- 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
  • Open Access

Pragmatic users and skeptical nonusers: A qualitative typology of ChatGPT adoption in physics education

Eleonore Becker1, Antonia Bauer2, Johanna Schrader3, Philipp Bitzenbauer4, and Joaquin Veith4

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020112 – Published 6 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/gd1w-1637

Abstract

Physics students’ use of ChatGPT or other generative AI tools is a topic broadly discussed in physics faculties around the globe, with discussion often outpacing evidence. What remains unclear is how physics students truly engage with these tools and by what perspectives their choices are shaped. This study develops a data-driven typology of how students perceive the tool’s usefulness and its risks. Through a qualitative content analysis of 1189 survey responses, followed by latent class analysis (LCA), we identified two distinct user profiles. The majority (70%) are “Pragmatic Users” who, while aware of the tool’s inaccuracies, use it for scaffolding tasks like conceptual clarification and finding starting points for problem-set questions. The minority (30%) are “Skeptical Non-Users,” who avoid the tool over concerns about overreliance and its potential to hinder independent problem-solving. These profiles show students making a calculated trade-off between usefulness and risk, suggesting one-size-fits-all policies on AI are inadequate. Thus, rather than promoting uniform adoption, a differentiated pedagogy could create space for students to make informed, self-determined choices—supporting reflective AI use for those who opt in, while equally validating and enabling the learning practices of those who choose not to use generative AI.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (104)

  1. F. M. Simon, R. K. Nielsen, and R. Fletcher, Generative AI and news report 2025: How people think about AI’s role in journalism and society, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford, Technical Report, 2025, 10.60625/risj-5bjv-yt69.
  2. Ofcom, Online nation 2024 report, Technical Report, Ofcom, 2024, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/online-research/online-nation/2024/online-nation-2024-report.pdf?v=386238.
  3. University of South Carolina, College of Information and Communications, AI global public opinion tracker at USC: Wave 3 findings, august 2025, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, Technical Report, 2025, https://cms.sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/cic/docs/pdfs/ai_wave3.pdf.
  4. Initiative D21 e.V., D21-digital-index 2024/25: Jährliches Lagebild zur Digitalen Gesellschaft [D21 digital index 2024/25: annual report on the state of the digital society], Technical Report, Initiative D21 e.V., Berlin, 2025, https://initiatived21.de/uploads/03_Studien-Publikationen/D21-Digital-Index/2024-25/D21DigitalIndex_2024-2025_final.pdf.
  5. V. Morell-Mengual, O. Fernández-García, C. Berenguer, J. Ortega-Barón, M. D.;a D. Gil-Llario, and Vónica Estruch-García, Characteristics, motivations and attitudes of students using ChatGPT and other language model-based chatbots in higher education, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 22257 (2025).
  6. Jörg von Garrel and J. Mayer, Artificial intelligence in studies—use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 10, 799 (2023).
  7. A. Schlude, U. Mendel, R. A. Stürz, and M. Fischer, Verbreitung und Akzeptanz generativer KI an Schulen und Hochschulen [Dissemination and acceptance of generative AI in schools and higher education institutions], report, Bayerisches Forschungsinstitut für digitale transformation (bidt) (2024).
  8. J. Freeman, Student generative AI survey 2025, Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), Technical Report Policy Note 61, 2025, https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/.
  9. S. Küchemann, A. Bauer, E. Becker, J. Veith, and P. Bitzenbauer, Zwischen aufbruch und skepsis–chancen und mögliche probleme bei der Nutzung von generativer KI im physikunterricht [Between optimism and skepticism—opportunities and potential challenges in the use of generative AI in physics education], Naturwiss. Unterr. Phys. 209, 2 (2025).
  10. M. Smith, How are UK students really using AI? (2025), https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/52855-how-are-uk-students-really-using-ai.
  11. Stack Overflow, 2025 developer survey: AI tools in the development process, Technical Report, Stack Overflow, 2025, https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ai?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
  12. K. D. Wang, Z. Wu, L. I. Tufts, C. Wieman, S. Salehi, and N. Haber, Scaffold or crutch? Examining college students’ use and views of generative AI tools for STEM education, arXiv:2412.02653.
