This classroom-based case study examines how an AI-mediated Socratic dialogue, implemented through ChatGPT, can support students’ engagement and perceived learning in undergraduate thermodynamics. Conducted in a first-year engineering physics course at a private university in northern Mexico, the activity invited small student groups to interact with structured prompts designed to promote inquiry, collaboration, and reflective reasoning about the adiabatic process. Rather than functioning as a source of answers, ChatGPT was intentionally positioned as a mediating scaffold for Socratic questioning, prompting students to articulate, examine, and refine their reasoning. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining a 10-item Likert-scale survey with construct-level statistical analysis of two focal dimensions: perception of learning and engagement, including an exploratory comparison by gender. Results indicated consistently high levels of perceived learning and engagement across the cohort, with average scores above 4.5 out of 5. At the construct level, no statistically significant gender differences were observed, although a single item revealed higher perceived learning among female students. Overall, the findings suggest that the educational value of ChatGPT in this context emerged from its integration within a Socratic, inquiry-oriented pedagogical design, rather than from the technology alone. These results contribute to ongoing discussions on the responsible and pedagogically grounded integration of generative AI in physics education and align with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education).

This study examines pseudoscientific beliefs among university students, focusing on gender and faculty differences at a private university in northeastern Mexico. Data were collected from 794 students (38% male, 62% female) across six academic disciplines using the Pseudoscience Endorsement Scale (PES). Statistical analyses included the Kruskal–Wallis test to assess group differences and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for pairwise comparisons. Results revealed significant gender differences (p < 0.001), with female students scoring higher. Scores also varied significantly across faculties (p < 0.001), with students in Business and Arts, Architecture, and Design exhibiting the highest levels of endorsement of pseudoscientific beliefs. In contrast, those in Engineering and Technology scored the lowest. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational interventions to mitigate pseudoscientific beliefs and enhance students’ understanding of STEM fields. The study aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4, which advocates for inclusive, equitable, and quality education that fosters critical thinking and lifelong learning. It emphasizes the importance of accounting for gender and academic background when addressing students’ belief systems.

This study examines the validity of the Spanish version of the Scientific Epistemic Beliefs (SEB) Questionnaire among university students in northeastern Mexico, considering multiple sources of evidence. The SEB measures four dimensions of epistemic beliefs: Source, Certainty, Development, and Justification. Data from pilot (n = 150) and main (n = 791) samples were analyzed using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (EFA, CFA), Item Response Theory (IRT), and Differential Item Functioning (DIF). The results provided evidence consistent with a four-factor model, with adequate internal consistency (α = 0.85) and acceptable-to-good fit indices (CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.071) for a 22-item scale. IRT analyses indicated strong item discrimination, with Source and Certainty covering a broad range of the latent trait, while Development and Justification were more informative at lower to moderate levels. DIF analyses indicated negligible differences in item functioning by gender and academic semester, with minor DIF detected across faculties. Non-parametric analyses identified statistically significant but small differences, with females scoring slightly higher across all dimensions and variations also observed across academic semesters and faculties. Descriptive comparisons with published international data provide contextual evidence within a broader cross-cultural framework.