Mở Bài
Design thinking – tư duy thiết kế – đã trở thành một trong những chủ đề nóng trong giáo dục khởi nghiệp và thường xuyên xuất hiện trong các đề thi IELTS Reading gần đây. Chủ đề này kết hợp giữa giáo dục, kinh doanh, đổi mới sáng tạo và tâm lý học, tạo nên những bài đọc phong phú về nội dung và từ vựng học thuật.
Trong hơn 20 năm giảng dạy IELTS, tôi nhận thấy các bài đọc về entrepreneurship education (giáo dục khởi nghiệp) xuất hiện ngày càng nhiều, đặc biệt từ Cambridge IELTS 12 trở đi. Chủ đề này thường kết hợp nhiều dạng câu hỏi khó như Matching Headings, Yes/No/Not Given và Summary Completion.
Bài viết này cung cấp cho bạn một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh gồm 3 passages với độ khó tăng dần từ Easy đến Hard, bao gồm 40 câu hỏi đa dạng giống thi thật, đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể, và hệ thống từ vựng quan trọng được phân loại theo từng passage. Đề thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với format thi thực tế và nâng cao kỹ năng đọc hiểu học thuật.
1. Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading
Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test
IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút và bao gồm 3 passages với tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, không bị trừ điểm khi sai.
Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:
- Passage 1: 15-17 phút (độ khó Easy, band 5.0-6.5)
- Passage 2: 18-20 phút (độ khó Medium, band 6.0-7.5)
- Passage 3: 23-25 phút (độ khó Hard, band 7.0-9.0)
Lưu ý quan trọng: Bạn cần tự quản lý thời gian và chuyển đáp án vào Answer Sheet trong 60 phút. Không có thời gian bổ sung để chép đáp án.
Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này
Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 7 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:
- Multiple Choice – Trắc nghiệm nhiều lựa chọn
- True/False/Not Given – Đúng/Sai/Không có thông tin
- Yes/No/Not Given – Có/Không/Không có thông tin (với quan điểm tác giả)
- Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề với đoạn văn
- Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu
- Summary Completion – Hoàn thành đoạn tóm tắt
- Matching Features – Nối thông tin với đặc điểm
Học viên luyện thi IELTS Reading với chủ đề Design Thinking trong giáo dục khởi nghiệp
2. IELTS Reading Practice Test
PASSAGE 1 – The Origins and Evolution of Design Thinking
Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút
Design thinking has emerged as one of the most influential methodologies in modern business and education. Originally conceived in the 1960s by designers and engineers, this human-centered approach to problem-solving has transcended its origins in product development to become a fundamental framework for innovation across multiple disciplines.
The concept was first articulated by Nobel Prize laureate Herbert Simon in his 1969 book “The Sciences of the Artificial”. Simon argued that design was a way of thinking that could be applied to any field, not just traditional design disciplines. However, it wasn’t until the 1990s that design thinking gained widespread recognition, largely through the work of David Kelley and his colleagues at Stanford University’s d.school (Institute of Design).
The core principles of design thinking revolve around five key stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. The first stage, empathize, requires practitioners to deeply understand the needs and challenges of the people they are designing for. This involves observation, engagement, and immersion in the users’ experiences. The second stage, define, involves synthesizing the information gathered during empathy work to articulate a clear problem statement. During the ideate stage, teams generate a wide range of creative solutions without judgment or constraints. The prototype stage involves creating tangible representations of ideas, which can be anything from simple sketches to functional models. Finally, the test stage allows teams to gather feedback and refine their solutions based on real-world interactions.
What makes design thinking particularly relevant to entrepreneurship education is its emphasis on action rather than just analysis. Traditional business education often focuses heavily on theoretical frameworks and case studies, which can leave students ill-equipped to handle the uncertainties and ambiguities of real-world entrepreneurship. Design thinking, by contrast, encourages students to engage directly with problems, experiment with solutions, and learn from failure.
The methodology also promotes collaboration across different disciplines and perspectives. In a typical design thinking workshop, you might find engineers working alongside artists, marketers collaborating with social scientists, and students partnering with experienced entrepreneurs. This diversity of thought and expertise is crucial for generating innovative solutions to complex problems.
