Revisiting the Lexical Differences Between Academic and General Training IELTS Reading Tests

Linh Thi Thao Le, Nam Thi Phuong Ho, Nguyen Huynh Trang and Hung Tan Ha

SAGE Open, 2025, vol. 15, issue 3, 21582440251362269

Abstract: The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has served as one of the most reliable proofs of people’s English language proficiency. There have been rumors about the discrepancy in difficulty between the two modules of IELTS, namely Academic (AC) and General Training (GT); however, there is little empirical evidence to confirm such a myth. This research directly compares the lexical demands, diversity, and sophistication between the reading passages in three sections of the two IELTS Reading test modules. 345 IELTS reading passages from 115 IELTS Reading tests were analyzed in terms of length, lexical diversity, sophistication, and demands. Results from the pairwise comparisons show significant differences between the three reading passages of the AC module and the first two reading sections of the GT module in terms of length and lexical sophistication. However, research findings also demonstrate insignificant differences between the AC passages and the last GT passage. In addition, results from lexical demand analyses confirm these findings by indicating that, for the AC reading passages and the last GT passage, learners need to be familiar with the most frequent 4,000 and 9,000 word families in the BNC/COCA lists to achieve 95% and 98% coverage, respectively. On the other hand, the first and second sections in the GT module only require a vocabulary knowledge at 3,000 to 6,000 levels for 95% and 98% coverage, correspondingly. Ultimately, implications for IELTS teaching and learning will be discussed.

Keywords: language teaching; language studies; humanities; education theory and practice; education; social sciences; educational research; lexicography; language studies; applied linguistics; linguistics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251362269 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:sagope:v:15:y:2025:i:3:p:21582440251362269

DOI: 10.1177/21582440251362269

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in SAGE Open
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().