- 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

Faculty orientations shape adoption of AI in research and teaching

T. J. Atherton*, I. Descamps, and M. Webel

T. R. Holmes

C. L. Vizcarra

N. Sui

J. J. Foley, IV

  • Department of Physics & Astronomy, Tufts University, 574 Boston Ave., Medford, Massachusetts 02155 USA

  • Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, New York 10027 USA

  • Department of Molecular and Structural Biochemistry, NC State University, 120 W Broughton Dr, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 USA

  • *Contact author: timothy.atherton@tufts.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020152 – Published 29 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/7qnc-52m6

Abstract

Despite the widespread availability of large language models (LLMs) in higher education, instructors vary substantially in their adoption and use of these tools, and the reasons for this variation remain poorly understood. A mixed-methods survey of 90 STEM faculty in the Research Corporation for Science Advancement (RCSA) Cottrell community examined relationships between AI use, attitudes, institutional context, and instructional practice. Exploratory factor analysis identified a coherent construct, AI pedagogical orientation, that strongly predicted self-reported AI use across research, teaching, and other professional activities. Qualitative analysis indicated that this construct reflected differing views about the role AI should play in disciplinary thinking, learning, and expertise development, rather than simply positive or negative attitudes toward AI. Institutional initiatives, demographic variables, and information sources showed comparatively weak associations with AI use. The results suggest that existing technology-adoption models may not fully explain adoption in contexts where technologies interact directly with disciplinary reasoning and knowledge production.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (59)