Another key advantage of Design Thinking In Entrepreneurship Education is its focus on human needs rather than just market opportunities. Many failed startups can trace their downfall to a fundamental misunderstanding of what customers actually want or need. By starting with empathy and maintaining a user-centered perspective throughout the development process, entrepreneurs are more likely to create products and services that genuinely address real problems.
Furthermore, design thinking helps students develop a growth mindset and resilience in the face of challenges. The iterative nature of the process – testing, failing, learning, and trying again – teaches valuable lessons about perseverance and adaptability. These are essential qualities for any entrepreneur, as the path to success is rarely straightforward or predictable.
Several leading universities have integrated design thinking into their entrepreneurship programs. Stanford’s d.school offers courses that bring together students from different schools to work on real-world challenges. MIT’s Martin Trust Center for entrepreneurship similarly uses design thinking as a core component of its curriculum. These programs have produced numerous successful startups and have demonstrated the practical value of this approach.
However, critics argue that design thinking is not a panacea for all business challenges. Some suggest that it works best for certain types of problems, particularly those involving user experience and product design, but may be less applicable to other aspects of business such as financial management or strategic planning. Others point out that the methodology requires significant time investment and may not be suitable for situations requiring quick decisions.
Despite these criticisms, the adoption of design thinking in entrepreneurship education continues to grow. As the business world becomes increasingly complex and unpredictable, the ability to think creatively, work collaboratively, and remain customer-focused has never been more important. Design thinking provides a structured yet flexible framework for developing these essential skills.
Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
1. According to the passage, who first formally introduced the concept of design thinking?
A) David Kelley
B) Herbert Simon
C) Engineers in the 1960s
D) Stanford University professors
2. What is described as a key difference between design thinking and traditional business education?
A) Design thinking requires more theoretical knowledge
B) Design thinking emphasizes practical action over analysis
C) Traditional education is more collaborative
D) Traditional education focuses on prototyping
3. The passage suggests that many startups fail because they:
A) don’t have enough funding
B) lack technical expertise
C) misunderstand customer needs
D) move too slowly
4. According to the text, the iterative nature of design thinking teaches students:
A) financial management skills
B) technical design abilities
C) perseverance and adaptability
D) marketing strategies
5. Critics of design thinking argue that it:
A) is too expensive to implement
B) requires too many people
C) doesn’t work for all business situations
D) is only useful for large companies
Questions 6-10: True/False/Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the information given in the passage?
Write:
- TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
- FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
- NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
6. Design thinking was originally developed specifically for entrepreneurship education.
7. The empathize stage requires understanding users through observation and engagement.
8. Design thinking workshops typically include people from various professional backgrounds.
9. Stanford’s d.school was the first educational institution to teach design thinking.
10. The methodology is most effective when applied to financial planning problems.
Questions 11-13: Sentence Completion
Complete the sentences below.
Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.
11. The five stages of design thinking are empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and ___.
12. Design thinking helps develop a ___ and resilience when facing difficulties.
13. The approach maintains a ___ perspective throughout the entire development process.
PASSAGE 2 – Implementing Design Thinking in Educational Institutions
Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)
Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút
The integration of design thinking into entrepreneurship education represents a fundamental shift in pedagogical approaches, moving away from passive knowledge transfer toward active experiential learning. While the theoretical benefits of this methodology are well-documented, the practical implementation within educational institutions presents numerous challenges and requires careful consideration of institutional culture, resource allocation, and faculty development.
A
One of the primary obstacles to implementing design thinking in traditional educational settings is the inherent tension between structured curricula and the open-ended nature of the design process. Universities operate on semester-based systems with predetermined learning outcomes and assessment criteria, whereas design thinking thrives on ambiguity, iteration, and emergent discoveries. This fundamental incompatibility requires educators to develop innovative approaches to reconcile these competing demands. Some institutions have addressed this by creating dedicated innovation spaces outside regular course structures, while others have embedded design thinking components within existing courses.
B
Faculty training represents another critical consideration. Most university professors have excelled within traditional academic frameworks that prioritize research and theoretical expertise over practical facilitation skills. Design thinking requires instructors to adopt a more facilitative role, guiding students through exploratory processes rather than delivering predetermined content. This role transformation can be uncomfortable for academics accustomed to being the primary source of knowledge in the classroom. Professional development programs must therefore address not only the technical aspects of design thinking but also the psychological adjustment required for this pedagogical shift.
C
The physical environment plays a surprisingly significant role in the effectiveness of design thinking education. Traditional lecture halls with fixed seating and limited flexibility are poorly suited to the collaborative, hands-on activities that characterize design thinking workshops. Leading institutions have invested in purpose-built spaces featuring movable furniture, ample wall space for displaying work, and proximity to prototyping facilities. These spaces send a powerful message about the institution’s commitment to innovation and create an atmosphere conducive to creative thinking. However, such infrastructure investments require substantial financial resources that many institutions struggle to allocate.
D
Assessment methodology presents perhaps the most contentious challenge in design thinking education. Traditional grading systems emphasize individual achievement and measurable outcomes, while design thinking values process, collaboration, and learning from failure. How does one assign a grade to a failed prototype that nonetheless generated valuable insights? How can instructors fairly evaluate contributions within team-based projects? Some educators have experimented with portfolio-based assessment, where students document their learning journey and reflect on their iterative process. Others employ peer evaluation mechanisms or focus on formative feedback rather than summative grades. Each approach has merits and limitations, and the search for optimal assessment strategies continues.
E
Industry partnerships have proven instrumental in successful design thinking programs. When students work on authentic problems provided by real companies or community organizations, their engagement and motivation increase dramatically. These partnerships also provide access to domain expertise, potential mentors, and sometimes funding for prototype development. However, managing these relationships requires dedicated administrative support and careful attention to intellectual property considerations. Universities must balance the educational objectives with industry partners’ expectations for tangible deliverables.
F
The scalability of design thinking education raises important questions about equity and access. Many successful programs operate with relatively small cohorts, allowing for intensive mentorship and personalized feedback. As demand grows, institutions face pressure to expand these programs, but doing so risks diluting the quality of the educational experience. Some universities have addressed this through tiered approaches, offering introductory workshops to large groups while reserving intensive courses for smaller, selected cohorts. Others have developed online and hybrid formats, though these modalities present their own challenges in replicating the highly interactive nature of design thinking.
G
Cultural context also influences how design thinking is received and adapted in different educational settings. The methodology’s emphasis on individual empowerment, questioning authority, and challenging assumptions may align well with some cultural values but conflict with others. In more hierarchical educational systems, students may initially feel uncomfortable with the expectation to voice opinions or challenge existing solutions. Educators must be sensitive to these cultural dimensions and adapt their facilitation approaches accordingly, while still maintaining the core principles of the methodology.
The evidence suggests that despite these challenges, institutions that persist in implementing design thinking in their entrepreneurship programs see substantial benefits. Alumni surveys indicate that graduates value the practical skills and mindset shifts gained through these experiences, often rating them as more valuable than traditional coursework. Employers consistently report that graduates with design thinking experience demonstrate superior problem-solving abilities, adaptability, and collaborative skills – all increasingly critical in today’s rapidly changing business environment.
Questions 14-20: Matching Headings
Choose the correct heading for sections A-G from the list of headings below.
List of Headings:
i. The challenge of evaluating student performance
ii. Building industry connections for authentic learning
iii. Adapting to different cultural educational norms
iv. Balancing curriculum requirements with open-ended learning
v. Creating appropriate physical spaces for innovation
vi. The difficulty of expanding successful programs
vii. Transforming the role of educators
viii. Financial barriers to implementation
ix. Student resistance to new methods
14. Section A
15. Section B
16. Section C
17. Section D
18. Section E
19. Section F
20. Section G
Questions 21-23: Summary Completion
Complete the summary below.
Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Design thinking implementation in universities requires careful attention to several factors. The physical environment is important, as traditional lecture halls with 21. ___ are not suitable for collaborative work. Assessment is also problematic because traditional grading emphasizes 22. ___, while design thinking values the process. Many successful programs benefit from 23. ___ which provide students with real-world problems to solve.
