Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Generative AI Scaffolding in Physics Education: A Phenomenological Analysis of Its Role and Implications in STEM Learning

Edwin M. Torralba
Academy of Our Lady of Guam
United States
edwin.torralba@aolg.edu.gu
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study investigates how generative AI tools especially video generation scaffold high school students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics, focusing on female learners in a STEM Honors Physics class. It explores how these tools impact conceptual mastery, critical thinking, creativity, and students’ perceptions of AI use in education.

    Methodology: Using a phenomenological qualitative design, the study involved 17 female students. It followed a three-phase structure preparatory, scaffolding, and post-discourse with tools like AI-generated videos, simulations, TAM-based surveys, and reflective journals, grounded in Constructivist Learning Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model.

    Main Findings: AI-enhanced visualizations improved students’ conceptual understanding and learning efficiency. Students gained critical thinking through prompt refinement and creativity. Ethical concerns and AI accuracy issues were noted. Overall, students showed moderate satisfaction, ease of use, and usefulness perceptions, but cautious intentions toward future AI use.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This is among the first studies to apply generative AI hypermedia in high school physics education through a structured, theory-driven framework. It uniquely highlights gender-specific engagement, ethical considerations, and practical integration of AI in fostering deeper conceptual and creative STEM learning.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    E. M. Torralba, “Generative AI Scaffolding in Physics Education: A Phenomenological Analysis of Its Role and Implications in STEM Learning ”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 175–191, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i3.2031.