  13. C. Köhler and J. Hartig, ChatGPT in higher education: Measurement instruments to assess student knowledge, usage, and attitude, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 16, ep528 (2024).
  14. A. Stojanov, Q. Liu, and J. H. L. Koh, University students’ self-reported reliance on ChatGPT for learning: A latent profile analysis, Comput. Educ.: Artif. Intell. 6, 100243 (2024).
  15. L. K. Dietrich and S. Grassini, Assessing ChatGPT acceptance and use in education: A comparative study among German-speaking students and teachers, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 22151 (2025).
  16. A. Jabbar, S. U. Islam, and J. Boudjadar, A comparative review of LLM-based conversational systems: Insights from DeepSeek, ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Copilot, in Proceedings of the International Conference on AI and the Digital Economy (CADE 2025) (IET, 2025), Vol. 2025, pp. 167–173.
  17. D. Ravšelj, D. Keržič, N. Tomaževič, L. Umek, N. Brezovar, N. A. Iahad, A. A. Abdulla, A. Akopyan, M. W. Aldana Segura, J. AlHumaid et al., Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions, PLoS One 20, e0315011 (2025).
  18. R. J. Eddine, E. Gide, and A. Al-Sabbagh, Generative AI in higher education: A cross-sector analysis of ChatGPT’s impact on STEM, social sciences, and healthcare, STEM Educ. 5, 757 (2025).
  19. J. Sublime and I. Renna, Is ChatGPT massively used by students nowadays? A survey on the use of large language models such as ChatGPT in educational settings, arXiv:2412.17486.
  20. Y. Zhang, X. Xie, and Q. Xu, ChatGPT in medical education: Bibliometric and visual analysis, JMIR Med. Educ. 11, e72356 (2025).
  21. S. Z. S. Abdalla, Understanding ChatGPT adoption for data analytics learning: A UTAUT perspective among social science students in Oman, Social Sci. Humanit. Open 11, 101310 (2025).
  22. M. Ma, Exploring the acceptance of generative artificial intelligence for language learning among EFL postgraduate students: An extended TAM approach, Int. J. Appl. Linguist. 35, 91 (2025).
  23. Q.-u.-A. Mirza and N. S. Rebello, Help or hype? Students’ engagement and perception of using AI to solve physics problems, arXiv:2509.25642.
  24. P. Wattanakasiwich, K. Kaewkhong, and D. Katwibun, Physics instructors’ acceptance and implementation of generative AI, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010155 (2025).
  25. L. Krupp, S. Steinert, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, K. E. Avila, P. Lukowicz, J. Kuhn, S. Kuchemann, and J. Karolus, Unreflected acceptance: Investigating the negative consequences of ChatGPT-assisted problem solving in physics education, in Proceedings of the HHAI 2024: Hybrid Human AI Systems for the Social Good (2024), 10.3233/FAIA240195.
  26. D. Tong, Y. Tao, K. Zhang, X. Dong, Y. Hu, S. Pan, and Q. Liu, Investigating ChatGPT-4’s performance in solving physics problems and its potential implications for education, Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 25, 1379 (2024).
  27. 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).
  28. R. Horchani, ChatGPT’s problem-solving abilities in context-rich and traditional physics problems, Phys. Educ. 60, 025019 (2025).
  29. V. D.;ctor López-Simó and M. F. Rezende Jr., Challenging ChatGPT with different types of physics education questions, Phys. Teach. 62, 290 (2024).
  30. G. Polverini, J. Melin, E. Önerud, and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on tasks involving physics visual representations: The case of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010154 (2025).
  31. M. N. Dahlkemper, S. Z. Lahme, and P. Klein, How do physics students evaluate artificial intelligence responses on comprehension questions? A study on the perceived scientific accuracy and linguistic quality of ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010142 (2023).
  32. B. Agyare, J. Asare, A. Kraishan, I. Nkrumah, and D. K. Adjekum, A cross-national assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot user perceptions in collegiate physics education, Comput. Educ. 8, 100365 (2025).