Questions 24-26: Yes/No/Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the views of the writer in the passage?
Write:
- YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer
- NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer
- NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this
24. Universities should completely abandon traditional assessment methods for design thinking courses.
25. Physical space design significantly impacts the effectiveness of design thinking education.
26. Online formats can fully replicate the interactive nature of design thinking workshops.
PASSAGE 3 – The Cognitive and Psychological Dimensions of Design Thinking in Entrepreneurial Learning
Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)
Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút
The burgeoning interest in design thinking as a pedagogical framework for entrepreneurship education has sparked considerable scholarly debate regarding its cognitive foundations and psychological mechanisms. While practitioners have enthusiastically embraced the methodology, academic researchers have begun to scrutinize the underlying processes through which design thinking facilitates learning and behavioral change. This examination reveals a complex interplay of cognitive, affective, and social-psychological factors that warrant careful consideration.
From a cognitive perspective, design thinking can be understood as a structured framework for navigating what psychologists term “ill-defined problems” – challenges that lack clear parameters, definitive solutions, or established methodologies for resolution. Traditional analytical thinking, characterized by linear reasoning and logical deduction, proves inadequate when confronted with such ambiguous scenarios. Design thinking instead cultivates what cognitive scientists call “abductive reasoning” – the ability to make educated inferences and generate plausible hypotheses when complete information is unavailable. This form of reasoning, crucial for entrepreneurial success, enables individuals to construct provisional understanding from fragmentary data and iterate toward increasingly refined solutions.
The methodology’s emphasis on prototyping and iteration also aligns with contemporary understanding of how expertise develops. Deliberate practice theory, pioneered by psychologist K. Anders Ericsson, suggests that true mastery emerges not from passive knowledge acquisition but through repeated cycles of performance, feedback, and refinement. Design thinking instantiates this principle by requiring students to externalize their ideas through tangible prototypes, subject them to user testing, and systematically improve them based on empirical evidence. This process accelerates the transition from novice to competent practitioner by compressing the feedback loops that facilitate skill development.
However, the cognitive benefits of design thinking extend beyond problem-solving capabilities to encompass fundamental shifts in mindset and self-perception. Educational psychologist Carol Dweck’s influential work on growth mindset – the belief that abilities can be developed through dedication and effort – resonates strongly with design thinking’s iterative philosophy. By reframing failure as a natural component of the learning process rather than an indication of inadequacy, the methodology helps students develop greater tolerance for ambiguity and resilience in the face of setbacks. This psychological reconfiguration proves particularly valuable for would-be entrepreneurs, who will inevitably encounter numerous obstacles and rejections throughout their ventures.
The affective dimensions of design thinking education merit equal attention. Neuroscientific research has demonstrated that emotional states profoundly influence cognitive processes, including creativity, decision-making, and learning. Design thinking’s playful, experimental approach helps mitigate the performance anxiety often associated with traditional educational settings. When students understand that early iterations need not be perfect and that exploration is valued over immediate correctness, they experience reduced cognitive load and enhanced creative output. This psychological safety – a concept articulated by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson – creates conditions where individuals feel comfortable taking risks and voicing unconventional ideas.
Moreover, the collaborative nature of design thinking leverages social learning mechanisms that have been shown to enhance knowledge retention and skill transfer. Social cognitive theory, developed by Albert Bandura, emphasizes the importance of observational learning and vicarious experience in skill acquisition. When students work in diverse teams, they are exposed to multiple approaches to problem-solving, different interpretive frameworks, and varied communication styles. This exposure not only broadens their repertoire of strategies but also helps them develop the interpersonal competencies essential for entrepreneurial success, such as empathy, negotiation, and conflict resolution.
The empathy-building component of design thinking deserves particular scrutiny from a psychological perspective. Requiring students to deeply understand user needs and perspectives cultivates what developmental psychologists call “perspective-taking ability” – a sophisticated cognitive capacity that develops throughout adolescence and early adulthood. By systematically engaging with diverse stakeholders, students strengthen their capacity for decentering – the ability to transcend their own viewpoint and appreciate alternative interpretations of reality. This skill proves invaluable not only for product development but for navigating the complex social landscapes that characterize modern organizational environments.
Recent neuroimaging studies have begun to illuminate the brain mechanisms underlying creative problem-solving, offering intriguing insights into how design thinking may function at a neural level. Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggests that creative ideation involves coordinated activity across multiple brain networks, including the default mode network (associated with spontaneous thought) and the executive control network (involved in focused attention and evaluation). Design thinking’s structured flexibility – providing a framework while encouraging exploration – may help optimize the dynamic interplay between these neural systems, facilitating the kind of “divergent-convergent” thinking characteristic of innovative solutions.
Critics, however, caution against oversimplifying the relationship between design thinking education and entrepreneurial outcomes. Some scholars argue that the methodology’s emphasis on user-centeredness may inadvertently limit radical innovation, as users often struggle to articulate needs for products or services they cannot yet imagine. Others suggest that design thinking’s participatory, consensus-oriented approach may prove cumbersome in situations requiring rapid decision-making or bold, unilateral action. Furthermore, the transferability of design thinking skills across contexts remains an open empirical question – do students who excel in structured design thinking workshops necessarily demonstrate these capabilities in the messy, unpredictable reality of actual entrepreneurial ventures?
These concerns notwithstanding, the preponderance of evidence suggests that design thinking offers a robust pedagogical framework for developing the multifaceted competencies required for contemporary entrepreneurship. By integrating cognitive, affective, and social learning principles, the methodology addresses not merely the technical aspects of venture creation but the deeper psychological transformation necessary for entrepreneurial success. As educational institutions continue to refine their approaches and researchers generate more rigorous empirical evidence, our understanding of how design thinking shapes entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities will undoubtedly grow more nuanced and sophisticated.
Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
27. According to the passage, abductive reasoning is best described as:
A) a form of logical deduction
B) making educated inferences with incomplete information
C) a traditional analytical thinking method
D) linear reasoning for well-defined problems
28. The author mentions K. Anders Ericsson’s deliberate practice theory to illustrate:
A) why prototyping is expensive
B) that expertise requires passive knowledge
C) how repeated cycles of feedback build mastery
D) the limitations of design thinking
29. What does the passage say about Carol Dweck’s growth mindset concept?
A) It contradicts design thinking principles
B) It is only useful for experienced entrepreneurs
C) It aligns with design thinking’s view of failure
D) It should replace design thinking methods
30. According to the text, psychological safety in design thinking helps students:
A) avoid all mistakes
B) work independently
C) take risks and voice unconventional ideas
D) compete more effectively
31. Neuroimaging studies suggest that creative ideation involves:
A) only the default mode network
B) coordination across multiple brain networks
C) shutting down executive control
D) eliminating spontaneous thought
Questions 32-36: Matching Features
Match each researcher (32-36) with the correct theory or concept (A-H).
Researchers:
32. K. Anders Ericsson
33. Carol Dweck
34. Amy Edmondson
35. Albert Bandura
36. Developmental psychologists
Theories/Concepts:
A) Social cognitive theory
B) Perspective-taking ability
C) Abductive reasoning
D) Deliberate practice theory
E) Growth mindset
F) Psychological safety
G) Neural networks
H) User-centeredness
Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions
Answer the questions below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
37. What type of problems does design thinking help people navigate effectively?
38. What does design thinking help students develop greater tolerance for?
39. Which two brain networks are mentioned as being involved in creative problem-solving?
40. What do critics argue that user-centeredness might inadvertently limit?
3. Answer Keys – Đáp Án
PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13
- B
- B
- C
- C
- C
- FALSE
- TRUE
- TRUE
- NOT GIVEN
- FALSE
- test
- growth mindset
- user-centered
PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26
- iv
- vii
- v
- i
- ii
- vi
- iii
- fixed seating
- individual achievement
- industry partnerships
- NOT GIVEN
- YES
- NO
PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40
- B
- C
- C
- C
- B
- D
- E
- F
- A
- B
- ill-defined problems
- ambiguity
- default mode network, executive control network (hoặc các tên viết gọn phù hợp)
- radical innovation
4. Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết
Passage 1 – Giải Thích
Câu 1: B – Herbert Simon
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: first formally introduced, concept of design thinking
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1-3
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “The concept was first articulated by Nobel Prize laureate Herbert Simon in his 1969 book”. Từ “articulated” được paraphrase thành “formally introduced” trong câu hỏi. David Kelley được nhắc đến sau này, giúp phổ biến rộng rãi chứ không phải người đầu tiên đưa ra khái niệm.
