Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitativer?·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Participants particularly noted the absence of live, real-time feedback while playing, and that using the pipeline required knowing an audio-processing program. → Yakup Aksoy 2026
q2 i? Some students encountered incorrect or inconsistent information, such as a wrong string name that the system corrected after being notified. → Yakup Aksoy 2026 (2)
Evidence¶
Yakup Aksoy 2026¶
Yakup Aksoy. (2026). Yapay zekâ, yapay zekâ söyle bana: Keman eğitiminde yapay zekâ destekli geri bildirimin entonasyona etkisine yönelik bir model çalışması. Online Journal of Music Sciences, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.31811/ojomus.1897062
q2 · i? · qualitative · r?
Qualitative findings from participant interviews and diaries in the weaknesses (Zayıf Yönler) section. Students wished the system "canlı çalarken tepki verseydi" and noted economic access difficulties; no effect size applies.
"K1, “Keşke canlı çalarken tepki verseydi, daha etkili olurdu” derken; Mevcut çalışmada seslerin Cubase programı ile işlenerek yapay zekaya yorumlatılması yolu izlendiği için K10, “Yapay zekâyı kullanmak için ses işleme programı bilmemiz gerekiyor” ifadesiyle ekonomik yönden erişim zorluklarını vurgulamıştır."
Yakup Aksoy 2026 (2)¶
Yakup Aksoy. (2026). Yapay zekâ, yapay zekâ söyle bana: Keman eğitiminde yapay zekâ destekli geri bildirimin entonasyona etkisine yönelik bir model çalışması. Online Journal of Music Sciences, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.31811/ojomus.1897062
q2 · i? · qualitative · r?
Same qualitative dataset; the discussion also notes ChatGPT's wrong string name ("Si teli") was listed among weaknesses and that the interface warns "ChatGPT hata yapabilir. Önemli bilgileri kontrol edin". No effect size applies.
"K12, “Si teli dedi ama kemanda si teli yok, sonra düzeltti” diyerek hata örneği verirken, yapay zekâların yanlış yorumlamasını da tutarsızlık olarak değerlendirilmiştir."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In early prototype testing, AI-generated visuals were the main barrier to real-world readiness, rated lower than text and narration — related
- During spring 2020 remote instruction, internet connectivity and hardware/software problems interfered with course participation for large shares of undergraduates — related
- Academic integrity, professional development, and equity concerns about AI span all surveyed units, though interpreted differently — related
- In informal virtual programs, technology access was the first and most significant barrier to participating in Hero Elementary — related
- Motivation, internet connectivity, and hardware/software problems were widespread challenges in remote STEM courses — related
- Students report negative experiences with ChatGPT including inaccurate outputs, lack of emotional connection, and risk of overreliance, which constrain competence — related
- Students remained cautious about relying on GenAI throughout the creative process, citing imperfect outputs and perceived loss of ownership — related
- AI in adult education risks reinforcing existing inequalities via the digital divide, particularly for rural, low-income, and marginalized learners — related
- Learner-level challenges of ChatGPT in STEAM IBL include over-reliance, inaccurate or irrelevant feedback, conceptual confusion, and diminished creativity — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
genai-feedback-weaknesses-realtime-and-errors |
title |
Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs |
description |
Students identified weaknesses in the AI feedback model: lack of real-time feedback, software/economic access barriers, and occasional incorrect or inconsistent outputs |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — yakup-aksoy-2026, yakup-aksoy-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.