See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275967477

Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence and impact on outcomes

Article · September 2014

CITATIONS READS
11 8,301

2 authors:

James Chalmers Ian Walkinshaw

Torrens University Australia Griffith University
3 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 901 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ian Walkinshaw on 28 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence and impact on

outcomes

James Chalmers and Ian Walkinshaw

ABSTRACT

This pilot study explores whether and to what extent IELTS Academic Reading test

takers utilise expeditious reading strategies, and where employed, their impact on

test outcomes. In a partial replication of Weir, Hawkey, Green, and Devi’s (2009)

exploration of the reading processes learners engage in when tackling IELTS

Reading tasks, participants in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses

underwent a mock IELTS Academic Reading test. They then completed a written

retrospective protocol and a focus group discussion to probe their reading strategy

use and tease out any underlying rationale. The analysis revealed that participants

responded to time pressure, unfamiliar vocabulary and demands on working

memory by employing a range of expeditious reading strategies which focused less

on textual comprehension than on quickly locating correct answers. Their

comprehension of texts often remained at the ‘local-literal’ level rather than the

‘global-interpretive’ level. Their test scores did not necessarily increase as a result.

The findings, though preliminary, support further enquiry into test-taking strategies

to understand the extent and the direction of impact on test scores.

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen a sharp increase in studies exploring academic reading skill

as measured through the International English Language Testing System (IELTS)

(e.g. Krishnan, 2011; Moore, Morton, & Price, 2012; Weir, Hawkey, Green, & Devi,

1
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

2009; Weir, Hawkey, Green, Unaldi, & Devi, 2009). IELTS is widely used by

Australian universities to screen international student applicants for English

language proficiency. International students are expected to demonstrate a certain

level of proficiency reflected by their IELTS band scores, normally an Overall score

of 6.5 or higher with no sub-score (Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing) below

6.0. This high-stakes situation may cause international students to focus on entry

scores instead of English language proficiency. While the IELTS is only an indicator

of proficiency, the accuracy of the test as a measure may be compromised by

international students’ focus on test results.

Weir et al.’s (2009:78) findings generally supported IELTS as a test of academic

reading in that participants initially employed search reading, followed by more

careful reading in response to specific test items. However, for IELTS Academic

Reading test-takers, a major concern is the time limit. As a counter-measure,

students may apply strategic reading techniques to increase their response speed

and potentially their test score (Everett & Colman, 2003; Mickan & Motteram, 2009).

While these techniques may be effective in question response, the need for textual

comprehension is reduced, potentially undermining the test’s validity as a

barometer of actual reading ability.

To illuminate the issue, this preliminary and initiatory pilot study investigates a) the

prevalence of strategic reading techniques by international students preparing for

the IELTS Academic Reading test at an Australian university; and b) the likely

impact on test outcomes.

Reading Models

Although no definitive theory of reading has yet emerged, there is no shortage of

research into reading skills (e.g. Alderson, 2000; Clarke, 1980). Broadly speaking,

reading models fall into two types: componential and process (Urquhart & Weir,

2
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

1998). Componential models of reading (e.g. Bernhardt, 1991; Coady, 1979; Hoover

& Tunmer, 1993) highlight factors involved in reading but not how they interact nor

what processes are undertaken in reading. Process models of reading describe how

the factors involved in reading operate in detail (see Gough, 1972; Just & Carpenter,

1987; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989). For the purpose of this research, we will explicate

Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) reading process model, which adopts a cognitive

perspective. This model was chosen because of its use in recent research into IELTS

academic reading (see Weir, Hawkey, Green, & Devi, 2009).

Our analysis distinguishes between what Khalifa and Weir (2009) termed careful

reading and expeditious reading. Careful reading is based on a process of slow,

linear, incremental reading for comprehension. It seeks to extract complete

meanings from a text and can occur at a local (i.e. sentence or clause) or global (i.e.

paragraph or text) level, from within or beyond the sentence up to a whole text or

series of texts. By contrast, expeditious reading is quick, selective, non-linear,

efficient, and primarily driven by time pressure – a description which also covers

strategic reading techniques, the focus of our study. The three main reading skills

encompassed by the term expeditious reading – scanning, search reading, and

skimming – are outlined below.

