Reading With, Not Through, AI: A Human-Centered Framework for Multimodal Literature Education
PDF

Keywords

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI)
Generative AI
Multimodal AI
Literature education
AI literacy
Close reading
Student agency
Visual hallucination

How to Cite

Mašát, M. (2026). Reading With, Not Through, AI: A Human-Centered Framework for Multimodal Literature Education. Review of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(i), e01377. https://doi.org/10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.1377

Abstract

Background: Multimodal generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can process written language, images, typography, layout, and interface-like elements, creating opportunities for literature education but also new epistemic risks. Vision-capable models may combine accurate recognition, plausible inference, and invented visual detail in a single fluent interpretation. The central challenge is not access to multimodal information, but disciplined separation of observation, inference, interpretation, and human judgment.

Objective: This perspective paper develops Multimodal Evidence-Bounded Interpretation (MEBI), a human-centered framework designed to preserve close reading, interpretive plurality, evidential accountability, and student authorship when multimodal GenAI is used with literary texts.

Methods: The study uses an evidence-informed conceptual synthesis and a worked multimodal case. Recent peer-reviewed research on GenAI-supported learning, student agency, literary analysis, multimodal AI, and visual hallucination is integrated with established scholarship on multimodality and graphic narrative and with human-centered AI guidance. The framework is demonstrated through selected scan locations from Nora Dåsnes’s Czech graphic narrative Na kočičí svědomí (2024).

Results: MEBI comprises five design propositions—human-first encounter, modal traceability, observation–inference separation, preserved interpretive plurality, and human adjudication and authorship—and a five-phase sequence: Encounter, Describe, Hypothesize, Audit, and Adjudicate & Author. Five evidence tags track verbal, image, sequential-spatial, typographic-graphic, and digital-interface evidence. A worked case, classroom sequence, evidence ledger, and assessment heuristic operationalize the framework.

Conclusion: MEBI positions AI as a generator of descriptions, hypotheses, counter-readings, and questions rather than as interpretive authority. It offers a researchable design for multimodal literature education while requiring empirical validation across genres, languages, age groups, and educational contexts.

https://doi.org/10.37497/rev.artif.intell.educ.v7ii.1377
PDF

References

Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(26), e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122

Bellot, A. R., Gutiérrez-Colón Plana, M., & Baran, K. A. (2025). Redefining literature education: The role of ChatGPT in undergraduate courses. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35, 3185–3201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00497-3

Chan, C. K. Y., & Wong, H. Y. H. (2025). Assessing the ability of generative AI in English literary analysis through Bloom’s Taxonomy. Discover Computing, 28, 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-025-09572-8

Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential images. Bloomsbury Academic.

Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education, 210, 104967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967

Dåsnes, N. (2024). Na kočičí svědomí (J. Jindřišková, Trans.). Albatros. (Original work published 2020 as Ti kniver i hjertet, Aschehoug.)

Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224

European Commission. (n.d.). AI literacy – Questions & answers. Shaping Europe’s digital future. Retrieved August 9, 2026, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X., & Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(2), 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544

Guan, T., Liu, F., Wu, X., Xian, R., Li, Z., Liu, X., Wang, X., Chen, L., Huang, F., Yacoob, Y., Manocha, D., & Zhou, T. (2024).

HallusionBench: An advanced diagnostic suite for entangled language hallucination and visual illusion in large vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 14375–14385). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.01363

Huang, W., Liu, H., Guo, M., & Gong, N. Z. (2024). Visual hallucinations of multi-modal large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 (pp. 9614–9631). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.573

Istrate, O. (2026). Generative AI and multimodal pedagogy: Implications for teaching, learning, and assessment. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1828953. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1828953

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

Mašát, M., Kopecký, K., Krejčí, V., & Voráč, D. (2026). Anchored to the text, owned by the student: A policy & practice review for generative AI in literature education. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1805617. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1805617

Miao, F., & Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000391104

Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693

Mikkonen, K. (2017). The narratology of comic art. Routledge.

Painter, C., Martin, J. R., & Unsworth, L. (2013). Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books. Equinox.

Sanz-Tejeda, A., Domínguez-Oller, J. C., Baldaquí-Escandell, J. M., Gómez-Díaz, R., & García-Rodríguez, A. (2026). The impact of generative AI on academic reading and writing: A synthesis of recent evidence (2023–2025). Frontiers in Education, 10, 1711718. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1711718

Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press.

Torres Vico, M., & Fernández-Herrero, J. (2026). Impact of large multimodal language models (MLMs) with screen-vision in higher education: A quasi-experimental study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-026-10006-7

Yan, L., Greiff, S., Lodge, J. M., & Gašević, D. (2025). Distinguishing performance gains from learning when using generative AI. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4, 435–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00467-5

Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., & Li, L. D. (2024). The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 11, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7