The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing
Open accessAbstract
Recently, generative artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots such as ChatGPT and Bing Chat have garnered increasing attention on a global scale. Previous studies have focused mostly on the influence of generative AI on writing while few researchers have investigated how generative AI can facilitate students' multimodal writing process. To fill in this gap, we explored the generative AI-assisted composing processes of two groups of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers over two weeks in this qualitative study. One group completed a multimodal PowerPoint (PPT) project, and the other group completed a traditional argumentative essay project. Our data consist of students’ screen recordings with think-aloud protocols, final multimodal texts, and post-project interviews. Our analysis showed different patterns in text production across the two groups. Students in the PPT group tended to construct more bridge texts and examples to corroborate their sub-claims in the hierarchical order. They also inclined to borrow the summarized search results from the Bing Chat to expand texts for their PPT slides. With regard to image generation for PPT slides, descriptions of AI images from ChatGPT were used as effective prompts to generate AI images from Bing Image Creator. Moreover, students were interested in producing and refining AI images following the recommended prompts by Bing Chat. They also evaluated these AI images from different perspectives. We conclude the study with a discussion on the pedagogical implications and suggestions for further study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Unlike static writing tools, GAI systems function as interactive partners capable of simulating rhetorical genres and providing immediate adaptive feedback (Dergaa et al., 2023;Liu et al., 2024;Zhang et al., 2025c).”
From Generative AI, visual scaffolds, and metacognition in EFL writing (2026) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reading images: the grammar of visual design
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-1950 · Cited by 8,742
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
An introduction to functional grammar
Morley, G. D. (1986) · Lingua · doi:10.1016/0024-3841(86)90084-7 · Cited by 2,785
What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x · Cited by 2,003
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
A cognitive process theory of writing
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.58680/ccc198115885 · Cited by 1,025
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24750 · Cited by 919
Modeling and remodeling writing
Hayes, J. R. (2012) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088312451260 · Cited by 893
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Kang, 2023, EFL adolescent learners' perceptions of digital multimodal composing tasks and task outcomes: A longitudinal study, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 340, 10.1111/ijal.12473 · doi:10.1111/ijal.12473
- Kim, 2023, Comparing monomodal traditional writing and digital multimodal composing in EAP classrooms: Linguistic performance and writing development, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101247 · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101247
- Macken-Horarik, 2004, Interacting with the multimodal text: Reflections on image and verbiage in art express, Visual Communication, 3, 5, 10.1177/1470357204039596 · doi:10.1177/1470357204039596
- Mehdi, 2023, Confirmed: The new Bing runs on OpenAI's GPT-4, The Official Microsoft Blog
- Mehdi, 2023, Create images with your words-Bing Image Creator comes to the new Bing, The Official Microsoft Blog
- Mehdi, 2023, Reinventing search with a new AI-powered Microsoft Bing and Edge, your copilot for the web, The Official Microsoft Blog
- Tai, 2023, Exploring the potential and limitations of ChatGPT for academic peer-reviewed writing: Addressing linguistic injustice and ethical concerns, Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 17, T16
- Unsworth, 2006, Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5, 55
- Zhan, 2023, Multimodal image synthesis and editing: A survey and taxonomy, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1
Cited by
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531
Exploring students' perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 · Cited by 438
Wang, H., Dang, A., Wu, Z., & Mac, S. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100326 · Cited by 272
Guo, K., Pan, M., Li, Y., & Lai, C. (2024) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100962 · Cited by 173
Generative AI (GenAI) in the language classroom: A systematic review
Lee, S., Choe, H., Zou, D., & Jeon, J. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2498537 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, M., Zhang, L. J., & Biebricher, C.
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 211
- Pages
- 104977
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4389804697
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 66.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
- Funders
- University of Auckland
- Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
- China Scholarship Council (202206090014)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977
- The paper
- Liu, M., Zhang, L. J., & Biebricher, C. (2024). Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