Câu 2: B – Design thinking emphasizes practical action over analysis
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: key difference, traditional business education
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-4
- Giải thích: Đoạn văn chỉ rõ “What makes design thinking particularly relevant to entrepreneurship education is its emphasis on action rather than just analysis. Traditional business education often focuses heavily on theoretical frameworks and case studies”. Đây là sự đối lập rõ ràng giữa hai phương pháp.
Câu 3: C – misunderstand customer needs
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: startups fail
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-4
- Giải thích: Bài viết nêu “Many failed startups can trace their downfall to a fundamental misunderstanding of what customers actually want or need”. Đây là paraphrase của “misunderstand customer needs”.
Câu 4: C – perseverance and adaptability
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: iterative nature, teaches students
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: Đoạn văn nói “The iterative nature of the process – testing, failing, learning, and trying again – teaches valuable lessons about perseverance and adaptability”.
Câu 5: C – doesn’t work for all business situations
- Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
- Từ khóa: critics argue
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 2-5
- Giải thích: Critics nói rằng “it works best for certain types of problems…but may be less applicable to other aspects of business such as financial management or strategic planning”.
Câu 6: FALSE
- Từ khóa: originally developed, specifically for entrepreneurship education
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1-2
- Giải thích: Bài viết nói design thinking được phát triển bởi designers và engineers trong những năm 1960, sau đó mới được áp dụng vào nhiều lĩnh vực khác nhau, không phải riêng cho entrepreneurship education.
Câu 7: TRUE
- Từ khóa: empathize stage, observation, engagement
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 3-5
- Giải thích: Đoạn văn nói rõ “The first stage, empathize, requires practitioners to deeply understand the needs and challenges of the people they are designing for. This involves observation, engagement, and immersion”.
Câu 8: TRUE
- Từ khóa: design thinking workshops, various professional backgrounds
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 2-4
- Giải thích: “In a typical design thinking workshop, you might find engineers working alongside artists, marketers collaborating with social scientists”.
Câu 9: NOT GIVEN
- Từ khóa: Stanford’s d.school, first educational institution
- Giải thích: Bài đọc nói Stanford’s d.school giúp phổ biến design thinking nhưng không nói đó là cơ sở giáo dục đầu tiên dạy nó.
Câu 10: FALSE
- Từ khóa: most effective, financial planning
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9
- Giải thích: Critics nói rằng design thinking “may be less applicable to other aspects of business such as financial management”, ngược lại với câu hỏi.
Câu 11: test
- Từ khóa: five stages
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-2
- Giải thích: “The core principles of design thinking revolve around five key stages: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test”.
Câu 12: growth mindset
- Từ khóa: helps develop, resilience
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 1
- Giải thích: “Furthermore, design thinking helps students develop a growth mindset and resilience in the face of challenges”.
Câu 13: user-centered
- Từ khóa: maintains, perspective, throughout development process
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 4-6
- Giải thích: “By starting with empathy and maintaining a user-centered perspective throughout the development process”.
Đáp án chi tiết IELTS Reading về Design Thinking trong giáo dục khởi nghiệp
Passage 2 – Giải Thích
Câu 14: iv – Balancing curriculum requirements with open-ended learning
- Vị trí: Section A
- Giải thích: Đoạn A nói về “inherent tension between structured curricula and the open-ended nature of the design process” và “fundamental incompatibility” giữa yêu cầu của hệ thống đại học và tính chất mở của design thinking.
