IELTS Research Reports

IntroductionFinally, it is interesting to note that the original proposal for this study had to be modified when theresearchers found that their early findings conflicted with initial assumptions and when fewer respondentswith English test scores were subsequently available than originally anticipated; their reflections ondealing with this unforeseen development are a valuable aspect of this report and may be instructive forothers embarking on research of a similar nature.4 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY IN THE IELTS ACADEMIC READING TEST:A COMPARISON OF READING REQUIREMENTS IN IELTS TEST ITEMSAND IN UNIVERSITY STUDYTim Moore, Janne Morton and Steve Price set out to investigate the suitability of IELTS AcademicReading test items in relation to the reading and general literacy requirements of university study inan Australian context. They approached this through a survey of reading tasks in the two domains ofthe IELTS test and university study, as well as via interviews with academic staff across a range ofacademic disciplines. A taxonomic framework was constructed to analyse IELTS and university-basedreading tasks, with a focus on two dimensions of potential difference: level of engagement, referring tothe level of text with which a reader needs to engage to respond to a task (local versus global); and typeof engagement, referring to the way (or ways) a reader needs to engage with texts on the task (literalversus interpretative). The study sought to make explicit the task demands of reading items in the IELTSReading test so as to understand the types of interaction being provoked between text and reader, and theextent to which these reflect the types of reading tasks and activities required of students on universityprograms. This study therefore has a strong construct validity focus, and it adds to similar researchundertaken in the UK on reading and IELTS by Professor Cyril Weir and his colleagues at the Universityof Bedfordshire (see IELTS Research Reports, Volume 9, 2009).The findings of this study are encouraging for the IELTS test producers inasmuch as they provide furtherempirical evidence of a clear correspondence between the reading requirements in the IELTS AcademicReading test and some of those needed for academic study in the world beyond the test. Similaritywas observed in those types of reading requiring a mainly local and literal engagement with material,i.e. a basic comprehension of relatively small textual units. Most of the IELTS reading test items wereobserved to reflect features of reading tasks found in the corpus of academic texts gathered for the study,texts which had as their focus the need for students to understand certain discipline-based concepts. Atthe same time, however, there was evidence of some divergence between the two domains, with a varietyof reading tasks in the academic corpus appearing to require a more critical engagement with materialor interaction with multiple sources and viewpoints. These task types and demands were noticeably lessevident in the IELTS task corpus under scrutiny.The patterns of similarity and difference between the IELTS reading tasks and the academic task corpuswere confirmed in the interviews with academic staff, though, interestingly, perceptions varied amongsubject staff from differing disciplines about the degree of congruence between the type of reading theyexpected their students to do on courses and the apparent demands of the IELTS test. Moore, Mortonand Price reported a broad division between the ‘harder’ technical disciplines on the one hand (e.g.Engineering, Architecture, Physics, Biology), where reading expectations seem to be characterisedmore narrowly, e.g. as requiring the assimilation of information, and the ‘softer’ humanities-orienteddisciplines on the other hand (e.g. Media Studies, Linguistics, History, Management), where academicreading requirements seem to be more complex, often comparative or evaluative in nature. This wouldsuggest that the types of materials students need to read on their courses, and the ways they need to goabout reading these, can vary markedly depending upon the disciplinary field.IELTS Research Reports Volume 1115