A systematic review of technology-enhanced assessment of monolingual and bilingual written language comprehension

Throughout the last decade, a traditional language classroom is no longer the only space where formal learning occurs. Paper-based textbooks are being substituted with appealing technology-driven courses featuring web-based classes, hyperlinks, digital presentations, and video materials. This shift towards digital education, which escalated more notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, undoubtedly affects language assessment settings that provide information on one’s language development and literacy, e.g., through gauging comprehension of written language.

The challenges that are brought by written language comprehension assessment are some of the most pressing ones and are universal to general language assessment, among which are validity in interpretation, accountability for results, ethical issues, language tester’s competence, and feedback (Bachman, 2013). Feeble written language comprehension in language learners may become one of the causes of negative developments, among which are financial hardships, crime, and even massive functional illiteracy in societies (Seidenberg, 2013). That is, it may not only impinge on one’s academic success but also lead to problems in social life due to the inability to comprehend what others write and an eventual failure to communicate. In this regard, it is expedient to examine what has been established so far in the literature about the assessment of written language comprehension skills in the digital context. Such factors as word repertoire, motivation, and bilingualism can also affect written language comprehension (Cates-Darnell, 2002). That is why educators need to consider these factors and make use of assessments of multiple types and forms to amply understand the strengths and needs related to the development of written language comprehension in language learners.

Given that bilingualism is one of the factors to be considered while assessing written language comprehension, the research questions are:

RQ1: What are the key findings on monolingual written language comprehension assessment in the literature of the past 15 years (from 2005 to date)?
RQ2: What are the key findings on bilingual written language comprehension assessment in the literature of the past 15 years (from 2005 to date)?
RQ3: According to the same literature, what technology-enhanced tools are used to assess written language comprehension?

The choice of a 15-year period was purposeful. A small study before conducting the review has shown that new theoretical developments on the topic have occurred mostly in the past 15 years and can be accounted for in this brief report (Lotherington, 2020). In addition, many previous review studies covered periods of appropriately 10 to 15 years (e.g., Hwang & Fu, 2019; Zou, Huang, & Xie, 2019).