- 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

Generative AI as a lab partner: A case study

Sebastian Kilde-Westberg*, Andreas Johansson, and Jonas Enger

  • *Contact author: sebastian.lofgren@physics.gu.se
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020119 – Published 27 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ggy1-3kjk

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection in Artificial Intelligence Tools in Physics Teaching and Physics Education Research.] Generative AI tools, including the popular ChatGPT, have had a significant impact on discourses about future work and educational practices. Previous research in science education has highlighted the potential of generative AI in various education-related areas, including generating valuable discussion material, solving physics problems, and acting as a tutor. However, little research has been conducted on the role of generative AI tools in laboratory work, an essential part of science education, and physics education specifically. Here, we show various ways in which high school students use ChatGPT during a physics laboratory session and discuss the relevance of using generative AI tools to investigate acoustic levitation and the speed of sound in air. Additionally, employing variation theory as a theoretical lens in the analysis, we identify how generative AI can be used to further develop students’ problem-solving skills in the physics laboratory. However, although our study shows that generative AI tools may handle some relevant questions and problems during laboratory work, the teacher still plays a crucial role in identifying students’ needs and capabilities of understanding the potential and limitations of generative AI. Finally, this study serves as an important point of discussion regarding the ways in which students need support and training to efficiently utilize generative AI to further their learning of physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Focused Collection in Artificial Intelligence Tools in Physics Teaching and Physics Education Research

Focused Collection in Artificial Intelligence Tools in Physics Teaching and Physics Education Research

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (63)