  33. F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q. 13, 319 (1989).
  34. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view, Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 27, 425 (2003).
  35. H. M. Selim, An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites, Comput. Educ. 40, 343 (2003).
  36. Bštjan Šumak, M. Heričko, and M. Pušnik, A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 2067 (2011).
  37. K. A. Pituch and Y.-K. Lee, The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use, Comput. Educ. 47, 222 (2006).
  38. C.-M. Chiu and E. T. G. Wang, Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value, Inf. Manag. 45, 194 (2008).
  39. L. Xue, A. M. Rashid, and S. Ouyang, The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review, Sage Open 14, 21582440241229570 (2024).
  40. F. D. Davis. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985.
  41. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Manage. Sci. 35, 982 (1989).
  42. F. D. Davis and A. Granić, The Technology Acceptance Model: 30 Years of TAM,, Springerbriefs in Human–Computer Interaction Series (Springer, Cham, 2024), 10.1007/978-3-030-45274-2.
  43. W. R. King and J. He, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manage. 43, 740 (2006).
  44. M. Blut, A. Y. L. Chong, Z. Tsiga, and V. Venkatesh, Meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Challenging its validity and charting a research agenda in the red ocean, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 23, 13 (2022).
  45. S. Taylor and P. Todd, Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience, MIS Q. 561 (1995).
  46. V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies, Manage. Sci. 46, 186 (2000).
  47. Y. Wei, C. Wang, S. Zhu, H. Xue, and F. Chen, Online purchase intention of fruits: Antecedents in an integrated model based on technology acceptance model and perceived risk theory, Front. Psychol. 9, 1521 (2018).
  48. P. A. Pavlou, Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model, Int. J. Electron. Commerce 7, 101 (2003).
  49. V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 36, 157 (2012).
  50. M. Limayem, S. G. Hirt, and C. M. K. Cheung, How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance, Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 31, 705 (2007).
  51. A. Shuhaiber, M. A. Kuhail, and S. Salman, ChatGPT in higher education: A student’s perspective, Comput. Human Behav. Rep. 17, 100565 (2025).
  52. M. Fetaji, Devising a model AI-UTAUT by combining artificial intelligence AI with unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), SAR J. Sci. Res. 6, 182 (2023).
  53. I. Baroni, G. Re Calegari, D. Scandolari, and I. Celino, AI-TAM: A model to investigate user acceptance and collaborative intention in human-in-the-loop AI applications, Hum. Comput. 9, 1 (2022).
  54. S. Grassini, M. L. Aasen, and A. Møgelvang, Understanding university students’ acceptance of ChatGPT: Insights from the UTAUT2 model, Appl. Artif. Intell. 38, 2371168 (2024).
  55. S. Balaskas, V. Tsiantos, S. Chatzifotiou, and M. Rigou, Determinants of ChatGPT adoption intention in higher education: Expanding on TAM with the mediating roles of trust and risk, Information 16, 82 (2025).
  56. M. Sallam, N. A. Salim, M. Barakat, K. Al-Mahzoum, A’a B. Al-Tammemi, D. Malaeb, R. Hallit, and S. Hallit, Assessing health students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: Validation study, JMIR Med. Educ. 9, e48254 (2023).
  57. C. Y. Lai, K. Y. Cheung, C. S. Chan, and K. K. Law, Integrating the adapted UTAUT model with moral obligation, trust and perceived risk to predict ChatGPT adoption for assessment support: A survey with students, Comput. Educ. 6, 100246 (2024).
  58. P. Bhaskar, P. Misra, and G. Chopra, Shall i use ChatGPT? A study on perceived trust and perceived risk towards ChatGPT usage by teachers at higher education institutions, Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 41, 428 (2024).
  59. A. Strzelecki, To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology, Interact. Learn. Environ. 32, 5142 (2023).
  60. M. Abdaljaleel, M. Barakat, M. Alsanafi et al., A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT, Sci. Rep. 14, 1983 (2024).