Scanning involves identifying and matching a visual stimulus in a question item with

one in a corresponding text, e.g. names or numbers. It requires little attentional

capacity until a match is made, and textual processing is often restricted to the

clause level. Search reading is similar to scanning but targets vocabulary related to

the semantic field of the words in the question, rather than simply searching for a

visual match. Once target words are located, careful reading can take place to

establish propositional meaning. Because this type of reading is based upon

predetermined topics (e.g. IELTS question items), cognition takes place below the

level of building a mental model of textual content and no comprehension of the

3
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

overall text is necessary. In other words, if the information located answers the

question, how it relates to the rest of the text is unimportant. Skimming, or reading

for gist, enables the reader to construct a mental macro-structure of the text with

minimal cognitive processing. It is selective in that the reader decides how much of

the text needs to be read to suit their purpose. A reader may draw upon their

knowledge of text structure to decide which parts to read, e.g. the first sentence of

each paragraph.

Also relevant in this context are previously-learned test-taking strategies, defined as

the consciously selected processes that test respondents use for dealing with both

the language issues and the item-response demands in the test-taking tasks at hand

(Cohen, 2006), such as responding to a multiple choice question by eliminating

options that one knows are incorrect. Reading strategies for test completion are

widely mentioned in the literature (e.g. Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Green, 2007;

Khalifa & Weir, 2009; Urquhart & Weir, 1998), yet seldom dealt with in models of L2

reading. The gap in inquiry into test-taking strategies in reading/testing warrants

investigation.

The current study first explores types of reading strategies participants employed in

the IELTS academic reading test questions. These strategies are then analysed for

their prevalence and degree of success as well as the reading skills underlying their

employment. Extending this analysis is qualitative discussion data collected from a

subset of the participants. The potential impact of these reading strategies on the

validity of IELTS Reading test results for stakeholders – particularly Australian

universities – is then considered.

4
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

METHODOLOGY

To investigate the research questions both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. Quantitative data consisted of mock IELTS reading test results as well as

self-reported behaviours elicited through a retrospective protocol, quantified for

analytical purposes. Qualitative data consisted of a post-testing focus group

discussion about test-taker behaviour. This methodological framework

encompasses empirical data collection while providing descriptive insight into the

empirical findings (Dörnyei, 2007).

Procedure

A complete mock IELTS reading examination was conducted as per normal testing

conditions (i.e. three texts with 40 questions in 60 minutes). Participants were free

to complete the test questions in any order. After testing, participants completed the

retrospective protocol questionnaire. After being informed of their test

performance, four participants took part in a focus group discussion, detailing their

strategies, opinions, and feelings regarding the IELTS academic reading test.

Participants

Ten international students (6 male, 4 female; age range: 20-46, average age:

approximately 27) at a university English language college in Queensland, Australia

self-selected to participate in the study. All were enrolled in an English for Academic

Preparation (EAP) course targeting an academic IELTS reading band score of 6.0 or

more. Their linguistic backgrounds varied: Chinese (6), Spanish (1), Vietnamese (1),

Ukrainian (1) and Japanese (1). All but two had taken an academic IELTS test

previously. Their reading band scores (from previous IELTS tests) ranged between

5.5 and 7.5, while their overall band scores ranged between 5.5 and 7.0.

5
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Data Collection Instruments

The academic reading practice test from IELTS Practice Tests Plus 3 (Matthews,

2011) was selected because participants had not been exposed to it at any point

during their study. It also accurately represented the level and format of an actual

IELTS exam.

To investigate the strategies utilised, a bi-sectional retrospective protocol adapted

from Weir, Hawkey, Green, and Devi (2009) was completed by participants directly

after the mock IELTS reading test. In the first section, participants were provided a

list of preview strategies (see Table 1) and indicated which they had used prior to

engaging with the test questions.

