Analysis of Students’ Difficulties in Using ChatGPT to Solve Routine Mechanics of Motion Problems

Authors

  • Muhammad Roil Bilad Department of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
  • Irham Azmi Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Muhammad Yusril Yusup Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, INDONESIA
  • Habibi Habibi Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, INDONESIA
  • Hisbulloh Als Mustofa Department of Science and Mathematics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v3i1.19616

Keywords:

ChatGPT, Physics problem solving, Mechanics of motion, Evaluation and verification, AI-supported learning

Abstract

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.

Author Biography

Muhammad Roil Bilad, Department of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

Scopus ID: 58138035000

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

2026-03-03

How to Cite

Bilad, M. R., Azmi, I., Yusup, M. Y., Habibi, H., & Mustofa, H. A. (2026). Analysis of Students’ Difficulties in Using ChatGPT to Solve Routine Mechanics of Motion Problems. International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education, 3(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v3i1.19616

Issue

Section

Articles