  61. K. Parveen, T. Q. B. Phuc, A. A. Alghamdi et al., Unraveling the dynamics of ChatGPT adoption and utilization through structural equation modeling, Sci. Rep. 14, 23469 (2024).
  62. A. E. E. Sobaih, I. A. Elshaer, and A. M. Hasanein, Examining students’ acceptance and use of ChatGPT in Saudi Arabian higher education, Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 14, 709 (2024).
  63. H. Albayati, Investigating undergraduate students’ perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study, Comput. Educ. 6, 100203 (2024).
  64. M. F. Shahzad, S. Xu, and M. Asif, Factors affecting generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, use in higher education: An application of technology acceptance model, Br. Educ. Res. J. 51, 489 (2025).
  65. A. J. S. Morin, A. Bujacz, and Mène Gagné, Person-centered methodologies in the organizational sciences: Introduction to the feature topic, Organ. Res. Methods 21, 803 (2018).
  66. H. Chang, B. Liu, Y. Zhao, Y. Li, and F. He, Research on the acceptance of ChatGPT among different college student groups based on latent class analysis, Interact. Learn. Environ. 33, 22 (2024).
  67. A. Bewersdorff, M. Hornberger, C. Nerdel, and D. S. Schiff, AI advocates and cautious critics: How AI attitudes, AI interest, use of AI, and AI literacy build university students’ AI self-efficacy, Comput. Educ. 8, 100340 (2025).
  68. G. Fenu, R. Galici, M. Marras, and D. Reforgiato, Exploring student interactions with AI in programming training, in Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP Adjunct ’24 (, Cagliari, Italy, 2024) (Association for Computing Machinery, Cagliari, Italy, 2024), pp. 555–560, 10.1145/3631700.3665227.
  69. R. Arum, M. Calderon Leon, X. F. Li, and J. Lopes, ChatGPT early adoption in higher education: Variation in student usage, instructional support, and educational equity, AERA Open 11, 23328584251331956 (2025).
  70. H. Yilmaz, S. Maxutov, A. Baitekov, and N. Balta, Students’ perception of ChatGPT: A technology acceptance model study, Int. Educ. Rev. 1, 57 (2023).
  71. F. Valeri, P. Nilsson, and A.-M. Cederqvist, Exploring students’ experience of ChatGPT in STEM education, Comput. Educ. 8, 100360 (2025).
  72. J.-E. Russell, A. M. Smith, S. George, J. Pratt, B. Fodale, C. Monk, and A. Brummett, Unlocking insights: Investigating student AI tutor interactions in a large introductory STEM course, in Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, LAK ’25 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2025), pp. 451–461, 10.1145/3706468.3706524.
  73. T. Kregear, M. Babayeva, and R. Widenhorn, Analysis of student interactions with a large language model in an introductory physics lab setting, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 35, 2993 (2025).
  74. J. Wang and W. Fan, The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: Insights from a meta-analysis, Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 621 (2025).
  75. T. El Fathi, A. Saad, H. Larhzil, D. Lamri, and E. M. Al Ibrahmi, Integrating generative AI into STEM education: Enhancing conceptual understanding, addressing misconceptions, and assessing student acceptance, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 7, 6 (2025).
  76. A. Lieb and T. Goel, Student interaction with newtbot: An LLM-as-tutor chatbot for secondary physics education, in Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’24 (Association for Computing Machinery, Honolulu, HI, 2024), p. 614, 10.1145/3613905.3647957.
  77. J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al., GPT-4 Technical Report, arXiv:2303.08774.
  78. Z. O. Dunivin, Scalable qualitative coding with llms: Chain-of-thought reasoning matches human performance in some hermeneutic tasks, arXiv:2401.15170.
  79. R. Bijker, S. S. Merkouris, N. A. Dowling, and S. N. Rodda, ChatGPT for automated qualitative research: Content analysis, J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e59050 (2024).
  80. S. B. Merriam, Qualitative research: Designing, implementing, and publishing a study, in Handbook of Research on Scholarly Publishing and Research Methods (IGI Global Scientific Publishing, San Francisco, CA, 2015), pp. 125–140.