    More Citation Formats

  • 1040
    Abstract views
    537
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. E. Chng, A. L. Tan, and S. C. Tan, “Examining the use of emerging technologies in schools: a review of artificial intelligence and immersive technologies in STEM education,” Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 385, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s41979-023-00092-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00092-y
    2. F. Mahligawati, E. Allanas, M. H. Butarbutar, and N. A. N. Nordin, “Artificial intelligence in physics education: a comprehensive literature review,” Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 2596, no. 1, p. 12080, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2596/1/012080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2596/1/012080
    3. W. Xu and F. Ouyang, “The application of AI technologies in STEM education: a systematic review from 2011 to 2021,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 9, no. 1, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377-5
    4. R. J. Collado, “Reducing the gender gap in spatial skills in high school physics,” Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 1286, no. 1, p. 12013, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012013
    5. Mordor Intelligence, “AI In Education Market Analysis.” [Online]. Available: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/ai-in-education-market
    6. J. Lambert and M. Stevens, “ChatGPT and generative AI technology: A mixed bag of concerns and new opportunities,” Computers in the Schools, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 559, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1080/07380569.2023.2256710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2256710
    7. N. Kshetri, Y. Dwivedi, T. Davenport, and N. Panteli, “Generative artificial intelligence in marketing: Applications, opportunities, challenges, and research agenda,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 75, p. 102716, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102716
    8. Y. Song, K. Wu, and J. Ding, “Developing an immersive game-based learning platform with generative artificial intelligence and virtual reality technologies – ‘LearningverseVR,’” Computers & Education X Reality, vol. 4, p. 100069, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100069
    9. E. Hussein, M. A. Hussein, and M. Al-Hendawi, “Investigation into the applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in special education: a literature review,” Social Sciences, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 288, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/socsci14050288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050288
    10. E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, p. 102274, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
    11. I. T. Sanusi, S. S. Oyelere, H. Vartiainen, J. Suhonen, and M. Tukiainen, “A systematic review of teaching and learning machine learning in K-12 education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 5967, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11416-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11416-7
    12. G. Lee et al., “Multimodality of AI for education: towards artificial general intelligence,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, p. 1, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/tlt.2025.3574466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2025.3574466
    13. M. Bond et al., “A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: a call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 1, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
    14. A. Alamäki, C. Nyberg, A. Kimberley, and A. O. Salonen, “Artificial intelligence literacy in sustainable development: a learning experiment in higher education,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 9, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1343406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1343406
    15. C. K. Y. Chan, “A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
    16. A. Ateeq, M. Alzoraiki, M. Milhem, and R. A. Ateeq, “Artificial intelligence in education: implications for academic integrity and the shift toward holistic assessment,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 9, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1470979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1470979
    17. S. Kohnke and T. Zaugg, “Artificial intelligence: an untapped opportunity for equity and access in STEM education,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 68, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15010068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010068
    18. R. Toma, I. Yánez-Pérez, and J. Meneses-Villagrá, “Towards a socio-constructivist didactic model for integrated STEM education,” Interchange, vol. 55, no. 1, p. 75, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10780-024-09513-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09513-2
    19. S. Wibowo, M. Nur Wangid, and F. M. Firdaus, “The relevance of Vygotsky’s constructivism learning theory with the differentiated learning primary schools,” Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), vol. 19, no. 1, p. 431, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21197
    20. T. A. Hà, “Pretend play and early language development—relationships and impacts: a comprehensive literature review,” Journal of Education, vol. 202, no. 1, p. 122, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0022057420966761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420966761
    21. C. Pacaci, U. Ustun, and O. Faruk Ozdemir, “Effectiveness of conceptual change strategies in science education: A meta‐analysis,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1002/tea.21887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21887
    22. K. Lambright, “The effect of a teacher’s mindset on the cascading zones of proximal development: a systematic review,” Technology Knowledge and Learning, vol. 29, no. 3, p. 1313, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10758-023-09696-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09696-0
    23. M. M. Msambwa, Z. Wen, and K. Daniel, “The impact of AI on the personal and collaborative learning environments in higher education,” European Journal of Education, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12909. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12909
    24. Q. Xia, X. Weng, F. Ouyang, T. Lin, and T. K. F. Chiu, “A scoping review on how generative artificial intelligence transforms assessment in higher education,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 1, May 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z
    25. M. Shafie Rosli, N. Shela Saleh, A. Md. Ali, S. Abu Bakar, and L. Mohd Tahir, “A systematic review of the technology acceptance model for the sustainability of higher education during the COVID-19 Pandemic and identified research gaps,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 11389, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su141811389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811389
    26. F. de O. Santini et al., “Understanding students’ technology acceptance behaviour : a meta-analytic study,” Technology in Society, p. 102798, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102798
    27. L. Yan, S. Greiff, Z. Teuber, and D. Gašević, “Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning,” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 1839, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02004-5
    28. H. W. Chua and Z. A. Yu, “A systematic literature review of the acceptability of the use of Metaverse in education over 16 years,” Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 615, May 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40692-023-00273-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00273-z
    29. E. S. Vorm and D. J. Y. Combs, “Integrating transparency, trust, and acceptance: the Intelligent Systems Technology Acceptance Model (ISTAM),” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 38, p. 1828, May 2022, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2070107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2070107
    30. H. Taherdoost, “A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications,” Computers, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 24, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/computers11020024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024
    31. J. David Bryan and T. Zuva, “A review on TAM and TOE framework progression and how these models integrate,” Advances in Science Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 137, May 2021, doi: 10.25046/aj060316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25046/aj060316
