Evidence Hub

Artificial intelligence in physics education: A systematic review of content coverage, implementation models, learning impact, and pedagogical challenges

Roziqin Roziqin, Achmad Samsudin, Duden Saepuzaman, Haslinda Nawang Sari, Mimin Iryanti

STEM Education, 2026

2 citations

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made a fast entry into the world of physics education research, but the empirical literature is still fragmented according to content domain, pedagogical function, and evaluation criteria. Leveraging disciplinary epistemic practices, instructional scaffolding theory, and self-regulated learning, this is a systematic literature review of 44 empirical studies published from 2021 to 2025 to examine the implementation of AI in physics education, where it is concentrated, the learning functions it serves, and the epistemic risks associated with its use. Following the guidelines of PRISMA, the review combines frequency analysis and thematic synthesis in order to search for patterns beyond isolated outcomes across studies. The results show that there is a high concentration of AI applications in the areas of mechanics, thermodynamics, and modern physics, which are characterized by machine-interpretable problem structures and high demands for abstraction. AI is mainly applied in conversational tutoring, automated feedback, and personalization systems, and the benefits have been shown to be focused on short-term learning performance, engagement, and instructional efficiency. However, common themes among the contexts are observed, such as epistemic unreliability, overreliance on AI outputs, lack of AI literacy, and fragility of methodology, which directly pose a threat to disciplinary reasoning practices that are central to learning physics. Far from…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free