Table 1.Preview reading strategies

Before reading the questions:

1. I read the entire text slowly and carefully

2. I read part of the text slowly and carefully

3. I read the entire text quickly to get the main ideas

4. I read part of the text quickly to get the main ideas

5. I did not read the text

The second section probed in-test reading strategies, i.e. those applied while

responding to the test questions. Participants were given a list of strategies (see

Table 2) and asked to indicate which they had employed:

6
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Table 2. In-test reading strategies

Strategies

1. matched words that appeared in the question with exactly the

same words in the text

2. quickly matched words that appeared in the question with similar

or related words in the text

3. looked for parts of the text that the writer indicates to be important

4. read key parts of the text, e.g. the introduction and conclusion ,etc.

5. worked out the meaning of a difficult word in the question

6. worked out the meaning of a difficult word in the text

7. used my knowledge of vocabulary

8. used my knowledge of grammar

9. read the text or part of it slowly and carefully

10. read relevant parts of the text again

11. used my knowledge of how texts like this are organised

12. connected information from the text with knowledge I already

have

13. guessed the answer

Four of the participants self-selected to attend a semi-structured focus group

discussion to reinforce the retrospective protocol data (Dörnyei, 2007). The

discussion was led by the researcher, and probed strategy use, rationale for strategy

selection, and strategy acquisition. The sub-sample comprised one participant in the

<18 bracket, one in the 19-22 bracket, and two in the >23 group.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

This section presents participants’ scores, preview and in-test strategy prevalence

and examines the relative success of these strategies.

Scores

Table 3 shows the scores of the participants across the test. The Total column shows

the participants’ raw score out of a possible 40, and the subsequent columns present

7
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

their raw scores for each passage out of a possible 13 (14 in the case of Passage 3).

Approximate band scores, in parentheses, are based on IELTS (2009-2012).

Table 3. Test scores across three reading passages

PARTICIPANTS TOTAL [40] PASSAGE 1[13] PASSAGE 2 [13] PASSAGE 3 [14]

A 31 (7.0) 11 9 11

B 29 (6.5) 10 13 6

C 27 (6.0) 12 5 10

D 22 (5.5) 8 8 6

E 22 (5.5) 8 7 7

F 22 (5.5) 7 7 8

G 22 (5.5) 3 11 8

H 20 (5.5) 7 8 5

I 16 (5.0) 6 5 5

J 10 (4.0) 7 2 1

Average 22.1 7.9 7.5 6.7

Preview Strategies

After completing the test, all ten participants self-reported their use of preview

strategies, i.e. those prior to reading the questions (see Table 1). As multiple

preview strategies were possible, the data are reported in percentages of total

instances for all participants.

The most common of these was to not read the text, employed in 33% of all instances

in passage 1, 40% in passage 2, and 33% in passage 3. Across the three passages

participants were progressively more likely to quickly skim the entire text for main

ideas: 17% of all instances in passage 1, 20% in passage 2, and 25% in passage 3.

Conversely, they were progressively less likely to quickly skim part of the text for

main ideas, only doing so in 25% of instances in passage 1, 10% in passage 2, and

8% in passage 3. The strategy carefully read part of the text varied in frequency: 25%

of instances in passage 1, 10% in passage 2, and 33% in passage 3. The least used

strategy was carefully read all of the text, employed only in passage 2, 20% of the

time.

8
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Comparison of preview strategy selection with test results reveals interesting

patterns. For ease of analysis, a tripartite categorisation of test scores (out of 40)

was effected: <18, 19-22, and >23, roughly equating to an IELTS band score of 5.0 or

less, 5.5, and 6.0 and above. Two participants scored <18, five scored 19-22, and

three scored >23. Interestingly, the three highest-scoring participants had the least

variance in strategy use. Conversely, participants in the 19-22 score bracket

employed multiple preview strategies for each passage. The <18 group employed a

similar mix of preview strategies but significantly, none applied the did not read the

text strategy. This implies that careful reading did not help participants successfully

answer questions under time pressure. Nor was did not read the text always

successful: the two participants from the >23 bracket who used this strategy were

more successful than the corresponding two participants in the 19-22 bracket. No

one in the <18 group used this strategy.

In short, expeditious preview reading strategies were effective and frequently-

employed, though potentially at the expense of textual comprehension.

In-Test Response Strategies

Table 4 presents frequency of in-test reading strategy employment test-wide,

specifically raw numerical data and proportion of the total (%).

9
 Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Strategies Instances of strategy use % of instances of strategy used

1. matched words that appeared in the question with exactly the

31 10%+
same words in the text

2. quickly matched words that appeared in the question with similar

62 19%+
or related words in the text

3. looked for parts of the text that the writer indicates to be important 11 3%-

4. read key parts of the text, e.g. the introduction and conclusion ,etc. 19 6%

5. worked out the meaning of a difficult word in the question 6 2%-

6. worked out the meaning of a difficult word in the text 17 5%-

7. used my knowledge of vocabulary 23 7%

8. used my knowledge of grammar 12 4%-

9. read the text or part of it slowly and carefully 35 11%+

10. read relevant parts of the text again 49 15%+

11. used my knowledge of how texts like this are organised 16 5%

12. connected information from the text with knowledge I already

21 7%
have

13. guessed the answer 19 6%

Total: 321 100%

Table 4. Strategies used by participants to answer the IELTS academic reading test questions

+ most used strategies

- least used strategies

Strategy 2 (quickly matched words that appeared in the question with similar or

related words in the text) was clearly the predominant strategy, accounting for 19%

of all instances of strategy use. 100% of participants used strategy 2 at least three

times in the test. Strategies 10 (read relevant parts of the text again) and 9 (read the

text or part of it slowly and carefully) were each used at least once by 90% of

participants. Strategy 1 (matched words in the question with exactly the same words

in the text) was used at least twice by 75% of participants. The least utilised

strategies were 5 (worked out the meaning of a difficult word in the question), 3

(looked for parts of the text that the writer indicates to be important), 6 (worked out

the meaning of a difficult word in the text), and 8 (used my knowledge of grammar).

10
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Success of Strategies

To highlight patterns of successful strategy use, we compare the highest-scoring

group of participants with lower-scoring groups. Distinctive patterns of strategy use

emerge between the three groups. The three high-scoring (>23) participants all used

strategies 2, 9 and 12, constituting 44% of total strategy use for this group. No high-

scorers used strategy 1 (matched the words in the question with the same words in

the text). While the lower scoring groups also relied on strategies 2 and 9, they also

employed strategies 1 and 10. Strategy 13 (guessed the answer) was also popular,

used by those scoring below 23 71% of the time, but only by one of those scoring

>23. As with preview strategies, the high-scoring group’s strategy selection was

broadly similar to those in the 19-22 range. Yet as with preview strategy use, the

lower-scoring group exhibited greater variation of strategies and less success.

Strategy Use Delineated by Type of Question

The mock IELTS test used contained six different question typesi. Table 5 presents

strategy frequency for each question type and the proportion (%) of participants

who used each strategy.

11
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Question Type Most Widely Used Strategy Participants Using This

(in order) Strategy

2 100%

Short Answers (Q 1-7) 10 60%

9 50%

2 70%
True/False/Not Given (Q 8-13)
10 65%
Yes/No/Not Given (Q 32-36)
9 55%

2 90%

Sentences to Paragraphs (Q14-18) 10 70%

4 50%

10 70%
Matching Information (Q 19-23)
7, 1, 2 50% each

2 75%

10 55%
Summary (Q 24-26, 37-40)
12 40%

13, 9 35% each

2 90%
Multiple Choice (Q 27-31)
1, 10 50% each

Table 5. Most widely used strategies for each question type

Strategies 2 and 10 were the two most popular strategies test-wide, reflected in

their utilisation across all question types. But when we refine the focus to successful

strategy use the picture becomes more complex. Table 6 shows which popular

strategies were utilised by successful participants, i.e. those with a 50%> correct

response rate for that question type.