  1. OpenAI, ChatGPT, https://www.openai.com.
  2. European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency, AI report: By the European digital education hub’s squad on artificial intelligence in education (2023), Publications Office of the European Union, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/828281.
  3. Y. Shen and X. Zhang, The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: The role of virtual agglomeration, Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 122 (2024).
  4. S. Wells, Ready or not, AI is coming to science education—and students have opinions, Nature (London) 628, 459 (2024).
  5. World Economic Forum, The future of learning: How AI is revolutionizing education 4.0, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/future-learning-ai-revolutionizing-education-4-0/ (2024).
  6. 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).
  7. B. Gregorcic and A.-M. Pendrill, ChatGPT and the frustrated Socrates, Phys. Educ. 58, 035021 (2023).
  8. G. Kortemeyer, Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010132 (2023).
  9. V. López-Simó and M. F. Rezende, Challenging ChatGPT with different types of physics education questions, Phys. Teach. 62, 290 (2024).
  10. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Evaluating vision-capable chatbots in interpreting kinematics graphs: A comparative study of free and subscription-based models, Front. Educ. 9, 1452414 (2024).
  11. R. K. Fussell, M. Flynn, A. Damle, M. F. J. Fox, and N. G. Holmes, Comparing large language models for supervised analysis of students’ lab notes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010128 (2025).
  12. W. Yeadon, O.-O. Inyang, A. Mizouri, A. Peach, and C. P. Testrow, The death of the short-form physics essay in the coming AI revolution, Phys. Educ. 58, 035027 (2023).
  13. W. Yeadon and T. Hardy, The impact of AI in physics education: A comprehensive review from GCSE to university levels, Phys. Educ. 59, 025010 (2024).
  14. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010109 (2024).
  15. K. A. Pimbblet and L. J. Morrell, Can ChatGPT pass a physics degree? Making a case for reformation of assessment of undergraduate degrees, Eur. J. Phys. 46, 015702 (2025).
  16. S. Küchemann, S. Steinert, N. Revenga, M. Schweinberger, Y. Dinc, K. E. Avila, and J. Kuhn, Can ChatGPT support prospective teachers in physics task development? Can ChatGPT support prospective teachers in physics task development?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020128 (2023).
  17. D. Domenichini, A. Bucchiarone, F. Chiarello, G. Schiavo, and G. Fantoni, An AI-driven approach for enhancing engagement and conceptual understanding in physics education, in Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (IEEE, New York, NY, 2024), pp. 1–3.
  18. B. Gregorcic, G. Polverini, and A. Sarlah, ChatGPT as a tool for honing teachers’ Socratic dialogue skills, Phys. Educ. 59, 045005 (2024).
  19. G. Kortemeyer, J. Nöhl, and D. Onishchuk, Grading assistance for a handwritten thermodynamics exam using artificial intelligence: An exploratory study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020144 (2024).
  20. T. Wan and Z. Chen, Exploring generative AI assisted feedback writing for students’ written responses to a physics conceptual question with prompt engineering and few-shot learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010152 (2024).
  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. Higher Educ. 20, 63 (2023).
  22. 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).
  23. R. Kahaleh and V. Lopez, Evaluating large language models in high school physics education: Addressing misconceptions and fostering conceptual understanding, Phys. Educ. 60, 025013 (2025).
  24. J. J. Trout and L. Winterbottom, Artificial intelligence and undergraduate physics education, Phys. Educ. 60, 015024 (2025).
  25. T. Adiguzel, M. H. Kaya, and F. K. Cansu, Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT, Contemp. Educ. Technol. 15, ep429 (2023).
  26. C. K. Lo, K. F. Hew, and M. S. yung Jong, The influence of ChatGPT on student engagement: A systematic review and future research agenda, Comput. Educ. 219, 105100 (2024).
  27. K. Hallal, R. Hamdan, and S. Tlais, Exploring the potential of AI-Chatbots in organic chemistry: An assessment of ChatGPT and Bard, Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 5, 100170 (2023).
  28. E. F. Ruff, J. L. Franz, and J. K. West, Using ChatGPT for method development and green chemistry education in upper-level laboratory courses, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 3224 (2024).
  29. P. M. Hare, Coding with AI in the physical chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 3869 (2024).
  30. T. Humphry and A. L. Fuller, Potential ChatGPT use in undergraduate chemistry laboratories, J. Chem. Educ. 100, 1434 (2023).
  31. B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Routledge, London, 2017).
  32. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77 (2006).
  33. F. Marton, A. B. Tsui, P. P. Chik, P. Y. Ko, and M. L. Lo, Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning (Routledge, London, 2004).
  34. M. Holmqvist, L. Gustavsson, and A. Wernberg, Variation theory: An organizing principle to guide design research in education, in Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education (Routledge, London, 2014), pp. 129–148.
  35. F. Marton, Necessary Conditions of Learning (Routledge, London, 2015).
  36. A. Kullberg, Åke Ingerman, and F. Marton, Planning and Analyzing Teaching, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 2024).
  37. F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, 1997), pp. 1–224.
  38. M. F. Pang and W. W. Ki, Revisiting the idea of “critical aspects”, Scand. J. Educ. Research 60, 323 (2016).
  39. M. Hasan, M. S. H. Khan, and A. F. Ahmed, Application of variation theory in STEM education: A comprehensive guideline for STEM teachers, MethodsX 12, 102500 (2024).
  40. Å.Ingerman, C. Linder, and D. Marshall, The learners’ experience of variation: Following students’ threads of learning physics in computer simulation sessions, Instr. Sci. 37, 273 (2009).
  41. E. Euler, B. Gregorcic, and C. Linder, Variation theory as a lens for interpreting and guiding physics students’ use of digital learning environments, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 045705 (2020).
  42. S. Kilde Löfgren, J. Weidow, and J. Enger, Rolling balls or trapping ions? How students relate models to real-world phenomena in the physics laboratory, Sci. Educ. 107, 1215 (2023).
  43. A. Johansson, R. Méndez-Fragoso, and J. Enger, Developing a self-calibrating system for volume measurement of spheroidal particles using two acoustically levitated droplets, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95, 114901 (2024).
  44. A. Johansson, S. Kilde-Westberg, and J. Enger, LeviLabs: Learning about sound through acoustic levitation, Phys. Educ. 59, 063005 (2024).
  45. Swedish National Agency for Education, Physics [subject syllabus] (2011), https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.189c87ae1623366ff374c3/1521539980000/Physics-swedish-school.pdf.
  46. Swedish National Agency for Education, Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and school–age educare–Lgr22 (2024), https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=13128.
  47. Statistics Sweden, Newborns, the 10 and 100 most common first names normally used, by year. Year 1998–2022 [data set] (2024), https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE__BE0001__BE0001D/BE0001T05AR/.
  48. Swedish Research Council, Good research practice 2024 (2010), https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2025-07-03-good-research-practice-2024.html.
  49. L. Chen, M. Zaharia, and J. Zou, How is ChatGPT’s behavior changing over time?, Harvard Data Sci. Revi. 6 (2024).
  50. M. Crossley, in Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology, edited by E. Lyons and A. Coyle (SAGE Publications Ltd., London, 2007), Chap. 9, pp. 131–144.
  51. Using the app Ragnar, an open-source project available on Github: https://github.com/mickekring/ragnar.git.
  52. M. Cortazzi, Narrative analysis, Lang. Teach. 27, 157 (1994).
  53. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/ggy1-3kjk for each group’s entire chat history with ChatGPT during the lab sessions.

  54. Rather, acoustic levitation utilizes the phenomenon of standing waves to trap particles in sound intensity nodes. As a visual example, see Fig. 3 in [43].

  55. J. L. Araújo and I. Saúde, Can ChatGPT enhance chemistry laboratory teaching? Using prompt engineering to enable AI in generating laboratory activities, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 1858 (2024).
  56. E. Etkina, Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020110 (2010).
  57. E. Etkina, A. Karelina, M. Ruibal-Villasenor, D. Rosengrant, R. Jordan, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 54 (2010).
  58. B. R. Wilcox and H. Lewandowski, Students’ views about the nature of experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020110 (2017).
  59. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Phys. Today 71, No. 1, 38 (2018).
  60. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, How understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 025701 (2024).
  61. Q. Xia, T. K. F. Chiu, C. S. Chai, and K. Xie, The mediating effects of needs satisfaction on the relationships between prior knowledge and self-regulated learning through artificial intelligence chatbot, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 54, 967 (2023).
  62. M. Wang, M. Wang, X. Xu, L. Yang, D. Cai, and M. Yin, Unleashing ChatGPT’s power: A case study on optimizing information retrieval in flipped classrooms via prompt engineering, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 17, 629 (2024).
  63. Z. Xu, S. Jain, and M. Kankanhalli, Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models, arXiv:2401.11817.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020119– Published 27 August, 2025
  • Received 18 December 2024
  • Accepted 8 August 2025
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. Funded by Bibsam.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation