IELTS Research Reports

Construct validity in the IELTS Academic Reading testtype. For reading level, a distinction is made between reading processes focused on text at a moreglobal level, and those operating at a more local level. For reading type, the distinction is betweenwhat is termed ‘careful’ reading and ‘expeditious’ reading, the former involving a close and detailedreading of texts, and the latter “quick and selective reading … to extract important information in linewith intended purposes” (Weir & Urquhart, 1998, p 101). The ‘componential matrix’ formed by Weirand Urquhart’s two dimensions has the advantage of being a more dynamic model, one that is capableof generating a range of reading modes.In the literature on reading taxonomies, one notes a degree of slippage in what construct it is exactlythat is being characterised. Most commonly, it is one of reading ‘skill’ (eg. Munby), but an assortmentof other terms and concepts are typically used eg ‘processes’ (Carver, 1997), ‘purposes’ (Enright etal, 2000, Weir et al, 2009), ‘strategies’ (Purpura, 1998). Such terms, which are arguably somewhatinchoate in nature, all refer in some way to the putative abilities or behaviours of readers. In thepresent project, the construct we are dealing with is not related to any qualities of the readers as such.Rather the focus is on some entity that is external to the reader – the reading task. In this way, thepreferred construct for the project is one of ‘activity’, or rather of ‘prescribed activity’.3 METHODIn this section, we outline the analytical framework used in the research, the disciplines investigated,and the nature of the data that was collected and analysed in the study.3.1 Towards an analytical frameworkThe approach adopted for the development of the analytical framework was a syncretic one, drawinginitially on both IELTS tasks and academic tasks to establish broad dimensions of difference betweenreading tasks and then to refer to relevant theoretical frameworks later to refine the classificationscheme. The method followed was similar to the one adopted in a similar validation study of theIELTS writing test conducted by several members of the research team (Moore & Morton, 2007). Theframework that was used ultimately was derived in large part from the componential schema of Weirand Urquhart (1998), described in the previous section.Dimension 1: Level of engagementThe first dimension used was what we term ‘level of engagement’ with text. For our study of IELTSand academic reading tasks, this dimension refers to how much of a text (or texts) a reader is requiredto engage with in the performing of a prescribed task. It was noted in our preliminary survey ofreading tasks that some tasks were focused on quite circumscribed (or ‘local’) sections of a text (egsingle sentences, or groups of sentences), whilst in others, there was a need to appraise larger textualunits (eg a series of paragraphs, or a whole text). The most extensive ‘level of engagement’ related tothose tasks that required engagement with a number of different texts.For this dimension of reading tasks, the following two broad categories were used after Weir andUrquhart (1998), and Hill and Parry (1992).IELTS Research Reports Volume 11193