Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:28:06 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 03 B: Language Education in Transition
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Language use, language learning, and identity construction: Two Case Studies 1: University of Iceland, Iceland; 2: University of Iceland, Iceland; 3: University of Akureyru Presenting Author:This article discusses the findings from a qualitative study, which forms part of a larger project, Apart and Apart? Education and Social Inclusion of Refugee Children and Youth in Iceland (ESRCI). Funded by the Icelandic Research Fund. The ESRCI project is the first large-scale study in Iceland to examine the education and social inclusion of Syrian and Iraqi children and youth with refugee backgrounds at pre-, compulsory, and upper secondary school levels. This article examines the experiences of two young women from Syria and Iraq as they learned Icelandic and maintained their heritage language, and the significance that these languages played in their personal and academic lives, particularly in identity formation and academic aspirations. The research question guiding this study is: How do two young Syrian and Iraqi women describe using and learning Icelandic and heritage languages, and what roles do these languages play in their daily lives? Previous studies in Iceland indicate that a sense of physical safety after resettlement does not automatically lead to linguistic and social inclusion among young women with refugee backgrounds. Kristjánsdóttir and Skaptadóttir's (2018) qualitative study of Palestinian women living in a small Icelandic town indicates that, although the women valued the security and hospitality of the Icelandic nation, they experienced social exclusion and loneliness due to limited proficiency in Icelandic and limited daily contact with the Icelandic community. Nouh et al. (2022) report that illiteracy, unaddressed trauma, overwhelming caregiving responsibilities, and emotional exhaustion severely hindered their ability to attend classes and make meaningful progress in learning Icelandic. Across these studies, learning Icelandic emerges as an essential component that structurally constrains and shapes the intersection of disrupted education, caregiving responsibilities, trauma, and social isolation. Similarly, European research indicates that young women with refugee backgrounds sit at the intersection of multilingualism, gender roles, and identity formation (Norton, 2009). Norton (2009) suggests that women with refugee backgrounds use the majority language to claim the right to speak, reposition themselves as students, workers, and citizens, and negotiate gender roles. In Sweden, New Zealand (Svensson, 2024), Scotland (Cox & Phipps, 2022), Greece (Kyrligkitsi & Mouti, 2023), and Australia (Choi et al., 2017), learning the majority language was a form of language capital that allowed Syrian women with rich multilingual repertoires and limited prior schooling to leverage these languages to challenge or reconfigure expectations of being homebound. Taken together, international studies of young women with refugee backgrounds emphasize that language skills and education are vital to achieving future goals, accessing the labor market, and becoming role models. However, their progress is hindered by gender norms, racism, and institutional obstacles that restrict the benefits of their language and educational efforts investments. The framework guiding this study, therefore, draws on Norton’s (2015) model of investment and Bourdieu's (1991) theory of language capital as a lens to understanding Syrian and Iraqi young women’s Icelandic language learning and their heritage language maintenance as they form their identity and future social and academic aspirations in Iceland. Norton’s (2015) model of investment conceptualizes language learning as a socially situated process, shaped by learners’ visions of their future selves and the communities they wish to belong to. Bourdieu’s (1991) theory of language capital further illuminates how different languages hold different social value within specific institutional and social environments, positioning Icelandic as a powerful resource for educational access, social mobility, and long-term opportunity, while Syrian and Iraqi youth's heritage language is undervalued within social and educational language hierarchies. Together, these frameworks enable the study to examine how multilingual identity is negotiated within unequal power structures, highlighting the complex interplay among aspiration, sense of belonging, and the role of multilingual resources in participants' lives Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a qualitative multiple-case design (Stake, 2005) to investigate how two young Syrian and Iraqi women describe their use and learning of Icelandic and heritage languages. Each case is treated as contextually unique, while a cross-case analysis enables identification of shared patterns in language learning and use, identity formation, and multilingual experiences within Icelandic educational and social contexts. Data was collected in two Icelandic municipalities, one urban and one rural, as part of the ESRCI project. The two focal participants were selected through purposive sampling to reflect diverse resettlement contexts, educational histories, and multilingual repertoires. Three complementary methods were used during field work: semi-structured interviews, language portraits, and value cards. The objective was to use agentive, epistemologically equitable tools to enable free discussion of the participants' language experiences on their own terms (Prasad, 2014; Yoshida & Nichols, 2024; McPartland, 2024). Thematic analysis informed by constructive grounded theory (Charmaz, 2016) was used to identify and interpret themes across interviews and visual artifacts. Coding proceeded interactively through initial and thematical stages, followed by cross-case comparisons to examine similarities and differences in participants' experiences. Themes are interpreted through the lens of investement and language capital, allowing attention to aspirations, power dynamics and access to language support. