<![CDATA[Technology-supported EFL studies often report engagement, motivation, usefulness, and perceived learning gains. These outcomes matter, but they do not necessarily show that students can evaluate evidence, question sources, detect bias, or defend a judgment. This study audits the constructs measured in five project manuscripts involving Blooket, Quizizz, Canva, Kahoot!, and Wayground. The corpus represents 133 participant-records across manuscripts, which were not pooled because the samples, instruments, and contexts differ. A comparative secondary construct audit classified each manuscript against seven dimensions: technology acceptance, engagement, language processing, feedback and self-monitoring, social-dialogic interaction, multimodal meaning-making, and epistemic critical reading. Engagement was directly represented in all five manuscripts. Acceptance, language processing, and feedback were also common. Social-dialogic interaction appeared directly in only one manuscript, multimodal meaning-making in one, and none directly measured source credibility, evidence quality, bias, counterargument, or justified critical judgment. The pattern suggests a measurement gap rather than a failure of the technologies themselves. Positive learner experience is best treated as an enabling condition, not a proxy for critical reading. The study proposes a Critical Reading Technology Measurement Framework that separates acceptance and engagement from comprehension, monitoring, dialogue, multimodal interpretation, and epistemic evaluation. Future technology-supported EFL research should pair perception measures with performance tasks that make critical-reading operations observable and assessable]]>
Copyrights © 2024
