- 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

Evaluating middle school physics teachers’ use of AI in lesson planning: A comparative study with three groups from Austria

Florian Budimaier1,2, Matthias Fasching1, Anna Reumann1,3, and Esmeralda Campos1,*

  • *Contact author: esmeralda.campos@univie.ac.at
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010136 – Published 24 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/n611-h1mh

Abstract

Since 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) tools have become publicly available, thereby enabling physics teachers to employ them in a multitude of ways. The aim of this research is to evaluate the potential of AI in assisting physics teachers in lesson planning. The objective is to identify which cognitive demands of lesson planning can be carried out by the AI, therefore reducing the workload for teachers. To compare teachers with different backgrounds, we examine three groups: prospective, out-of-field, and experienced physics teachers. The participants planned a lesson on Newton’s third law using an AI tool. To analyze the participants’ lesson planning process, we employed evaluative qualitative content analysis. Each of the groups presented a different approach to lesson planning using AI. For example, out-of-field physics teachers focused on the physics content, while experienced physics teachers were more prone to asking how to adapt the learning materials to the students’ cognitive level. One of the key findings was that the AI tools considered the clarity of the learning objectives and phasing of the lessons without necessarily being prompted, in all three groups. Moreover, in general, the experienced physics teachers were more critical about using AI for lesson planning than the other two groups. The findings of this study might inform teacher professional development courses focused on the use of AI in physics education.

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

References (47)

