(Ed.), Multivariate statistical methods: A primer (pp.
93–106). London: Chapman & Hall.
Marr, A. J. (2001). In the zone: A biobehavioral theory of the
flow experience. Athletic Insight: Online Journal of Sport
Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.athleticinsight
.com/Vol3Iss1/Commentary.htm
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and
practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7(1), 64–82.
Murray, B. D., Holland, A. C., & Kensinger, E. A. (2013).
Episodic memory and emotion. In M. D. Robison, E. R.
Watkins, & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cogni-
tion and emotion (pp. 156–175). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending
human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Games and learning: Digital games
have the potential to bring play back to the learning experi-
ence. EDUCAUSE, 29(3), 5–7.
Olthouse, J. M. (2009). Video games: Why kids play and
what they learn? Meridian: A Middle School Computer
Technologies Journal. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu
.edu/project/meridian/winter2009/olthouse/index.htm
Phelps, E. A. (2006). Emotion and cognition: Insights from
studies of the human amygdala. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 57(1), 27–53.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
251
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing
interactive learning environments based on the blending of
microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58.
Schiefele, U. (2001). The role of interest in motivation and
learning. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence
and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measure-
ment (pp. 163–194). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of
virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and
learning outcomes in educational computer games. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 28(2), 648–658.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P.
(2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 87(2), 105–111.
Sinatra, G., Brem, S., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing
minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and
learning about biological evolution. Evolution, Education
and Outreach, 1(2), 189–195.
Singer, M. J., & Witmer, B. G. (1999). On selecting the right
yardstick. Presence, 8(5), 566–573.
Smith, M. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and
learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Science Educa-
tion, 19(6–8), 539–571.
Spires, H. A., Rowe, J. P., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011).
Problem solving and game-based learning: Effects of
middle grade students’ hypothesis testing strategies on
learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 4(4), 453–472.
Tait, H., Entwhistle, N., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A
reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inven-
tory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improv-
ing students as learners (pp. 262–271). Oxford: Oxford
Brookes University, the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learn-
ing Development.
Takatalo, J., Häkkinen, J., Kaistinen, J., & Nyman, G. (2007).
Measuring user experience in digital gaming: Theoretical
and methodological issues. Paper presented at the IS&T/
SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging, San Jose, CA.
Takatalo, J., Häkkinen, J., Kaistinen, J., & Nyman, G. (2010).
User experience in digital games: Differences between
laboratory and home. Simulation and Gaming, 42, 656–
673.
Tulving, E. (1993). What is episodic memory. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 67–68.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just
the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE, 41(2),
16–30.
252 M.-T. Cheng et al.

is favored by the player and they will need to be willing

Appendix I
to spend the time and effort to play it. The second stage
Game Immersion Questionnaire is the ‘engrossment’ stage. The feelings and emotions
of players who are experiencing this stage will fluctu-
Instruction
ate with the in-game storyline, and they will pay less
Successful games all have a common element; they can
attention to changes in their surroundings, similar to
lead people into the virtual world in the game. Com-
Zen meditation. The third stage is the ‘total immersion’
puter games can not only immerse the player into the
stage whereby the player feels as if they have become
game, but sometimes they can even cause the changes
one with the game itself; their consciousness is com-
in the surrounding world to be undetectable; for
pletely separated from reality and heavily influenced by
example: to be unable to feel the passage of time or to
in-game atmosphere.
hear others calling them. In this instance, the player’s
Please try to recall your recent gaming experiences
focus is mostly on the game. This experience is called
and whether you experienced any of the immersion
‘immersion’. Immersion is often thought to be a
stages described above. In order to answer this ques-
displayof how much a player likes the game, and that it
tionnaire as accurately as possible, please use a spe-
is a good gaming experience.
cific gaming experience whereby you feel you were the
Overall, immersion can be broken down into 3
most immersed in a game.
stages. The first stage is the ‘engagement’ stage. To
enter this stage, the game category needs to be one that

Questionnaire Items

Item’ Item

Engagement
A’1 A1 I would like to spend time playing the game.
A’2 A2 I like the appearance and style of the game.
A’3 A3 I like to play the game because it is novel and interesting.
A’4 A4 Generally, I can handle the game as the degree of its difficulty is
appropriate.
A5 I think it wastes my time and it’s boring to play the game.*
A’5 A6 It is easy for me to control the game.
A’6 A7 The user interface of the game makes me feel comfortable.
A8 I would like to wait for downloading the game even if it is very
slow.*
A9 The game makes me feel bored.*
A’7 A10 I like the type of the game.
A’8 A11 I would like to spend time collecting the information of the game
and discussing it with friends.
A’9 A12 The time I spend playing the game is more than I expected.
Engrossment
B1 While playing the game, I can always hear others’ conversations
around me.*
B’1 B2 My ability to perceive the environment surrounding me is decreased
while playing the game.
B’2 B3 I am impatient when someone interrupts me to play the game.
B’3 B4 While playing the game, I often cannot hear people who are calling
me.
B’4 B5 I often feel nervous or excited because of the game.
B6 I don’t feel happy even when the role in the game obtains treasure
or completes tasks.*
B7 While playing the game, I simultaneously know what to do next.
B’5 B8 I often forget the passage of time while playing the game.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Impact of immersion on learning 253

B’6 B9 It frequently happens that I usually forget my schedule and/or to-do

things in the real world while playing the game.
B’7 B10 While playing the game, I feel unhappy if someone interrupts me.
Total Immersion
C’1 C1 When I am playing the game, I feel as if I have experienced the
context of the game in person, just like I am who the avatar is in
the game.
C’2 C2 My consciousness completely transfers from the real world to the
game world while playing the game.
C’3 C3 I lose perceptions of time and the real world surrounding me, as if
everything just stops.
C’4 C4 I always feel happy or sad according to what the avatar
experiences, and sometimes I even feel as if I am who the avatar
in the game is occasionally.
C’5 C5 I used to be so integrated into the avatar in the game that I could
feel his/her feelings.
C’6 C6 All of my senses, including vision, learning, and my mind, are
concentrated on and engaged in the game.
C’7 C7 I lose the ability of perceiving the surroundings around me;
however, it seems natural for me to be totally immersed in the
atmosphere of the game.
C’8 C8 I used to feel that the avatar in the game is controlled by my will,
and not by the mouse or the keyboard, so that the avatar does
just what I want to do. It seems like the thoughts and
consciousness of the avatar and me are connected.

Note 1. Reverse coded items are indicated with an asterisk.

Note 2. Underlined items were deleted after EFA.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Copyright of Journal of Computer Assisted Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.