Conference Agenda

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has become a globally recognized diagnostic tool for evaluating educational excellence, capturing significant media attention and serving as a benchmark for the performance of education systems across participating countries (Grey & Morris, 2018). While its impact is widely acknowledged, research has raised concerns about its alignment with national curricula, particularly in systems emphasizing literary heritage over functional literacy, as PISA tests do not always reflect the skills prioritized in school systems (Takayama, 2020). Additionally, PISA test structures often do not align with ministerial-approved teaching materials, creating disparities in student preparedness (Anagnostopoulou et al., 2013; Castello, 2008). Overemphasis on PISA rankings may also overshadow national educational priorities, potentially limiting students' broader development (Singer & Braun, 2018).
Romania’s PISA reading literacy scores have fluctuated over the years, peaking in 2012 before gradually declining and stabilizing at levels similar to those recorded in 2009 by 2022. Alarmingly, 42% of Romanian students fail to reach Level 2 reading proficiency, a crucial threshold for functional literacy. This raises critical questions about the effectiveness of classroom reading exercises and teaching materials in equipping students with essential comprehension skills. Although research confirms that genre variety influences reading outcomes (Halliday & Hasan, 1989), the distribution of functional and literary genres in school texts remains largely unexamined. While PISA results receive significant media attention, academic research on their implications in Romania is still limited. Most studies rely on statistical analyses from official PISA reports, focusing on cross-country comparisons (Motoi, 2018), pedagogical interpretations of the results (Borș, 2022), and the reading practices of 14-year-old students in Romanian schools (Mihăilescu & Sarivan, 2020). However, comprehensive analyses that explore the alignment between PISA tasks and Romanian school curricula remain scarce (Chitez & Rogobete, 2024). Moreover, existing studies rarely engage with the actual test content, limiting their ability to identify specific factors affecting Romania’s performance.
Using a corpus linguistics approach, this study examines how PISA’s reading literacy framework proposed by the OECD (Schleicher, 1999) is reflected in nationally used eighth-grade language textbooks. The objectives of the study are to assess the distribution of functional and non-functional genres in PISA reading tests, to analyse linguistic features correlated with such reading tasks and determine how well they align with the reading competencies emphasized in Romanian teaching materials. The findings are interpreted within the framework of genre-based literacy studies (Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Martin, 1992) and critical literacy theory (Luke, 2000) to examine how the prevalence of functional versus literary genres influences students’ reading competencies, critical thinking skills, and preparedness for international assessments.

Feedback may be experienced as noticeably more emotional in a learner’s first language (L1) than in a second or foreign language (L2). This, according to Barrett’s (2017) Theory of Constructed Emotion, is due to emotions being constructed through prior experiences, bodily sensations, and language. In other words, L1 is typically acquired in emotionally rich contexts, whereas L2 is often learned in more neutral classroom settings, resulting in differences in emotional embodiment and lexicon (Dylman & Bjärtå, 2019; Sianipar et al., 2015; Tang & Ding, 2024). These differences can influence the ability to interpret, regulate, and act on feedback.

The increasing presence of AI in European higher education is reshaping long-established pedagogical practices, including how feedback on student writing is generated, delivered and interpreted. While written feedback has long been recognized as central to learning (Krogstad Svanes & Skagen, 2017; Lyster, 2015; Morris et al., 2021), today, feedback is provided not only by human teachers or students but also by AI systems. The role of student agency in navigating this shift raises new questions about their trust, emotions, and willingness to engage with and act on feedback.

Research shows that emotions play a crucial role in shaping the cognitive and motivational dimensions of learning (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), and that feedback can either support or undermine learning depending on the emotions it evokes (Hattie & Timperley, 2017; Kralova et al., 2025; Pekrun et al., 2023). Work on written corrective feedback demonstrates that learners’ emotional and motivational engagement mediates whether feedback is taken up and acted upon (Cengiz et al., 2025; Zhang& Hyland, 2018).

The present study is guided by the following research questions:

1) How do university students perceive written feedback depending on its source (human teacher vs. AI system) and language (L1 vs. L2)?

2) How do these perceptions shape students’ affective responses, trust, and engagement with feedback?

The study adopts a sociocultural theoretical framework, drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of mediation and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). From this perspective, feedback functions as a mediational tool that supports learning by guiding students’ attention, emotions, and actions. However, rather than treating feedback as a neutral instructional input, in this study, (1) how the perceived source of feedback, and (2) the language in which it is delivered, are treated as active contributors to students’ meaning-making and emotional engagement.

Using experimental methods with fully between-subject’s design, university students with Swedish as L1 and English as L2 read a number of formative feedback samples, produced either by a human teacher or by AI and written in L1 or L2, in a 2x2 fashion. Participants’ affective reactions are measured on 10-point Likert-scales assessing anxiety, confidence, pride, anger, engagement, and trustworthiness. Background information on language use, proficiency, and education is collected to allow meaningful interpretation. A prior validation test with Swedish-speaking university instructors ensured that feedback samples, originally written in English and translated into Swedish, were linguistically natural and pedagogically authentic.