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings So far, findings reveal persistent institutional barriers that shape and often limit the multilingual development of young women from Syria and Iraq, affirming their identities and social and academic aspirations. Within school settings, some youth arrive with limited Modern Standard Arabic literacy and fragmented prior schooling, making it difficult, especially for older students, to use their heritage language as scaffolding for Icelandic language learning, adapt to a school environment, and take a longer time to meet the high demands for Icelandic proficiency set out by educational institutions. Within families, parents value and invest in Syrian and Iraqi youth’s heritage language maintenance and Icelandic language learning, either by paying for online Modern Standard Arabic classes, collaborating with support families, or/and by sending their children to extracurricular activities such as Sunday school at the mosque The anticipated outcomes will not only shed light on the lived experiences of multilingual young women with refugee backgrounds in Iceland but also provide actionable insights for creating an equitable, supportive, and culturally responsive educational environment. References Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press. Choi, J., & Najar, U. (2017). Immigrant and refugee women's resourcefulness in English language classrooms: Emerging possibilities through plurilingualism. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 25(1), 20–37. Cox, S., & Phipps, A. (2022). An ecological, multilingual approach to language learning with newly reunited refugee families in Scotland. International Journal of Educational Research, 115, 101967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101967 Kristjánsdóttir, E. S., & Skaptadóttir, U. D. (2019). “I’ll Always Be a Refugee”: The Lived Experience of Palestinian Refugee Women of Moving to a Small Society in Iceland. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 17(3), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2018.1499065 Kyrligkitsi, A., & Mouti, A. (2023). Multilingual Needs of Adult Migrants and Refugees—Linguistic Portraits and Identity Texts in the L2 Greek Classroom: A Case Study in a Non-Formal Educational Setting. Societies. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13080186. McPartlan, D. (2024). Young people as co-researchers in schools: A collaborative research methodology which benefits young people and school culture. Pastoral Care in Education, 43(4) 520–539. https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/7809/1/McPartlan_YoungPeopleAs.pdf Norton, B. (2015). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters. Nouh, F., Hjálmsdóttir, A. S., & Meckl, M. (2022). Arab Muslim Immigrant Women in Iceland: Immigration experiences and future expectations. Nordicum-Mediterraneum, 17(1). Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative case research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Svensson, H. (2024). Language learning, gender, and education: Understanding the agency and affordances of refugee-background women with emergent literacy. Linguistics and Education, 81, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2024.101309 Yoshida, R., & Nichols, S. (2024). The multiple resources of refugee students: A language portrait inquiry. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21(1), 379 –399. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2022.2026359 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Tutor Questioning as a Didactic Practice in One-on-One Online EFL Instruction: A Critical Realist Analysis of Teaching–Learning Dynamic University Of Nottingham Ningbi China, China, People's Republic of Presenting Author:Topic Teacher questioning is a central didactic practice through which teaching-learning relations are organized, mediated, and rendered visible in instructional interactions (Uştuk & Hu, 2024). Within didactic research, questioning has been widely examined in face-to-face and whole-class contexts, often as a means of structuring participation, eliciting understanding, and guiding learning processes. However, comparatively little is known about how questioning operates in online one-on-one instruction, where interaction is highly individualized, temporally compressed, and technologically mediated (Eleazar & Straub, 2012; Hrastinski et al, 2021; Jopling, 2011). This gap is particularly significant in the context of private supplementary tutoring (Bray, 2018; 2022), where one-on-one synchronous lessons have become a dominant format. In such settings, questioning is not merely a pedagogical technique but a primary means through which teaching unfolds, and learning opportunities are constructed. This study, therefore, investigates how online EFL tutors deploy questioning strategies in synchronous one-on-one sessions and how these strategies shape tutor–student interaction. Research Questions The study addresses the following research questions:
