Claims

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) · qualitative r? · 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

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.