Development of an Adaptive AI Physics Tutor Based on a Large Language Model to Improve Scientific Literacy and Remediate High School Students’ Misconceptions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55047/jrpp.v5i2.1226Keywords:
Adaptive Learning, AI Physics Tutor, Intelligent Tutoring System, Large Language Model, Physics MisconceptionsAbstract
The shift toward Society 5.0 and generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) has opened new opportunities for personalizing physics learning, yet Indonesian students’ scientific literacy in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2022 remains far below the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) average, and misconceptions involving force, motion, energy, electricity, and waves remain resistant to conventional instruction. LLM (Large Language Model) chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude are used ad hoc by students, without being designed to diagnose misconceptions, grounded in conceptual change theory, or equipped with PISA-aligned scientific literacy assessment. This article formulates a theoretical framework for an Adaptive AI Physics Tutor, a new-generation Intelligent Tutoring System integrating LLM architecture, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, a Misconception Detector, and a Student Model into one personalized, adaptive learning ecosystem. Using narrative review, critical review, concept analysis, and theory synthesis on 2021-2026 literature, it combines Conceptual Change theory, Interactive Engagement, Modeling Instruction, Vygotsky-Piaget constructivism, and TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) into a conceptual model mapping student input, the AI engine, and learning output. The resulting model positions the AI Physics Tutor as a mediator of misconception remediation explicitly aligned with three PISA competencies, namely explaining phenomena scientifically, evaluating and designing scientific inquiry, and interpreting data and evidence, and offers a staged 2026-2045 development roadmap with a Design-Based Research agenda for prototype validation, along with theoretical and practical implications for curriculum developers, physics teachers, universities, and policymakers in Indonesia.
References
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Science, 228(4698), 456–462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.228.4698.456
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., McKinnon, C., Chen, C., Olsson, C., Olah, C., Hernandez, D., Drain, D., Ganguli, D., Li, D., Tran-Johnson, E., Perez, E., … Kaplan, J. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard University Press.
Bulger, M. (2016). Personalized Learning: The Conversations We’re Not Having. Data & Society Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.69985/obue9001
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2024). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ Comment: So, What is A Conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15129
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education. In Data ethics : building trust : how digital technologies can serve humanity (pp. 621–653). Globethics Publications. https://doi.org/10.58863/20.500.12424/4276068
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jiang, Z., & Jiang, M. (2024). Beyond Answers: Large Language Model-Powered Tutoring System in Physics Education for Deep Learning and Precise Understanding. ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10934
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/5er8f
Kemendikdasmen. (2023). Peringkat Indonesia pada PISA 2022 Naik 5-6 Posisi Dibanding 2018. Kementerian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah Republik Indonesia. https://www.kemendikdasmen.go.id/siaran-pers/8990-peringkat-indonesia-pada-pisa-2022-naik-5-6-posisi-dibanding-2018
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 185–196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.issue-1
Küchemann, S., Steinert, S., Kuhn, J., Avila, K., & Ruzika, S. (2024). Large language models—Valuable tools that require a sensitive integration into teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 62(5), 400–402. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0212374
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., & Kiela, D. (2021). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401
McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2916318
McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
Nwana, H. (1990). Intelligent tutoring systems: an overview. Artificial Intelligence Review, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00168958
Nye, B. D., Mee, D., & Core, M. G. (2023). Generative Large Language Models for Dialog-Based Tutoring: An Early Consideration of Opportunities and Concerns. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1–11. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3487/paper4.pdf
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. In PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I). In PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., & Lowe, R. (2022). Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (pp. 27730–27744). Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (NeurIPS). https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-2011
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/piag91272
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Sonkar, S., Chen, X., Liu, N., Baraniuk, R. G., & Sachan, M. (2024). LLM-based Cognitive Models of Students with Misconceptions. ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12294
Sonkar, S., Liu, N., Mallick, D., & Baraniuk, R. (2023). CLASS: A Design Framework for Building Intelligent Tutoring Systems Based on Learning Science principles. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (pp. 1941–1961). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.130
Sonkar, S., Ni, K., Chaudhary, S., & Baraniuk, R. (2024). Pedagogical Alignment of Large Language Models. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 13641–13650. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.797
UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535
Vanlehn, K. (2011). The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., N.Gomez, A., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2025). Attention Is All You Need. Shenzhen Medical Academy of Research and Translation. https://doi.org/10.65215/ctdc8e75
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wei, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, J., Qi, D., & Cui, W. (2025). Research on intelligent grading of physics problems based on large language models. Education Sciences, 15(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020116
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2023). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370
Yang, Z., Li, L., Lin, K., Wang, J., Lin, C.-C., Liu, Z., & Wang, L. (2023). The Dawn of LMMs: Preliminary Explorations with GPT-4V(ision). ArXiv Preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.17421
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Zhai, X. (2023). ChatGPT and AI: The Game Changer for Education. Tellus, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31107.37923
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ramadani Khotibul Umam*
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1.png)