Objectives The primary objective of this research is to provide a multi-layered understanding of questioning as a didactic practice in online one-on-one EFL teaching. Specifically, this study aims to: (a) systematically document observable questioning practices in online one-on-one EFL instruction; (b) identify empirical tendencies linking questioning features to student response characteristics; and (c) explain how and why questioning operates in digitally mediated, individualized teaching contexts. Rather than proposing an entirely new concept of questioning, the study seeks to refine existing didactic understandings by examining how established questioning constructs operate under one-on-one online conditions. In doing so, it extends didactic research on questioning beyond traditional classroom formats and contributes to a more context-sensitive theorization of instructional interaction. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework The study adopts Critical Realism (CR) as philosophical grounding, which enables a stratified analysis of pedagogical phenomena across the empirical, actual, and real domains (Mukumbang, 2023). Through this lens, observable tutor questioning practices constitute the empirical basis of analysis, while recurring interactional patterns identified across tutoring sessions indicate regularities at the actual level of instructional practice. The real layer is addressed through retroductive inference: from repeated interactional solutions to similar contingencies, the study infers practice-based mechanisms shaped by institutional arrangements, technological constraints, and didactic pacing demands. Critical Realism thus informs the study's progression from surface-level patterns to deeper structural explanations of tutor questioning strategies. Analytically, the study draws on established classifications of teacher questioning, including distinctions in question openness (Blosser, 2000; Hargreaves, 1984), functional types (Farrell, 2009; Ellis, 1994; Long & Sato, 1983), and cognitive demand (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). These constructs are analyzed descriptively and statistically using established didactic frameworks, such as the initiation–response–follow–up (IRF) cycle. Critical Realism is then used at the explanatory stage to structure interpretation across three analytical levels: observable practices, recurring interactional tendencies, and inferred instructional mechanisms, through retroductive reasoning (Nichol et al, 2023). In this way, the study aligns with contemporary didactic theory while offering a contextual re-theorization of questioning in individualized online instruction. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a mixed-methods design (Creswell, 2020; Dörnyei, 2007), combining quantitative classroom discourse analysis with qualitative explanatory inquiry. The data consist of 30 video-recorded one-on-one synchronous online EFL tutoring sessions conducted in China. Each session lasts approximately one hour, comprising nearly 300 turns of tutor-student interaction and 200 teacher questions on average, capturing the essence of how tutors enhance engagement through diverse questioning techniques. Tutor questions were identified as discrete analytical units based on predefined operational criteria and coded using a multi-dimensional framework encompassing: (1) question openness (closed, semi-open, open); (2) functional question type (e.g. echoic, epistemic); and (3) cognitive depth (lower and higher order). Student responses following each tutor question were coded for response language choices, linguistic complexity, correctness, and cognitive level. These response features were not treated as direct measures of learning outcomes but as interactional indicators of learning-related engagement and cognitive orientation. To address RQ1, frequency counts and proportional analyses were conducted to establish the distributional patterns of tutor questioning practices. To address RQ2, statistical association analyses, including correlation tests and multivariate models, were employed to examine relationships between questioning features and student response characteristics. RQ3 and RQ4 were addressed through a combined conversation-analysis and discourse-analysis approaches to instructional interaction. Analytically, the study drew on conversation analysis to conduct fine-grained, turn-by-turn examination of extended IRF sequences, focusing on how tutor questions were sequentially positioned, how students oriented to them in their responses, and how tutors subsequently shaped interaction through confirmation, reformulation, scaffolding, or re-questioning. Rather than relying on tutor self-reports, the explanatory analysis focused on identifying practice-based instructional mechanisms through systematic examination of these recurring interactional patterns. Drawing on the preceding conversation-analytic and discourse-analytic findings, specific interactional contingencies, such as student hesitation, minimal or incorrect responses, and disruptions to task progression, were identified based on observable sequential features, including pauses, repair initiations, and tutor follow-up moves. These contingencies were then examined across episodes to trace how tutors recurrently responded to similar interactional problems through comparable questioning practices, such as reformulating questions, narrowing question scope, or deploying scaffolded re-questioning sequences. On this basis, explanatory mechanisms were inferred retroductively from the repeated use of similar interactional solutions under comparable instructional conditions, rather than from tutors’ articulated beliefs or intentions. This explanatory move is informed by a Critical Realist view of causation, in which instructional mechanisms may be inferred from recurring practices and contextual conditions. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study demonstrates that questioning practices in one-on-one synchronous online EFL tutoring are characterized by a predominance of closed and lower-order questions, alongside the selective deployment of open and cognitively demanding questions in specific instructional moments. Quantitative analyses are anticipated to reveal systematic associations between question openness and cognitive depth and students’ response length, complexity, and cognitive level, indicating recurring patterns in how instructional interaction unfolds in this highly individualized setting. Beyond these empirical regularities, the study shows that the effects of tutor questioning are mediated by interactional dynamics distinctive to one-on-one online instruction. These include rapid turn-taking, sustained tutor control over topic progression, and the use of real-time scaffolding to maintain instructional flow. Through analysis of interactional episodes, the study identifies how tutors’ questioning practices respond to immediate contingencies of the interaction, such as student hesitation, task demands, and the need to advance instructional objectives within limited time frames. Importantly, the explanation of why particular questioning practices recur is grounded in practice-based and structurally inferred mechanisms, rather than tutors’ self-reported beliefs or intentions. The findings suggest that questioning practices are shaped by the didactic logic embedded in one-on-one online instruction itself, including the structural features of synchronous platforms, the individualized nature of tutor–student relations, and the instructional demands of maintaining engagement and task progression. By integrating these findings within a Critical Realist explanatory framework, the study contributes to didactics by offering a multi-layered account of questioning as a pedagogical practice in digitally mediated, individualized learning environments. It shows how observable questioning practices give rise to recurring interactional tendencies, which can be explained by underlying instructional and structural mechanisms. The study thus provides conceptually transferable insights for didactic research on teaching and learning beyond language education, particularly in contexts of online tutoring, mentoring, and other forms of individualized instruction. References Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Publishers. Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions (2nd ed.). NSTA Press. Bray, M. (2018). Blurring boundaries: The growing visibility, evolving forms and complex implications of private supplementary tutoring. Orbis Scholae, 4(2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.12 Bray, M. (2022) Teachers as tutors, and tutors as teachers: blurring professional boundaries in changing eras, Teachers and Teaching, 28:1, 64-77, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2021.2019700 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Ellis, R. (1994). Second language acquisition research and teacher development: The case of teachers’ questions. In D. Li, D. Mahony, & J. Richards (Eds.), Exploring second language teacher development (pp. 175–194). Hong Kong: City University. Eleazar Vasquez, I., & Straub, C. (2012). Online Instruction for K-12 Special Education: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Special Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700303 Farrell, T. S. C. (2009). Talking, listening, and teaching: A guide to classroom communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Hargreaves, D. H. (1984). Teachers’ questions: Open, closed, and half‐open. Educational Research, 26(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188840260108 Hrastinski, S., Stenbom, S., Benjaminsson, S., & Jansson, M. (2021). Identifying and exploring the effects of different types of tutor questions in individual online synchronous tutoring in mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1583674 Jopling, M. (2012). 1:1 online tuition: A review of the literature from a pedagogical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00441.x Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and Functions of Teachers’ Questions. In H. Seliger, & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 268-286). Rowley, MA: Newsbury House. Mukumbang, F. C. (2023). Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research., 17(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211049847 Nichol, A. J., Hastings, C., & Elder-Vass, D. (2023). Putting philosophy to work: developing the conceptual architecture of research projects. Journal of Critical Realism, 22(3), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2023.2217054 Uştuk, Ö., Hu, G. Teacher Questioning for Engaging EMI: A Quest for the Holy Grail?. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 34, 1101–1112 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00924-4 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Secondary Teachers Integrating Generative AI to Support EAL Students: Evidence of Impact on Student Learning in Mainstream Classes Latrobe university, Australia Presenting Author:Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly regarded as a transformative technology (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Kilian et al., 2023), prompting growing academic attention towards understanding how teachers integrate this technology into teaching and learning practices (Holmes et al., 2019). Research indicates that the successful integration of GenAI in school contexts depends not only on the affordances of the technology, but on how teachers perceive, adapt, and mediate its use in classroom contexts (Prestridge, 2024). The aim of this paper is to explore how teachers integrate GenAI into their teaching practices in mainstream classrooms to support students with English as an Additional Language (EAL) and to consider the evidence regarding its impact on these students’ learning outcomes.
