International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used by secondary school students, yet in physics their fluent answers may contain conceptual or procedural errors. This study surveyed 480 upper-secondary students (Grades 10 - 12) in Lao Cai province, Vietnam, to describe how they use AI tools in physics learning, how they self-assess their competence in working with these tools, and what conditions and preferences they report regarding AI-integrated instruction. An online questionnaire of 18 five-point Likert items organised in three groups was administered; internal consistency was acceptable (α = .849–.914; ω = .851–.915). Students reported using AI tools occasionally (M = 3.13), mainly to preview lesson content and to obtain solutions to exercises, and less often for experimental design or data processing. Self-assessed competence was at the agreement level (M = 3.64), with 27.7% to 29.8% of students neutral on each item. At the item level, the distributions of self-assessment and reported practice did not correspond: 64.0% of students agreed that they distinguished their own work from AI-generated content, whereas 51.7% reported submitting unedited AI output at least sometimes. Most students expressed readiness to prepare before class (71.0%) and wished to be taught how to check AI answers (69.4%), while 11.5% reported insufficient devices or connectivity at home. The findings suggest that physics instruction should include explicit verification tasks and disclosure requirements, and that students’ AI competence should be assessed with evidence beyond self-report.

AI literacy, generative AI,physics education, self-assessment, upper-secondary students, flipped learning

1. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021 
2. Akgun, S., & Greenhow, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics, 2(4), 431–440. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8455229/
3. Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), Article ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176 
4. Casal-Otero, L., Catala, A., Fernández-Morante, C., Taboada, M., Cebreiro, B., & Barro, S. (2023). AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7 
5. Gregorcic, B., & Pendrill, A.-M. (2023). ChatGPT and the frustrated Socrates. Physics Education, 58(3), Article 035021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/acc299 
6. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629 
7. Lê, A. V., Đỗ, Đ. L., Nguyễn, H. N., Lê, Q. Q., Bùi, T. H., Nguyễn, M. H., Vũ, V. L., Lê, A. L., Vũ, K. C., & Lương, Đ. H. (2025). Khung năng lực trí tuệ nhân tạo dành cho học sinh phổ thông Việt Nam [An artificial intelligence competency framework for Vietnamese general education students]. Tạp chí Khoa học Giáo dục Việt Nam, 21(7), 1–8. http://vjes.vnies.edu.vn/vi/khung-nang-luc-tri-tue-nhan-tao-danh-cho-hoc-sinh-pho-thong-viet-nam 
8. Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727 
9. López-Villanueva, D., Santiago, R., & Palau, R. (2024). Flipped learning and artificial intelligence. Electronics, 13(17), Article 3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13173424 
10. Miao, F., & Shiohira, K. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/JKJB9835 
11. Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 
12. Ng, D. T. K., Luo, W., Chan, H. M. Y., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024). Design and validation of the AI literacy questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1082–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13411 
13. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
14. Polverini, G., & Gregorcic, B. (2024). How understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education. European Journal of Physics, 45(2), Article 025701. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ad1420 
15. Porat, E., Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2018). Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students’ perceived competencies versus actual performance. Computers & Education, 126, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.030 
16. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: A meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review, 30, Article 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314