    32. M. M. Cioc, Ș. C. Popa, A. A. Olariu, C. F. Popa, and C.-B. Nica, “Behavioral intentions to use energy efficiency smart solutions under the impact of social influence: an extended TAM approach,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 18, p. 10241, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/app131810241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app131810241
    33. A. S. Al-Adwan, N. Li, A. Al-Adwan, G. Ali Abbasi, N. A. Albelbisi, and A. Habibi, “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to predict university students’ intentions to use metaverse-based learning platforms”, Education and Information Technologies, vol. 28, no. 11, p. 15381, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3
    34. A. Hooda, P. Gupta, A. Jeyaraj, M. Giannakis, and Y. K. Dwivedi, “The effects of trust on behavioral intention and use behavior within e-government contexts,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 67, p. 102553, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102553
    35. O. T. Adigun, N. Mpofu, and M. C. Maphalala, “Fostering self‐directed learning in blended learning environments: a constructivist perspective in higher education,” Higher Education Quarterly, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1111/hequ.12572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12572
    36. M. Al-kfairy, “Factors impacting the adoption and acceptance of ChatGPT in educational settings: a narrative review of empirical studies,” Applied System Innovation, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 110, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/asi7060110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7060110
    37. N. Carter, D. Bryant‐Lukosius, A. DiCenso, J. Blythe, and A. J. Neville, “The use of triangulation in qualitative research,” Oncology nursing forum, vol. 41, no. 5, p. 545, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1188/14.onf.545-547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
    38. H. Noble and J. Smith, “Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research,” Evidence-Based Nursing, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 34, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
    39. U. Flick, “Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods,” Jan. 2018, doi: 10.4135/9781529716634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716634
    40. D. P. Panagoulias, E. Sarmas, V. Marinakis, M. Virvou, G. A. Tsihrintzis, and H. Doukas, “Intelligent decision support for energy management: a methodology for tailored explainability of artificial intelligence analytics,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 21, p. 4430, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12214430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12214430
    41. C. Ferguson, E. L. van den Broek, and H. van Oostendorp, “AI-induced guidance: preserving the optimal zone of proximal development,” Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, p. 100089, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100089
    42. L. Cai, M. M. Msambwa, and D. Kangwa, “Exploring the impact of integrating AI tools in higher education using the zone of proximal development,” Education and Information Technologies, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0
    43. C. Chen and C.-L. Chang, “Effectiveness of AI-assisted game-based learning on science learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and learning behavior,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 14, p. 18621, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12553-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12553-x
    44. R. Weijers et al., “From Intuition to Understanding: Using AI Peers to Overcome Physics Misconceptions,” 2025, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.00408.
    45. T. Li, Y. Ji, and Z. Zhan, “Expert or machine? Comparing the effect of pairing student teacher with in-service teacher and ChatGPT on their critical thinking, learning performance, and cognitive load in an integrated-STEM course,” Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 45, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2024.2305163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2305163
    46. R. AlShaikh, N. Al-Malki, and M. Almasre, “The implementation of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning in the design and evaluation of an AI educational video assistant utilizing large language models,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 3, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25361
    47. M. M. North and S. North, “Dynamic immersive visualisation environments: enhancing pedagogical techniques,” Australian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 23, May 2019, doi: 10.3127/ajis.v23i0.2109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.2109
    48. H.-P. Hsu, “From programming to prompting: developing computational thinking through large language model-based generative artificial intelligence,” TechTrends, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11528-025-01052-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01052-6
    49. A. M. Al-Abdullatif, “modeling teachers’ acceptance of generative artificial intelligence use in higher education: the role of ai literacy, intelligent TPACK, and perceived trust,” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 1209, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14111209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111209
    50. J. N. Montes and J. Elizondo-García, “Faculty acceptance and use of generative artificial intelligence in their practice,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1427450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1427450
    51. K. Stolpe and J. Hällström, “Artificial intelligence literacy for technology education,” Computers and Education Open, vol. 6, p. 100159, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100159
    52. E. Bauer, S. Greiff, A. C. Graesser, K. Scheiter, and M. Sailer, “Looking beyond the hype: understanding the effects of AI on learning,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 37, no. 2, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10020-8
    53. J. Kamali, M. F. Alpat, and A. Bozkurt, “AI ethics as a complex and multifaceted challenge: decoding educators’ AI ethics alignment through the lens of activity theory,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00496-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00496-9
    54. N. Z. Bako, “Ethical AI in schools: balancing automation, privacy, and human oversight,” World Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology and Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 924, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.30574/wjaets.2025.15.1.0262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjaets.2025.15.1.0262
    55. N. N. Varghese, B. Jose, T. Bindhumol, A. Cleetus, and S. B. Nair, “The power duo: unleashing cognitive potential through human-AI synergy in STEM and non-STEM education,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1534582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1534582
    56. J. Lademann, J. Henze, and S. Becker-Genschow, “Augmenting learning environments using AI custom chatbots: Effects on learning performance, cognitive load, and affective variables,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 21, no. 1, May 2025, doi: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.21.010147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.21.010147
    57. J. W. Hur, “Fostering AI literacy: overcoming concerns and nurturing confidence among preservice teachers,” Information and Learning Sciences, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1108/ils-11-2023-0170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-11-2023-0170
    58. L. K. Allen and P. Kendeou, “ED-AI Lit: an interdisciplinary framework for AI literacy in education,” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1177/23727322231220339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322231220339
    59. M. Cukurova, “The interplay of learning, analytics and artificial intelligence in education: a vision for hybrid intelligence,” British Journal of Educational Technology, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13514
    60. S. Nurjanah, N. A. Martaputri, Z. Zamzami, I. K. Suardi, and H. K. Hulu, “Artificial intelligence in physics education research in two decades: a bibliometric study from scopus database,” Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 53, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.26618/jpf.v12i2.14745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26618/jpf.v12i2.14745
    61. S. V. Chinta et al., “FairAIED: navigating fairness, bias, and ethics in educational AI applications,” arXiv (Cornell University), Jul. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2407.18745.
    62. Y. Meng, W. Xu, Z. Liu, and Z.-G. Yu, “Scientometric analyses of digital inequity in education: problems and solutions,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03480-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03480-w