Analysis of Students’ Difficulties in Using ChatGPT to Solve Routine Mechanics of Motion Problems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v3i1.19616Keywords:
ChatGPT, Physics problem solving, Mechanics of motion, Evaluation and verification, AI-supported learningAbstract
This study analyzes university students’ difficulties in using ChatGPT to solve routine mechanics of motion problems by mapping challenges across the problem-solving cycle and explaining how these difficulties emerge during student–AI interactions. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, 70 Physics Education and Science Education undergraduates who had completed Basic Physics or Mechanics and had used ChatGPT for learning completed a 24-item Likert questionnaire covering six dimensions: problem representation, prompt formulation, understanding solution steps, evaluation and verification, integration into one’s own solution, and self-regulation/technical constraints. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA with post-hoc tests, and correlation analyses were conducted. The overall difficulty level was moderate (M ≈ 3.22), with 61.4% in the moderate category and 18.6% in the high category. Evaluation and verification emerged as the most critical difficulty (M ≈ 3.69; 45.7% high). Significant differences were found by semester and frequency of ChatGPT use, but not by study program; early-semester and rare users reported higher difficulty, especially in verification. Correlations indicated a chain linking prompting, understanding, and verification (e.g., D3–D4 r = 0.62). In the qualitative phase, interviews and reflections with nine students (high/moderate/low difficulty) showed that incomplete problem representation and reactive prompt revision led to superficial understanding and premature trust in AI outputs, with limited unit, sign, and plausibility checks. The findings highlight verification as the main bottleneck and support instructional designs that foreground modeling, evaluative routines, and metacognitive regulation in AI-supported physics learning.
References
Adesso, G. (2023). Towards the ultimate brain: Exploring scientific discovery with ChatGPT AI. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.167701309.98216987/v1
Alfirević, N., Praničević, D., & Mabić, M. (2024). Custom-trained large language models as open educational resources: An exploratory research of a business management educational chatbot in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sustainability, 16(12), 4929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124929
Alwash, N., & Khleaf, H. (2022). Artificial intelligent techniques applied for detection COVID-19 based on chest medical imaging. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), 20(2), 329. https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v20i2.20881
Arnold, R., Langheinrich, M., & Hartmann, W. (2007). InfoTraffic. In Proceedings of the 2007 international workshop on Location- and context-awareness (LoCA 2007) (pp. 105–109). https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227349
Bigulov, A. (2025). Experimental application of the hyperintensive method for entering conversational practice in German using only AI tutors. Linguistics & Polyglot Studies, 11(3), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.24833/2410-2423-2025-3-44-24-54
Capella, S. (2025). How does generative AI affect patients’ rights? Voices in Bioethics, 11. https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v11i.14212
Chapagain, P., Malakar, N., & Rimal, D. (2024). Can AI solve physics problems? Evaluating efficacy of AI models in solving higher secondary physics exam problems: A comparative study. Journal of Nepal Physical Society, 10(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.3126/jnphyssoc.v10i1.72836
Chu, K. (2025). Prompt design and AI response quality in university students’ academic learning tasks. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 1402–1404. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.1417
Elson, L., Gaughan, L., Hopton, B., Lloyd-Brown, S., Briggs, C., Gharamti, M., … Moriarty, P. (2025). ‘ChatGPT did my homework’: Lessons learnt from embedding a chatbot in undergraduate coursework. Physics Education, 60(2), 025022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/adb363
Fuente, I., & López, J. (2020). Cell motility and cancer. Cancers, 12(8), 2177. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082177
Fuente, I., Martínez, L., Carrasco-Pujante, J., Fedetz, M., López, J., & Malaina, I. (2021). Self-organization and information processing: From basic enzymatic activities to complex adaptive cellular behavior. Frontiers in Genetics, 12, Article 644615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.644615
Galchuk, L. (2024). A conceptual framework for the instructional design of a Moodle-based e-learning course for mainstreaming informal master’s education outcomes into ESP teaching in a formal non-linguistic setting. RUDN Journal of Informatization in Education, 21(3), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8631-2024-21-3-340-356
Hasany, M., Kohestanian, M., Shabankareh, A., Nezhad-Mokhtari, P., & Mehrali, M. (2025). Ultra-stretchable, super-tough, and highly stable ion-doped hydrogel for advanced robotic applications and human motion sensing. InfoMat, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/inf2.12655
Horchani, R. (2025). ChatGPT’s problem-solving abilities in context-rich and traditional physics problems. Physics Education, 60(2), 025019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/adb473
Hu, J. (2022). Research on robot fuzzy neural network motion system based on artificial intelligence. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022, Article 4347772. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4347772
Huang, Y. (2025). Planning with sketch-guided verification for physics-aware video generation (arXiv:2511.17450). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2511.17450
Huang, Y., Zhou, S., Su, Y., Pang, Z., & Cai, S. (2024). Diffusion-weighted imaging as a potential non-gadolinium alternative for immediate assessing the hyperacute outcome of MRgFUS ablation for uterine fibroids. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 60693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60693-4
Kim, J., & Yoo, S. (2021). Nonlinear-observer-based design approach for adaptive event-driven tracking of uncertain underactuated underwater vehicles. Mathematics, 9(10), 1144. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9101144