Globally, education systems are increasingly implementing GenAI through policy, funding, and digital infrastructure reforms (OECD, 2023). In Australia, for example, one in five schools reports increased use of GenAI-related technologies (Williams, 2025). Such rapid growth reflects education systems’ recognition of GenAI’s potential to strengthen learning outcomes, while reinforcing its position as a transformative force within the education sector (Kilian et al., 2023). GenAI tools capable of generating text, images, explanations, and personalised feedback are becoming increasingly integrated into classroom teaching, particularly as schools explore their capacity to support differentiation, scaffolded learning, and student engagement (Chiu et al., 2023), yet their impact remains uneven across learner groups.
Within educational research, GenAI is not only regarded as a technological innovation, but also a pedagogical resource with particular relevance for EAL students (Kilian et al., 2023). Studies indicate that GenAI’s supports scaffolding (Hsiao & Chang, 2023; Woo et al., 2023), differentiation (Huang et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2025; Tai & Chen, 2024), and targeted language support (Nazari et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), enabling improved access to curriculum content and supporting language proficiency. However, the extent to which EAL students benefit from GenAI depends on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, instructional approaches, digital competence, and confidence in using GenAI responsibly and accurately (Chiu et al., 2023; Fawns, 2022; Gibbons, 2014; Mancusi, 2024; Prestridge, 2024). Without these capabilities, GenAI risks reinforcing educational inequities, particularly for EAL students who require explicit, linguistically informed scaffolding.
In this paper, I draw on the analysis of 11 empirical studies to explore how teachers implement GenAI in mainstream classrooms that include EAL students, and how these practices shape learning and language outcomes. The systematic review of literature addressed two key questions: (1) How do secondary mainstream teachers integrate GenAI into their teaching practices to support EAL students?” and (2) “What empirical evidence evidence exists regarding GenAI’s impact on student learning?”. Across the literature, student outcomes were linked to teachers’ pedagogical decision-making, professional confidence, and ability to integrate GenAI within purposeful classroom practices (Chiu et al., 2023; Tai & Chen, 2024; Khan et al., 2024; Woo et al., 2024). Teachers, therefore, play a central role in shaping students’ engagement with GenAI, ensuring its use is safe, culturally responsive, and aligned with learning goals.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A systematic review methodology was selected to ensure the rigour and reliability of the study’s conclusions, and to minimise bias throughout the review process (Gough et al., 2017). Systematic reviews are appropriate for synthesising evidence in evolving fields such as generative AI (GenAI). To further promote transparency and accuracy, the review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework (Page et al., 2021). The literature search was conducted in April 2025 using three electronic databases: ProQuest Education, Scopus, and EBSCOhost (ERIC). All databases were selected because they provided a range of peer-reviewed literature across relevant areas in education, technology integration, and language learning. This ensured comprehensive coverage of studies related to GenAI, EAL instruction, and mainstream secondary teaching contexts. Given the recent integration of GenAI in education, the search was restricted to studies published between 2015 and 2025. Only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included, ensuring academic quality and methodological rigour. Search terms were developed and included combinations of keywords related to artificial intelligence, teacher, learner, secondary school, and EAL. Following duplicate removal, titles and abstracts were screened for relevance by the first author in the first phase of screening. In the second screening phase, two additional authors independently reviewed 93 titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. This process resulted in 21 potentially eligible studies, comprising: ProQuest (n = 9), Scopus (n = 5), and EBSCOhost (ERIC) (n = 7). Studies excluded at this stage did not sufficiently address classroom-based GenAI use or its relevance to EAL student learning. Minor discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion, after which the lead author conducted a final consistency check. The final step involved full-text screening of the 21 articles, all of which were read in their entirety to determine whether they presented empirical findings and explicitly addressed the research questions. Several studies were excluded at the full-text stage for clearly defined reasons, mostly because they focused on policy, theoretical, ethical, or organisational perspectives rather than teachers’ classroom practices or EAL student learning outcomes (e.g., Grieve et al., 2024; Haim et al., 2022; Pourdana & Tavassoli, 2022). This process resulted in a final sample of 11 empirical studies. These studies were analysed using narrative synthesis, which involved systematically comparing and interpreting findings across studies to identify patterns. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This review examined how secondary mainstream teachers use GenAI to support EAL students and synthesised the empirical evidence regarding how it influences EAL students’ learning. The findings indicate that when classroom teachers purposefully integrate GenAI into their teaching practices, it has the potential to improve EAL students’ language acquisition, strengthen literacy skills, and promote more flexible and adaptive learning. However, many studies also emphasised the existing challenges, including teachers’ limited digital literacy, lack of confidence, and reliance on GenAI for low-level tasks. Although several studies indicate that GenAI can support EAL students’ learning through differentiation, scaffolding, and adaptive language learning, few have examined specifically how these strategies are most effective for EAL learners. Given that EAL students require explicit linguistic and cognitive support, future research should investigate how GenAI can be aligned with established EAL pedagogical frameworks to improve learning outcomes. Much of the research focused on basic GenAI applications, such as translation and grammar correction, rather than deeper pedagogical uses. As a result, there remains limited empirical understanding of how GenAI may support language development, differentiation, or subject-specific learning. This gap highlights the need for research that moves beyond AI-based applications to examine teachers’ instructional decision-making and its role in improve technological, linguistic, and academic outcomes for EAL students. The findings of this review suggest that GenAI can be meaningfully and effectively integrated into mainstream classrooms when teachers are supported through targeted professional learning, clearly defined pedagogical frameworks, and opportunities for ongoing collaborative reflection. From a practical perspective, the development of teachers’ GenAI pedagogical knowledge, together with the ethical, critical, and responsible use of GenAI, should be embedded into teachers’ ongoing professional practice. Such an approach ensures that GenAI complements rather than replaces effective teaching practices and supports the linguistic, cognitive, and learning needs of EAL students. References Chiu, T. K. F., Moorhouse, B. L., Chai, C. S., & Ismailov, M. (2023). Teacher support and motivation with AI chatbots; Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., et al. (2023). ChatGPT and educational implications; Fawns, T. (2022). Entangled pedagogy beyond technology; Gibbons, P. (2014). Scaffolding language learning; Gough, D. (2017). Introduction to systematic reviews; Grieve, A., Rouhshad, A., Petraki, E., Bechaz, A., & Dai, D. W. (2024). Ethical views on AI translation; Haim, O., Orland-Barak, L., & Goldberg, T. (2022). Linguistic repertoires of bilingual teachers; Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education; Hsiao, J.-C., & Chang, J. S. (2024). AI tools for EFL reading and writing; Huang, A. Y. Q., Lu, O. H. T., & Yang, S. J. H.(2023). AI-enabled personalised learning; Khan, M. A., Kurbonova, O., Abdullaev, D., Radie, A. H., & Basim, N.(2024). AI-assisted assessment for young learners; Kilian, K. A., Ventura, C. J., & Bailey, M. M. (2023). Risks and control of advanced AI; Lin, C.-H., Zhou, K., Li, L., & Sun, L. (2025). Generative AI and multimodal composition; Mancusi, L. (2024). AI-supported vocabulary learning; Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). AI writing assistants in higher education; OECD (2023). Digital education outlook; Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 guidelines; Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022). E-portfolio assessment and writing; Tai, T.-Y., & Chen, H. H.-J. (2024). Intelligent assistants and EFL speaking; Prestridge, S. (2024). Pedagogical beliefs and disruptive technologies; Woo, D. J., Wang, Y., Susanto, H., & Guo, K. (2023). Idea generation with AI tools; Woo, D. J., Wang, D., Guo, K., & Susanto, H. (2024). Teaching EFL writing with ChatGPT; Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K. F., Lee, M., Sanusi, I. T., Dai, Y., & Chai, C. S. (2022). Self-determination design for inclusive AI. | ||