  81. Y. Intrator, M. Halfon, R. Goldenberg, R. Tsarfaty, M. Eyal, E. Rivlin, Y. Matias, and N. Aizenberg, Breaking the language barrier: Can direct inference outperform pre-translation in multilingual LLM applications?, in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers), edited by K. Duh, H. Gomez, and S. Bethard (Association for Computational Linguistics, Mexico City, Mexico, 2024), pp. 829–844, 10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-short.75.
  82. https://github.com/JohannaSchrader/ChatGPT-Learners-Qualitative.
  83. A. Holtzman, J. Buys, L. Du, M. Forbes, and Y. Choi, The curious case of neural text degeneration, Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2020).
  84. G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, in NIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop (2015), 10.48550/arXiv.1503.02531.
  85. L. Li, S. Geng, Z. Li, Y. He, H. Yu, Z. Hua, G. Ning, S. Wang, T. Xie, and H. Yang, Infibench: Evaluating the question-answering capabilities of code large language models, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 37, 128668 (2024).
  86. OpenAI, API reference—OpenAI platform.
  87. N. F. Liu, K. Lin, J. Hewitt, A. Paranjape, M. Bevilacqua, F. Petroni, and P. Liang, Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts, Trans Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 12, 157 (2024).
  88. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., Language models are few-shot learners, Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. 33, 1877 (2020), arXiv:2005.14165.
  89. P. Törnberg, Best practices for text annotation with large language models, Sociologica 18, 67 (2024).
  90. E. Machisi, A. Kurudirek, and J. M. Veith, Examining the least preferred topics among advanced placement calculus student, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 21, em2712 (2025).
  91. L. M. Collins and S. T. Lanza, Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, 2009), 10.1002/9780470567333.
  92. M. Wang, M. Sundstrom, K. Nylund-Gibson, and M. Ing, Advancing clustering methods in physics education research: A case for mixture models, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020126 (2025).
  93. B. E. Weller, N. K. Bowen, and S. J. Faubert, Latent class analysis: A guide to best practice, J. Black Psychol. 46, 287 (2020).
  94. E. Palmgren, K. Tuominen, and I. Kontro, Self-efficacy and conceptual knowledge in quantum mechanics during teaching reforms and the COVID-19 pandemic, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020122 (2022).
  95. H. Bekaert, H. Van Winckel, W. Van Dooren, A. Steegen, and M. De Cock, Identifying students’ mental models of the apparent motion of the sun and stars, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010130 (2022).
  96. C. J. Van Lissa, M. Garnier-Villarreal, and D. Anadria, Recommended practices in latent class analysis using the open-source R-package tidy, SEM: Struct. Equation Model. 31, 526 (2024).
  97. J.-Y. Tein, S. Coxe, and H. Cham, Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis, Struct. Equation Model. 20, 640 (2013).
  98. D. A. Linzer and J. B. Lewis, Polca: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis, J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1 (2011).
  99. O. Lezhnina and Gábor Kismihók, Latent class cluster analysis: Selecting the number of clusters, MethodsX 9, 101747 (2022).
  100. S. A. Karabenick and J. R. Knapp, Relationship of academic help seeking to the use of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students, J. Educ. Psychol. 83, 221 (1991).
  101. T. Musengimana, L. L. Yadav, J. Uwamahoro, and G. Nizeyimana, Instructional strategies for enhancing students’ problem-solving skills in physics: A systematic review, Discover Educ. 4, 380 (2025).
  102. M. Kapur, Productive failure, Cognit. Instr. 26, 379 (2008).
  103. A. Jackson, A. Godwin, S. Bartholomew, and N. Mentzer, Learning from failure: A systematized review, Int. J. Technol. Design Educ. 32, 1853 (2022).
  104. S. A. Pathak, B. Kim, M. J. Jacobson, and B. Zhang, Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure, Int. J. Comput. Supported Collab. Learn. 6, 57 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020112– Published 6 August, 2026
  • Received 14 November 2025
  • Accepted 4 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