12
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Question Type Most popular strategies used Successful participants using

successfully (in order) this strategy

2 100%
Short Answers (Q 1-7)
10, 9 60% each

9 73%
True/False/Not Given (Q 8-
2 64%
13)Yes/No/Not Given (Q 32-36)
10 45%

2 100%

Sentences to Paragraphs (Q14-18) 4 75%

10 50%

10, 7 57%

Matching Information (Q 19-23) 1, 43%

2 29%

2 78%

10 67%
Summary (Q 24-26, 37-40)
13 44%

12, 9 33%

2 89%
Multiple Choice (Q 27-31)
1, 10 40%

Table 6. The most successfully employed strategies for each question type

This data paints a more interdependent picture of strategy use. While strategies 2

and 10 are frequent and often successful, they offer no guarantees; the data

indicates that blending several strategies appropriately appears more effective than

simply employing strategies 2 and 10 each time.

As a broad summary, reading strategies employed here reflect a mix of both

expeditious (strategies 2, 4, and 1) and careful (strategies 10 and 9) reading (see

Weir, Hawkey, Green, and Devi, 2009 for a detailed analysis of reading strategies),

with the key to success being the appropriate selection of reading strategy for a

particular question type. These results broadly reflect those of Weir et al. (2009).

We now turn to descriptive focus-group data and relate these to the quantitative

findings above.

13
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Descriptive Findings

The current findings, which draw on the focus group discussion, demonstrate that

participants’ strategy use was complex and interwoven; success was dependent

upon using multiple interdependent strategies rather than single independent

strategies. The data also illuminate specific text-processing patterns and highlight

the issues participants face in responding to IELTS academic reading test questions.

Here we discuss the prevalence of expeditious reading strategies and skills and how

these relate to the issues of working memory, vocabulary, and test-taking strategies.

Expeditious Reading Strategies

The data highlight the role of expeditious preview reading strategies in the

participants’ task responses, particularly those strategies that were both frequently-

employed and successful. Such strategies were a useful tool in the participants’

arsenal, as this focus group participant comments:

“I just do skimming or scanning for 2 or 3 minutes to try to find out

what the passage is talking about. Just the topic and the attitude of the

author, and that’s it.”

The participant’s focus is on efficient use of test time, a characteristic of expeditious

reading strategies (Khalifa & Weir, 2009). The quantitative data also reflect this: Of

the listed preview strategies, only one – reading all the text slowly and carefully –

was not expeditious in nature. This strategy was only applied once by 2 participants

in passage 2 of the test, for a total of 6% of all preview reading strategies. The other

94% were expeditious by nature and the most expeditious strategy of all, did not

read the text, was the most frequently employed among higher-scoring participants.

14
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Skills Employed in Expeditious Reading

It is useful here to relate the strategies elicited by the questionnaire with the reading

skills as described by Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) model of reading (see the Reading

Models section).

Search reading, elicited in the questionnaire as quickly matched words that appeared

in the question with similar or related words in the text, was the predominant skill

employed in the test (used by every participant at least twice), and was also integral

to successfully responding to the question tasks. Scanning, elicited in the protocol as

matched the words from the question with exactly the same words in the text, is also

relatively prominent with 40% of participants utilizing this skill at least once. That

said, the >23 group were less likely to scan texts for words than the other groups,

suggesting that it was most commonly employed by participants with more limited

strategic reading skills. Indeed, the participants often eschewed laborious

processing of textual information entirely, limiting their cognition to matching

words from the questions with words in the text, thus reducing cognitive load and

saving time:

“...in the middle of the summary, you find some key words, that’s the

date or the name of the person. Or some capital letters, and it’s easily to

find the context and you can use this to find the answer.”

Participants may even have been scanning more than reported, given that the

retrospective protocol could not elicit information about scanning below word level

(e.g. for capitals or italics). More research is needed to learn more about processing

information at this level.

15
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Working Memory

Khalifa and Weir (2009) argue that working memory is essential to construct a

mental model of textual content. Employing the previewing strategies mentioned in

Table 1 enables participants to minimise the information to be retained in the

working memory, thus obviating the requirement to construct such a model and

enabling more efficient textual processing to locate responses to questions. One

participant commented:

“If I spend 10 minutes to read the [reading text], I think it’s too much

information and I can’t remember it. If I read some key ideas and is with

time and after I have the question then I will maybe reread the passage

or paragraph. I think maybe the best thing is on question first and read

and do it.”