Câu 15: vii – Transforming the role of educators
- Vị trí: Section B
- Giải thích: Toàn bộ đoạn B nói về việc giảng viên phải thay đổi vai trò từ người cung cấp kiến thức thành người hướng dẫn (facilitator), “role transformation” và “pedagogical shift”.
Câu 16: v – Creating appropriate physical spaces for innovation
- Vị trí: Section C
- Giải thích: Đoạn C tập trung vào “physical environment” và “purpose-built spaces” với movable furniture và prototyping facilities.
Câu 17: i – The challenge of evaluating student performance
- Vị trí: Section D
- Giải thích: Đoạn D nói về “Assessment methodology” và các thách thức trong việc đánh giá học sinh khi design thinking nhấn mạnh process và collaboration thay vì individual achievement.
Câu 18: ii – Building industry connections for authentic learning
- Vị trí: Section E
- Giải thích: Đoạn E nói về “Industry partnerships” và cách chúng giúp sinh viên làm việc với authentic problems và access to domain expertise.
Câu 19: vi – The difficulty of expanding successful programs
- Vị trí: Section F
- Giải thích: Đoạn F thảo luận về “scalability” và challenges khi mở rộng chương trình từ small cohorts sang larger groups mà không làm giảm chất lượng.
Câu 20: iii – Adapting to different cultural educational norms
- Vị trí: Section G
- Giải thích: Đoạn G nói về “Cultural context” và cách design thinking cần được adapt cho different cultural values và hierarchical educational systems.
Câu 21: fixed seating
- Từ khóa: physical environment, traditional lecture halls, not suitable
- Vị trí trong bài: Section C, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: “Traditional lecture halls with fixed seating and limited flexibility are poorly suited to the collaborative, hands-on activities”.
Câu 22: individual achievement
- Từ khóa: traditional grading, emphasize
- Vị trí trong bài: Section D, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: “Traditional grading systems emphasize individual achievement and measurable outcomes”.
Câu 23: industry partnerships
- Từ khóa: successful programs, benefit from, real-world problems
- Vị trí trong bài: Section E, dòng 1
- Giải thích: “Industry partnerships have proven instrumental in successful design thinking programs”.
Câu 24: NOT GIVEN
- Giải thích: Bài viết thảo luận về challenges của traditional assessment và đề xuất alternatives như portfolio-based assessment, nhưng không nói rằng universities “should completely abandon” traditional methods.
Câu 25: YES
- Vị trí trong bài: Section C
- Giải thích: Writer nói “The physical environment plays a surprisingly significant role in the effectiveness of design thinking education” và “These spaces send a powerful message about the institution’s commitment to innovation”.
Câu 26: NO
- Vị trí trong bài: Section F, dòng cuối
- Giải thích: Writer nói về online and hybrid formats nhưng nhấn mạnh “these modalities present their own challenges in replicating the highly interactive nature of design thinking”, có nghĩa là không thể fully replicate.
Passage 3 – Giải Thích
Câu 27: B – making educated inferences with incomplete information
- Từ khóa: abductive reasoning
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
- Giải thích: Bài viết định nghĩa abductive reasoning là “the ability to make educated inferences and generate plausible hypotheses when complete information is unavailable”.
Câu 28: C – how repeated cycles of feedback build mastery
- Từ khóa: K. Anders Ericsson, deliberate practice theory
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-4
- Giải thích: Author nói “Deliberate practice theory…suggests that true mastery emerges not from passive knowledge acquisition but through repeated cycles of performance, feedback, and refinement”.
Câu 29: C – It aligns with design thinking’s view of failure
- Từ khóa: Carol Dweck, growth mindset
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2-5
- Giải thích: “Carol Dweck’s influential work on growth mindset…resonates strongly with design thinking’s iterative philosophy. By reframing failure as a natural component of the learning process”.
Câu 30: C – take risks and voice unconventional ideas
- Từ khóa: psychological safety
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng cuối
- Giải thích: “This psychological safety…creates conditions where individuals feel comfortable taking risks and voicing unconventional ideas”.
Câu 31: B – coordination across multiple brain networks
- Từ khóa: neuroimaging studies, creative ideation
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 2-4
- Giải thích: “Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggests that creative ideation involves coordinated activity across multiple brain networks”.
