AI in teaching¶
Help or Hype? Students’ Engagement and Perception of Using AI to Solve Physics Problems¶
{2509.25642} Help or Hype? Students’ Engagement and Perception of Using AI to Solve Physics Problems, Qurat-ul-Ann Mirza, N. Sanjay Rebello (2025)
With the rise of large language models such as ChatGPT, interest has grown in understanding how these tools influence learning in STEM education, including physics. This study explores how students use ChatGPT during a physics problem-solving task embedded in a formal assessment. We analyzed patterns of AI usage and their relationship to student performance. Findings indicate that students who engaged with ChatGPT generally performed better than those who did not. Particularly, students who provided more complete and contextual prompts experienced greater benefits. Further, students who demonstrated overall positive gains collectively asked more conceptual questions than those who exhibited overall negative gains. However, the presence of incorrect AI-generated responses also underscores the importance of critically evaluating AI output. These results suggest that while AI can be a valuable aid in problem solving, its effectiveness depends significantly on how students use it, reinforcing the need to incorporate structured AI-literacy into STEM education.
How undergraduate physics students use generative AI for computational modeling¶
{2603.06342} How undergraduate physics students use generative AI for computational modeling, Karl Henrik Fredly, Tor Ole B. Odden, Benjamin M. Zwickl (2026)
Generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is becoming increasingly prevalent and capable in physics, particularly for programming-related tasks. How, then, does genAI affect students’ computational modeling? We interviewed 19 undergraduate students who had recently completed an open-ended computational assignment that encouraged the use of genAI, asking them how they used it. We then conducted a thematic analysis of these interviews using a framework for computational modeling in physics. We found that genAI significantly impacts several aspects of students’ computational modeling, such as the planning, implementing, and debugging of computational models. GenAI can also help students find resources and introduce them to new computational tools. Productive use of genAI was associated with students limiting its use to small steps in the modeling process and consistently double-checking the formulas, explanations, and code it provided. We also identified challenges students faced due to an over-reliance on genAI, such as working from false model assumptions and not spending time learning the fundamentals of computational modeling, especially debugging. Finally, we discuss implications for teaching, such as the need to teach students how to use genAI productively and to urge them to plan before they code. We also highlight the continued value of low-stakes assessment and teaching assistants for teaching computational modeling, as the task remains difficult even with the introduction of genAI.
How Physics Professors Use and Frame Generative AI Tools¶
{2511.11317} How Physics Professors Use and Frame Generative AI Tools, Vidar Skogvoll, Tor Ole Odden (2025)
Generative AI is rapidly reshaping how physicists teach, learn, and conduct research, yet little is known about how physics faculty are responding to these changes. We interviewed 12 physics professors at a major Scandinavian research university to explore their uses and perceptions of Generative AI (GenAI) in both teaching and research. Using the theoretical framework of epistemic framing, we conducted a thematic analysis that identified 19 overlapping practices, ranging from coding and literature review to assessment and feedback. From these practices, we derived six overlapping epistemic frames through which professors make sense of GenAI: as a threat to genuine learning and assessment, a source of knowledge, a discussion partner, a text-processing tool, a coding tool, and a labor-saving device. While the latter five position GenAI as a useful tool in the physicists’ toolbox, the threat frame represented an overarching concern that colored all other frames. These findings reveal how GenAI is beginning to transform what it means to be a physicist, highlighting both opportunities for innovation and challenges for academic integrity and learning.
The Boiling-Frog Problem of Physics Education¶
{2508.08842} The Boiling-Frog Problem of Physics Education, Gerd Kortemeyer, Phys. Teach. (2026)
It is astonishing how rapidly general-purpose AI has crossed familiar thresholds in introductory physics. Comparing outputs from successive models, GPT-5 Thinking moves far beyond the plug-and-chug tendencies seen earlier: on a classic elevator problem it works symbolically, notes when variables cancel, and verifies results; attempts to prompt novice-like behavior mainly affect tone, not method. On representation translation, the model scores 24/26 (92.3%) on TUG-Kv4.0. In a card-sorting proxy using two of my comprehensive finals (60 items), its categories reflect solution method rather than surface features. Solving those same exams, it attains 27/30 and 25/30, with most misses in ruler-based ray tracing and circuit interpretation. On epistemology, five independent CLASS runs yield 100 percent favorable, indicating a simulated expert-like stance. Framed as a “boiling frog” problem, the paper argues for a decisive jump: retire credit-bearing unsupervised closed-response online assessments; grade process evidence; use paper, whiteboarding; shift weight to modeling, data, and authentic labs; require transparent, citable AI use; rebuild problem types; and lean on research-based instruction and peer learning. The opportunity is to foreground what AI cannot substitute for: modeling the world, arguing from evidence, and making principled approximations.
Advisory notes
Written with an LLM.
Quotes
Do not pretend AI is absent; require disclosure. Ask students to include representative prompts and outputs in an appendix, then critique them: What is correct? What is spurious? How was the output verified or improved? And, before you ask: yes, GPT-5 Thinking assisted in polishing this opinion piece (grammar, flow, structure).
Skepticism vs. Convenience: Physics Students’ Perceptions and Use of Large Language Models Before and After Instruction¶
The recent emergence of large language models (LLMs) has produced research focusing on the ability of these tools to solve physics problems, evaluate student work, or otherwise impact the problem-solving process of students. However, studies exploring how physics students perceive LLMs (in terms of capabilities, educational impacts, usage, and role in problem solving) remain limited. This study evaluates the first-year physics students’ perceptions toward LLMs and further explores how these perceptions change after practicing problem-solving with and without LLMs and engaging in a reflective lesson on the functioning and educational impacts of LLMs. We find that student opinions toward LLMs vary, with generally favorable perceptions of their capabilities but greater skepticism regarding their value for learning. Despite this skepticism, a majority of students self-report regularly using LLMs to obtain help, commonly reporting deadlines and convenience as motivating factors. Following the lesson, students expressed greater skepticism toward LLMs in several areas, with 88% of students believing that LLMs can leave them with a false sense of confidence about their understanding, up from 58% before the lesson.