The implication is that participants may not have engaged in the degree of

cognitive processing suggested by their IELTS sub-score. This is an important

consideration for universities using IELTS to measure test-takers’ ability to

cope with a university-level academic reading load.

Vocabulary

Deficient lexical knowledge and decoding competence were problematic for the

sample. One participant commented:

“I think it’s very good idea to read the text before answer the questions,

but I think it could be more useful for people who have more wide

vocabulary than international students.”

Another participant made a similar comment:

“...actually, some of my friends when we’re talking about the IELTS

reading they do not know the words, so as a result they do not know the

16
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

sentence , and then they do not know what the whole passage was

talking about. So I think vocabulary would be the most biggest

problem.”

So the strategy of reading the entire text carefully before reading the assessment

question only appears useful if test-takers possess a sufficiently comprehensive

vocabulary. Those with less comprehensive lexicons may lean harder on the test-

taking strategies to overcome their comprehension issues. The second comment

underlines the importance of lexical decoding competence for reading

comprehension. Whether and to what extent strategic reading compensates for

vocabulary deficiencies is for further investigation.

Previously-learned Test-taking Strategies

Some participants reported employing the previously-learned test-taking strategies

mentioned in the Reading Models section. Although the literature on these strategies

is sparse, they may play a prominent role in participants’ strategic reading practices:

“Actually there is another strategy the teacher told us, that is, usually

the question they ask is, how you say, matched to each paragraph, you

know what I mean? So, since I find the answer in the first paragraph

for the first question, usually I will not continue to reading the first

paragraph and jump to the second paragraph to find the answer for

the second problem and usually it works.”

Another participant described a test-taking strategy that bypassed textual

comprehension entirely:

“We learn how to find the answer and actually some teacher would

teach the student the special word. Just like ‘only’ or ‘the most’. And this

teacher... told us if you find this word in the, especially in the true, false,

17
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

not given, if you find ‘only’ in this sentence, if you don’t have enough

time, do it just the truthful. Yeah, basically it’s right.”

Other participants also mentioned using previously-learned test-taking strategies,

though generally only under time pressure. Future research might investigate the

prevalence of these strategies and their impact on test scores.

Guessing

Guessing as a reading strategy was not mentioned in Weir, Hawkey, Green, and

Devi’s (2009) study, yet in the current data its salience is clear; it constitutes 6% of

all strategy use. Guessing was particularly predominant for lower-scoring

participants, suggesting that they resorted to guessing under time pressure after

other reading strategies proved ineffective.

In sum, the participants’ focus was often limited to accurately responding to test

questions rather than overall textual comprehension, echoing Moore et al.’s (2012)

finding that IELTS academic reading engaged readers only at a ‘local-literal’ level,

involving comprehension of small units of text. So the participants’ approach to the

reading test may not reflect Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) cognitive processing model,

instead resembling Guthrie’s (1988) more pragmatic ‘information location’

approach where ‘the emphasis is on extraction rather than recall, and on selective

rather than exhaustive inspection’ (p. 182).

CONCLUSION

The data reveal a complex array of strategies employed by test-takers and

considerable variation in individual behaviour. Nevertheless, certain patterns

emerge. Participants adopted a strategic approach to the IELTS academic reading

involving expeditious reading strategies to initially locate information, and more

18
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

thorough reading strategies to identify answers to the question tasks. These findings

broadly concur with those of Weir, Hawkey, Green, and Devi (2009), suggesting that

IELTS performs favourably in terms of testing academic reading skills. However,

post-testing focus group data revealed that time pressure, unfamiliar vocabulary,

and demands on working memory appeared to negatively impact participants’

textual comprehension. To overcome these obstacles and respond to test questions,

strategic reading techniques were adopted which focused less on textual

comprehension than on quickly locating correct answers.