  1. F. Kieser, P. Wulff, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020150 (2023).
  2. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, Performance of ChatGPT on the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010109 (2024).
  3. 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).
  4. B. Gregorcic and A.-M. Pendrill, ChatGPT and the frustrated Socrates, Phys. Educ. 58, 035021 (2023).
  5. 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?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020128 (2023).
  6. R. W. Bybee and N. M. Landes, Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from biological sciences curriculum study, Am. Biol. Teach. 52, 92 (1990).
  7. W. Powell and S. Courchesne, Opportunities and risks involved in using ChatGPT to create first grade science lesson plans, PLoS One 19, e0305337 (2024).
  8. G. Gonçalves Costa, W. J. D. Nascimento Júnior, M. N. Mombelli, and G. Girotto Júnior, Revisiting a teaching sequence on the topic of electrolysis: A comparative study with the use of artificial intelligence, J. Chem. Educ. 101, 3255 (2024).
  9. R. O. Davis and Y. J. Lee, Prompt: ChatGPT, Create My Course, Please!, Educ. Sci. 14, 24 (2024).
  10. R. Hashem, N. Ali, F. El Zein, P. Fidalgo, and O. Abu Khurma, AI to the rescue: Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a teacher ally for workload relief and burnout prevention, Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 19, 023 (2024).
  11. G. van den Berg and E. Du Plessis, ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education, Educ. Sci. 13, 998 (2023).
  12. P. Wattanakasiwich, K. Kaewkhong, and D. Katwibun, Physics instructors’ acceptance and implementation of generative AI, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010155 (2025).
  13. N. Şimşek, Integration of ChatGPT in mathematical story-focused 5E lesson planning: Teachers, and pre-service teachers’ interactions with ChatGPT, Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 11391 (2025).
  14. B. Y. S. Acquah, F. Arthur, I. Salifu, E. Quayson, and S. A. Nortey, Preservice teachers’ behavioural intention to use artificial intelligence in lesson planning: A dual-staged PLS-SEM-ANN approach, Comput. Educ. 7, 100307 (2024).
  15. P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge, Teach. Coll. Rec. 108, 1017 (2006).
  16. J. König, M. Krepf, A. Bremerich-Vos, and C. Buchholtz, Meeting cognitive demands of lesson planning: Introducing the CODE-PLAN model to describe and analyze teachers’ planning competence, Teach. Educ. 56, 466 (2021).
  17. J. Carlson et al., The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education, in Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science, edited by A. Hume, R. Cooper, and A. Borowski (Springer, Singapore, 2019), pp. 77–94.
  18. L. Großmann and D. Krüger, Assessing the quality of science teachers’ lesson plans: Evaluation and application of a novel instrument, Sci. Educ. 108, 153 (2024).
  19. J. Hattie and G. C. R. Yates, Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn (Routledge, Oxon and New York, 2013).
  20. D. Sardo-Brown, A longitudinal study of novice secondary teachers’ planning: Year two, Teach. Teach. Educ. 12, 519 (1996).
  21. M. Cevikbas, J. König, and M. Rothland, Empirical research on teacher competence in mathematics lesson planning: recent developments, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 56, 101 (2024).
  22. L. Großmann, M. Koberstein-Schwarz, D. Scholl, D. Krüger, and A. Meisert, Establishing common ground in empirical research on science teachers’ lesson planning competence: A scoping review, Stud. Sci. Educ. 61, 329 (2024).
  23. N. Luhmann, Soziale Systeme (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1984), Vol. 666.
  24. L. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  25. W. Klafki, Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction (Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung), J. Curric. Stud. 27, 13 (1995).
  26. R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, U. Kattmann, M. Komorek, and I. Parchmann, The model of educational reconstruction—A framework for improving teaching and learning science, in Science Education Research and Practice in Europe, edited by D. Jorde and J. Dillon (SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2012), pp. 13–37.
  27. F. K. Oser and F. J. Baeriswyl, Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning, in Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 4th ed. (American Educational Research Association, Washington DC, 2001), pp. 1031–1065.
  28. R. Duschl, S. Maeng, and A. Sezen, Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis, Stud. Sci. Educ. 47, 123 (2011).
  29. H. Krabbe and H. E. Fischer, Instructional design, in Physics Education, edited by H. E. Fischer and R. Girwidz (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021), pp. 83–112.
  30. R. Bromme, Das Denken von Lehrern bei der Unterrichtsvorbereitung (Beltz, Weinheim; Basel, 1981).
  31. H. Kang, Preservice teachers’ learning to plan intellectually challenging tasks, J. Teach. Educ. 68, 55 (2017).
  32. J. König, A. Bremerich-Vos, C. Buchholtz, I. Fladung, and N. Glutsch, Pre-service teachers’ generic and subject-specific lesson-planning skills: On learning adaptive teaching during initial teacher education, Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 43, 131 (2020).
  33. D. Kaltakci-Gurel, Assessment of conceptual understanding in physics, in The International Handbook of Physics Education Research: Teaching Physics, edited by M. F. Taşarand P. R. L. Heron (AIP Publishing LLC, Melville, New York, 2023), pp. 19-1–19-20.
  34. Mind in Society, edited by L. S. Vygotskij (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; London, England, 1978).
  35. R. Maulana, M. Helms-Lorenz, and W. van de Grift, Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers, Teach. Teach. Educ. 23, 471 (2016).
  36. M. Krepf and J. König, Structuring the lesson: An empirical investigation of pre-service teacher decision-making during the planning of a demonstration lesson, J. Educ. Teach. 49, 911 (2023).
  37. K.-H. Arnold and B. Koch-Priewe, The merging and the future of classical German traditions in general didactics: A comprehensive framework for lesson planning, in Beyond Fragmentation. Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe, edited by B. Hudson and M. A. Meyer (Budrich, Leverkusen, 2011), pp. 252–264.
  38. D. Muijs, L. Kyriakides, G. van der Werf, B. Creemers, H. Timperley, and L. Earl, State of the art—teacher effectiveness and professional learning, Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 25, 231 (2014).
  39. 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).
  40. S. Welleck, I. Kulikov, S. Roller, E. Dinan, K. Cho, and J. Weston, Neural text generation with unlikelihood training, arXiv:1908.04319.
  41. J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, R. Y. Wong, B. Hartmann, and Q. Yang, Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts, edited by A. Schmidt, K. Väänänen, T. Goyal, P. O. Kristensson, A. Peters, S. Mueller, J. R. Williamson, and M. L. Wilson (ACM, Hamburg, Germany, 2023), pp. 1–21.
  42. S. Schulhoff et al., The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompting techniques, arXiv:2406.06608.
  43. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, B. Ichter, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. Le, and D. Zhou, Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, arXiv:2201.11903.
  44. D. J. Leiner, Software SoSci Survey, SoSci Survey GmbH, München (2024), https://www.soscisurvey.de/.
  45. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, 1988).
  46. J. R. Dettori and D. C. Norvell, Kappa and beyond: Is there agreement?, Global Spine J. 10, 499 (2020).
  47. U. Kuckartz and S. Rädiker, Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice and Software, 2nd ed. (Sage, London and Thousand Oaks and New Delhi and Singapore, 2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010136– Published 24 April, 2026
  • Received 9 January 2025
  • Accepted 20 March 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