  1. S. Küchemann and J. Kuhn, Editorial: Focused collection: Artificial intelligence tools in physics teaching and physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010001 (2026).
  2. E. Yuriev, D. J. Wink, and T. A. Holme, The dawn of generative artificial intelligence in chemistry education, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 2957 (2024).
  3. P. Wattanakasiwich, K. Kaewkhong, and D. Katwibun, Physics instructors’ acceptance and implementation of generative AI, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010155 (2025).
  4. V. Skogvoll and T. O. Odden, How physics professors use and frame generative AI tools, Eur. J. Phys. 47, 025713 (2026).
  5. A. Ghimire, J. Pather, and J. Edwards, Generative AI in education: A study of educators’ awareness, sentiments, and influencing factors, Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2024), pp. 1–9.
  6. A. de Silva, I. H. J. Song, H. Yang, and S. R. Humayoun, Stem faculty perspectives on generative AI in higher education, arXiv:2603.04001.
  7. G. Lawrie, Establishing a delicate balance in the relationship between artificial intelligence and authentic assessment in student learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 24, 392 (2023).
  8. P. Tschisgale, H. Maus, F. Kieser, B. Kroehs, S. Petersen, and P. Wulff, Evaluating gpt- and reasoning-based large language models on physics olympiad problems: Surpassing human performance and implications for educational assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020115 (2025).
  9. 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).
  10. J. K. West, J. L. Franz, S. M. Hein, H. R. Leverentz-Culp, J. F. Mauser, E. F. Ruff, and J. M. Zemke, An analysis of AI-generated laboratory reports across the chemistry curriculum and student perceptions of ChatGPT, J. Chem. Educ. 100, 4351 (2023).
  11. E. A. Alasadi and C. R. Baiz, Multimodal generative artificial intelligence tackles visual problems in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 2716 (2024).
  12. M. N. Dahlkemper, S. Z. Lahme, and P. Klein, Augmenting learning environments using AI custom chatbots: Effects on learning performance, cognitive load, and affective variables, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010142 (2023).
  13. J. Lademann, J. Henze, and S. Becker-Genschow, Augmenting learning environments using AI custom chatbots: Effects on learning performance, cognitive load, and affective variables, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010147 (2025).
  14. E. F. Ruff, M. A. Engen, J. L. Franz, J. F. Mauser, J. K. West, and J. M. O. Zemke, Chatgpt writing assistance and evaluation assignments across the chemistry curriculum, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 2483 (2024).
  15. S. Kilde-Westberg, A. Johansson, and J. Enger, Generative AI as a lab partner: A case study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020119 (2025).
  16. 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).
  17. S. A. Gunbatar, G. T. Sirin, O. C. Ilkyaz, and Y. Mutlu, Exploring the artificial intelligence interaction profiles of participants with different levels of teaching experience for lesson planning in the context of acids and bases, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 26, 977 (2025).
  18. A. A. Fernández, M. López-Torres, J. J. Fernández, and D. Vázquez-García, ChatGPT as an instructor’s assistant for generating and scoring exams, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 3780 (2024).
  19. P. P. Martin and N. Graulich, When a machine detects student reasoning: a review of machine learning-based formative assessment of mechanistic reasoning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 24, 407 (2023).
  20. Y. Jiang, X.-M. Feng, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, L. Xie, and L. Bao, Generative AI for feedback and collaborative knowledge construction in preservice physics teacher education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010116 (2026).
  21. S. Noy and W. Zhang, Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence, Science 381, 187 (2023).
  22. E. Brynjolfsson, D. Li, and L. Raymond, Generative ai at work, Q. J. Econ. 140, 889 (2025).
  23. C. K. Lo, K. F. Hew, and M. S.-Y. Jong, The influence of chatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda, Comput. Educ. 219, 105100 (2024).
  24. T. J. Atherton, Resource letter CP-3: Computational physics, Am. J. Phys. 91, 7 (2023).
  25. M. D. D. Caballero, Integrating Computing into the Undergraduate Physics Curriculum, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK, 2025).
  26. L. McNeil and P. Heron, Preparing physics students for 21st-century careers, Phys. Today 70, 38 (2017).
  27. A. L. Graves and A. D. Light, Hitting the ground running: Computational physics education to prepare students for computational physics research, Comput. Sci. Eng. 22, 50 (2019).10.1109/MCSE.2019.2963670
  28. A . M. Phillips, E. J. Gouvea, B. E. Gravel, P.-H. Beachemin, and T. J. Atherton, Physicality, modeling, and agency in a computational physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010121 (2023).
  29. M. D. Caballero and L. Merner, Prevalence and nature of computational instruction in undergraduate physics programs across the United States, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020129 (2018).10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020129
  30. N. T. Young, G. Allen, J. M. Aiken, R. Henderson, and M. D. Caballero, Identifying features predictive of faculty integrating computation into physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010114 (2019).
  31. E. Behringer, AAPT recommendations for computational physics in the undergraduate physics curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 85, 325 (2017).
  32. M. D. Caballero, N. Chonacky, L. Engelhardt, R. C. Hilborn, M. L. del Puerto, and K. R. Roos, PICUP: A community of teachers integrating computation into undergraduate physics courses, Phys. Teach. 57, 397 (2019).
  33. A. R. McDonald, J. A. Nash, P. S. Nerenberg, K. A. Ball, O. Sode, J. J. Foley IV, T. L. Windus, and T. D. Crawford, Building capacity for undergraduate education and training in computational molecular science: A collaboration between the mercury consortium and the molecular sciences software institute, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 120, e26359 (2020).10.1002/qua.26359
  34. G. Yin Stokes, How faculty with minimal programming experience implemented Jupyter notebooks in physical and general chemistry courses, in Teaching Programming across the Chemistry Curriculum (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2021), pp. 13–27.
  35. C. L. Vizcarra, R. F. Trainor, A. Ringer McDonald, C. T. Richardson, D. Potoyan, J. A. Nash, B. Lundgren, T. Luchko, G. M. Hocky, J. J. Foley IV, T. J. Atherton, and G. Y. Stokes, An interdisciplinary effort to integrate coding into science courses, Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 803 (2024).
  36. D. E. Gardner, G. Y. Stokes, A. Ringer McDonald, C. M. Teague, and E. S. Thrall, Engaging Students in Physical Chemistry, Volume 2, ACS Symposium Series (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2025), Vol. 1515.
  37. C. J. Burke and T. J. Atherton, Developing a project-based computational physics course grounded in expert practice, Am. J. Phys. 85, 301 (2017).
  38. T. O. B. Odden, E. Lockwood, and M. D. Caballero, Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020152 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020152
  39. S. A. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Basic books, New York, 2020).
  40. D. Laurillard, The significance of constructionism as a distinctive pedagogy, Constructionism (2020).
  41. K. H. Fredly, T. O. B. Odden, and B. M. Zwickl, How undergraduate physics students use generative AI for computational modeling, arXiv:2603.06342.
  42. R.-K. Seong, Generative AI for brane configurations and coamoeba, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086013 (2025).
  43. H. Wu and D. F. Agterberg, AI-predicted PT-symmetric magnets, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, 124408 (2025).
  44. E. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations 5th (2003).
  45. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view1, MIS Q. 27, 425 (2003).
  46. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  47. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  48. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, N. Apkarian, E. Johnson, M. Stains, J. R. Raker, and A. Lau, Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 (2024).
  49. T. Greenhalgh, G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate, and O. Kyriakidou, Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations, Milbank Q. 82, 581 (2004).
  50. 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).
  51. R. Noureddine, D. Boote, and L. O. Campbell, Assessing the validity of utaut among higher education instructors: A meta-analysis, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 16687 (2025).
  52. R. P. Bagozzi, The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 3 (2007).
  53. J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko et al., Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature (London) 596, 583 (2021).
  54. U. Olsson, Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient, Psychometrika 44, 443 (1979).
  55. L. R. Fabrigar and D. T. Wegener, Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient, Exploratory Factor Analysis (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012).
  56. W. Revelle, Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research (Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 2026), R package version 2.6.1.
  57. N. Holmes, B. Keep, and C. E. Wieman, How expectations of confirmation influence students’ experimentation decisions in introductory labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010109 (2020).
  58. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, and N. Holmes, Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010113 (2020).
  59. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020152– Published 29 October, 2026
  • Received 18 May 2026
  • Accepted 19 August 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