The strategic reading techniques adopted seemed to limit the need for participant

comprehension to the ‘local-literal’ level rather than the ‘global-interpretive’ level

(Moore et al., 2012). This raises questions about whether participant reading

behaviour resembles Khalifa and Weir's (2009) cognitive processing model or

whether it conforms to more strategic reading models like Guthrie's (1988),

wherein cognitive skills are employed to locate information rather than to

comprehend text at a macro-level. With regards to the IELTS academic reading test,

Khalifa and Weir’s model clearly fails to incorporate what impact the ‘goal-setter’

(Guthrie, 1988) has on the level of cognitive processing undertaken in responding to

question tasks. Further research is warranted to explore where and how strategic

reading models and cognitive processing models of reading overlap.

The findings also raise questions about the validity of IELTS as a test of

comprehensive academic reading ability. Most Australian universities require an

IELTS 6.0 or higher for entry. Yet reading at university is commonly done to

facilitate academic writing (Moore et al., 2012), which involves informational

processing far beyond the level of propositional comprehension. If test-taking

strategies enable participants to obtain higher scores that do not reflect their real

level of reading comprehension skills, universities may need to re-evaluate IELTS as

19
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

a viable entry pathway. Test construction is another potential issue: Additional test

task types may need to be incorporated to measure reading comprehension at a

global-interpretive level.

The study’s small sample size limits the generalizability of our findings. Further

research is called for to investigate the use and impact of test-taking strategies in

regards to the IELTS academic reading test, in particular whether strategic

approaches to reading are an effective substitute for textual comprehension above

the propositional level.

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical,

empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Clarke, M. (1980). The short-circuit hypothesis of ESL reading - or when language

competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern Language Journal,

64(2), 203-209.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL Reader. In R.Mackay, B.

Barkman, & R.R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies.

Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307–331

20
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Everett, R., & Colman, J. (2003). A critical analysis of selected IELTS preparation

materials. IELTS Research Reports, 5, 1-84.

Gough, P.B. (1972). One second of reading. In J.F. Kavanagh & I.G. Mattingly (Eds.),

Language by ear and by eye, (pp. 331-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in

higher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Guthrie, J. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive

model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 178-199.

Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G.B.

Thompson, W.E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (Vol.

4), (pp.1-19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

IELTS. (2009-2012). Band descriptors, reporting and interpretation. Retrieved from

http://www.ielts.org/researchers/score_processing_and_reporting.aspx

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language

comprehension. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. J. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing

second language reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Krishnan, K. S. (2011). Careful vs expeditious reading: The case of the IELTS reading

test. Academic Research International, 1(3), 25-35.

Matthews, M. (2011). IELTS practice tests plus 3. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman.

21
Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence
and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Mickan, P., & Motteram, J. (2009). The preparation practices of IELTS candidates:

Case studies. IELTS Research Reports, 10, 1-39.

Moore, T., Morton, J., & Price, S. (2012). Construct validity in the IELTS academic

reading test: A comparison of reading requirements in IELTS test items and in

university study. IELTS Research Reports , 11, 1-89.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989).The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and

practice. Essex, UK: Longman.

Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, A., & Devi, S. (2009). The cognitive processes underlying

the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS. IELTS Research Reports, 9,

157-189.

Weir, C., Hawkey, R., Green, A., Unaldi, A., & Devi, S. (2009). The relationship

between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading

experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university. IELTS

Research Reports, 9, 97-156.

AUTHOR BIODATA

James Chalmers is a doctoral student in the School of Languages and Linguistics at

Griffith University in Australia. His current research explores the trainability of

foreign language learning aptitude. Before his PhD, James spent eight years as an

English language teacher.

james.chalmers@griffithuni.edu.au

22
View publication stats

Chalmers, J. & Walkinshaw, I. (2014). Reading strategies in IELTS tests: Prevalence

and impact on outcomes. English Australia Journal, 30(1), 24-39.

Ian Walkinshaw is a Lecturer in English in the School of Languages and Linguistics at

Griffith University. He has been involved in TESOL and applied linguistics for 20

years, teaching in Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and Vietnam. His research

interests are in intercultural pragmatics, politeness, TESOL, and Academic Language

and Learning.

i.walkinshaw@griffith.edu.au

i
For a detailed explanation of question types, see
https://www.teachers.cambridgeesol.org/ts/exams/ academicand
professional/ielts/academicreading.

23