Kotsis, K. (2025). ChatGPT and DeepSeek in physics education: A narrative and thematic literature review of pedagogical implications. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 5(5), 1080–1086. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049x.2025.5.5.5074
Krupp, L., Steinert, S., Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, M., Avila, K., Lukowicz, P., Kühn, J., … Karolus, J. (2024). Unreflected acceptance – Investigating the negative consequences of ChatGPT-assisted problem solving in physics education. https://doi.org/10.3233/faia240195
Liang, Y., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. (2023). Exploring the potential of using ChatGPT in physics education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00273-7
Lin, Y. (2025). SanDRA: Safe large-language-model-based decision making for automated vehicles using reachability analysis (arXiv:2510.06717). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.06717
Lunrasri, Y. (2020). Measurement of reading literacy, growth, and learning potential of Grade 9 students: Application of computerized dynamic assessment concept (Thesis). https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.the.2020.153
Lunrasri, Y., Tangdhanakanond, K., & Pasiphol, S. (2022). Effects of prompting type and learning achievement on reading literacy of ninth graders. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.2.14
Lyons, D., Chaudhry, S., Agica, M., & Monaco, J. (2010). Integrating perception and problem solving to predict complex object behaviours. In Proceedings of SPIE (Paper 12.852484). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.852484
Mafudi, I. (2025). Case study on ChatGPT’s performance in assisting students with physics tests. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 13(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.26618/jpf.v13i1.16624
Malik, N., Kousar, A., & Bruun, V. (2025). Chat-GPT in education: Learning outcomes and facilitating knowledge acquisition. IJSS, 4(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.63544/ijss.v4i2.131
Mok, R., Akhtar, F., Clare, L., Li, C., Ida, J., Ross, L., … Campanelli, M. (2025). Using large language models for grading in education: An applied test for physics. Physics Education, 60(3), 035006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/adb92b
Nikdel, P., Mahdavian, M., & Chen, M. (2022). DMMGAN: Diverse multi motion prediction of 3D human joints using attention-based generative adverserial network (arXiv:2209.09124). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2209.09124
Papenmeier, F., Arrufi, J., & Kirsch, A. (2022). Stories in the mind? The role of story-based categorizations in motion classification [Preprint]. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hfc3q
Papenmeier, F., Arrufi, J., & Kirsch, A. (2023). Stories in the mind? The role of story-based categorizations in motion classification. Cognitive Science, 47(9), e13332. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13332
Polverini, G., & Gregorcic, B. (2025). Multimodal large language models and physics visual tasks: Comparative analysis of performance and costs. European Journal of Physics, 46(5), 055708. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ae03f8
Rezende, M., & Simó, V. (2024). What are the perceptions of physics teachers in Brazil about ChatGPT in school activities? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2693(1), 012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2693/1/012011
Riabko, A., & Vakaliuk, T. (2024). Physics on autopilot: Exploring the use of an AI assistant for independent problem-solving practice. Educational Technology Quarterly, 2024(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.671
Rodriguez-Donaire, S. (2024). Influence of prompts structure on the perception and enhancement of learning through LLMs in online educational contexts. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1006481
Shin, E., Yu, Y., Bies, R., & Ramanathan, M. (2024). Evaluation of ChatGPT and Gemini large language models for pharmacometrics with NONMEM. American Conference of Pharmacometrics (ACoP 2024), International Society of Pharmacometrics. https://doi.org/10.70534/rqua9741
Su, Z., Dasgupta, M., Poitevin, F., Mathews, I., Bedem, H., Wall, M., & Wilson, M. (2021). Reproducibility of protein x-ray diffuse scattering and potential utility for modeling atomic displacement parameters. Structural Dynamics, 8(4), 044302. https://doi.org/10.1063/4.0000087
Sun, G. (2024). Prompt engineering for nurse educators. Nurse Educator, 49(6), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000001705
Şucan, I., Moll, M., & Kavraki, L. (2012). The open motion planning library. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(4), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.2205651
Thwaites, D., Prokopovich, D., Garrett, R., Haworth, A., Rosenfeld, A., & Ahern, V. (2023). The rationale for a carbon ion radiation therapy facility in Australia. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 71(S2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.744
Trout, J., & Winterbottom, L. (2024). Artificial intelligence and undergraduate physics education. Physics Education, 60(1), 015024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad98de
Ullah, H., Anwar, S., & Khan, S. (2024). Enhancing English language acquisition through ChatGPT: Use of technology acceptance model in linguistics. Journal of English Language Literature and Education, 6(4), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.54692/jelle.2024.0604262
Verawati, N., Wahyudi, W., Nisrina, N., & Asy’ari, M. (2025). ChatGPT in physics education: A content-based analysis on Newtonian force problems. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 13(2), 335. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v13i2.15824
Wang, K., Burkholder, E., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., & Haber, N. (2024). Examining the potential and pitfalls of ChatGPT in science and engineering problem-solving. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330486
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Roil Bilad, Irham Azmi, Muhammad Yusril Yusup, Habibi Habibi, Hisbulloh Als Mustofa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education (IJETE) agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education (IJETE), copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agrees to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