The findings will show whether or not feedback is a neutral pedagogical input or an affectively charged interaction, shaped by students’ language backgrounds and assumptions about authorship. Based on the literature showing differences in emotional reactivity between L1 and L2, we hypothesize that L1 feedback will elicit more affective responses. Perceptions of whether feedback was human- or AI- generated are expected to further influence trust, engagement, and willingness to act. These insights contribute to European and international discussions on AI-mediated feedback and multilingualism. It demonstrates how distributed agency, emotions, and language shape students’ knowing and acting on feedback, with implications for theory and design.

Critical thinking has been widely recognised as a key competence for the twenty-first century, occupying a central position in contemporary debates on the quality, equity and social relevance of education. International organisations and educational research have consistently emphasised its importance for academic achievement, informed decision-making, social participation and employability. Despite this broad consensus, empirical evidence indicates that students’ levels of critical thinking remain generally limited, including in upper secondary education (Halpern, 2014; OECD, 2018).

This paper is developed within the framework of the LINKING project, which adopts an interdisciplinary approach combining education and cognitive neuroscience to investigate the relationship between language competencies and critical thinking. The present contribution focuses specifically on the analysis of questionnaire data collected from students attending public upper secondary schools. Its main objective is to examine how mother tongue competences, school practices and educational contexts are associated with the development of critical thinking, from a sociologically informed perspective.

The theoretical framework integrates contributions from the sociology of education with perspectives from cognitive psychology and language sciences. Since Vygotsky’s foundational work, the relationship between language and thought has been conceptualized as a socially mediated process, in which language operates as a central cultural and cognitive tool shaping higher-order thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). More recent research has explored this relationship mainly in second language learning contexts, particularly in higher education, highlighting the role of language proficiency in students’ performance on critical thinking tasks. Importantly, these studies have questioned culturalist explanations opposing “Western” and “Asian” learners, suggesting instead that linguistic constraints may function as structural barriers to the expression and development of critical thinking (Lun et al., 2010; Paton, 2005).

In contrast, research addressing mother tongue contexts in secondary education remains comparatively scarce. Existing studies tend to focus on measuring critical thinking levels, identifying correlations with variables such as academic achievement or motivation, or assessing the impact of specific pedagogical interventions. Considerably less attention has been paid to the articulation between writing practices, everyday school experiences and students’ dispositions towards critical thinking, particularly from a sociological perspective that takes institutional arrangements, curricular orientations and educational inequalities into account (Arum & Roksa, 2011).

This paper presents preliminary findings from the analysis of questionnaire data collected from a sample of 59 students attending public schools in the Lisbon metropolitan area. The questionnaire gathered information on students’ sociodemographic characteristics, school trajectories, reading and writing practices, perceptions of mother tongue teaching, attitudes towards cognitively demanding tasks, and self-assessed critical thinking competences. The analysis explores patterns of association between these dimensions, aiming to identify both individual and contextual factors that shape the development of critical thinking within school settings.

The findings are discussed in relation to Portuguese educational policies and curricular guidelines for upper secondary education, highlighting the role of the mother tongue as a privileged curricular space for the development of higher-order cognitive skills. By combining empirical evidence with an interdisciplinary and sociologically grounded approach, this paper contributes to European debates on key competences and underscores the importance of context-sensitive strategies for fostering critical thinking in secondary education.

Context of the Study: This study focuses on High School EFL students in Kazakhstan, where English is considered a third or fourth language. In Kazakhstan, students typically learn Kazakh and Russian as their primary languages, with English being introduced later in their education. This multilingual context presents unique challenges for students in mastering English writing skills. The integration of AI tools and the process writing approach aims to address these challenges by providing tailored support and fostering a deeper understanding of the writing process. The integration of AI tools and the process writing approach is not limited to Kazakhstan but is part of a broader trend in educational practices worldwide. In Europe, AI tools are increasingly being used to enhance teaching and learning experiences. For example, the European School Education Platform highlights the transformative potential of AI in education, emphasizing its role in creating engaging and interactive learning environments (European School Education Platform, 2024). AI tools are being utilized to provide personalized feedback, support language learning, and develop digital competencies among students (European School Education Platform, 2024).

Topic: Enhancing High School EFL Students' Writing Skills through AI and Process Writing Approach

Research Questions:

1. In what ways can the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools enhance students' writing proficiency?
2. How can the incorporation of the process writing approach improve the writing outcomes of High School EFL students?

Objective: The primary objective of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and the process writing approach in enhancing the writing skills of High School EFL students. This study aims to determine whether these methods can significantly improve students' writing proficiency, thereby preparing them for higher academic and professional demands.

Theoretical Framework: This research is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of constructivism and socio-cognitive theory. Constructivism posits that learners construct knowledge through experiences and reflections, making the learning process active and dynamic (McLeod, 2024). The socio-cognitive theory emphasizes the role of social interactions and cognitive processes in learning (Nickerson, 2024). By integrating AI tools and the process writing approach, this study aims to create an interactive and reflective learning environment that fosters students' writing development. The integration of AI tools in education is also gaining momentum globally. European educational institutions are at the forefront of incorporating AI to enhance teaching and learning experiences. AI tools are being used to provide personalized feedback, support language learning, and develop digital competencies (European School Education Platform, 2024). This aligns with the constructivist and socio-cognitive frameworks by creating interactive and reflective learning environments that cater to individual student needs.