Câu 32: D – K. Anders Ericsson → Deliberate practice theory
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3
- Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ “Deliberate practice theory, pioneered by psychologist K. Anders Ericsson”.
Câu 33: E – Carol Dweck → Growth mindset
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4
- Giải thích: “Educational psychologist Carol Dweck’s influential work on growth mindset”.
Câu 34: F – Amy Edmondson → Psychological safety
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5
- Giải thích: “This psychological safety – a concept articulated by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson”.
Câu 35: A – Albert Bandura → Social cognitive theory
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6
- Giải thích: “Social cognitive theory, developed by Albert Bandura”.
Câu 36: B – Developmental psychologists → Perspective-taking ability
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7
- Giải thích: “Requiring students to deeply understand user needs and perspectives cultivates what developmental psychologists call ‘perspective-taking ability'”.
Câu 37: ill-defined problems
- Từ khóa: type of problems, navigate effectively
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1-3
- Giải thích: “design thinking can be understood as a structured framework for navigating what psychologists term ‘ill-defined problems'”.
Câu 38: ambiguity
- Từ khóa: develop greater tolerance
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-6
- Giải thích: “the methodology helps students develop greater tolerance for ambiguity and resilience”.
Câu 39: default mode network AND executive control network
- Từ khóa: two brain networks, creative problem-solving
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 3-5
- Giải thích: “creative ideation involves coordinated activity across multiple brain networks, including the default mode network…and the executive control network”.
Câu 40: radical innovation
- Từ khóa: critics argue, user-centeredness, limit
- Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 2-3
- Giải thích: “Some scholars argue that the methodology’s emphasis on user-centeredness may inadvertently limit radical innovation”.
5. Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage
Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| influential | adj | /ˌɪnfluˈenʃəl/ | có ảnh hưởng lớn | influential methodologies | influential figure/role |
| human-centered | adj | /ˈhjuːmən ˈsentərd/ | lấy con người làm trung tâm | human-centered approach | human-centered design |
| articulate | v | /ɑːˈtɪkjuleɪt/ | diễn đạt rõ ràng, phát biểu | first articulated by Herbert Simon | articulate a problem/idea |
| empathize | v | /ˈempəθaɪz/ | đồng cảm, thấu hiểu | empathize with users | empathize with someone |
| prototype | n/v | /ˈprəʊtətaɪp/ | nguyên mẫu, tạo mẫu thử | creating tangible prototypes | build/create a prototype |
| iterate | v | /ˈɪtəreɪt/ | lặp lại, cải tiến từng bước | iterate toward solutions | iterate through versions |
| ambiguity | n | /ˌæmbɪˈɡjuːəti/ | sự mơ hồ, không rõ ràng | handle uncertainties and ambiguities | deal with/resolve ambiguity |
| resilience | n | /rɪˈzɪliəns/ | khả năng phục hồi, sức bền | develop resilience | build/demonstrate resilience |
| perseverance | n | /ˌpɜːsɪˈvɪərəns/ | sự kiên trì | teaches perseverance | require/show perseverance |
| methodology | n | /ˌmeθəˈdɒlədʒi/ | phương pháp luận | design thinking methodology | research/teaching methodology |
| panacea | n | /ˌpænəˈsiːə/ | thuốc chữa bách bệnh | not a panacea | seek a panacea |
| integrate | v | /ˈɪntɪɡreɪt/ | tích hợp, hòa nhập | integrated into programs | integrate into/with |
Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pedagogical | adj | /ˌpedəˈɡɒdʒɪkəl/ | thuộc về sư phạm | pedagogical approaches | pedagogical framework/method |
| inherent | adj | /ɪnˈhɪərənt/ | vốn có, cố hữu | inherent tension | inherent risk/problem |
| reconcile | v | /ˈrekənsaɪl/ | hòa giải, dung hòa | reconcile competing demands | reconcile differences |
| facilitate | v | /fəˈsɪlɪteɪt/ | tạo điều kiện thuận lợi | facilitation skills | facilitate learning/discussion |
| conducive | adj | /kənˈdjuːsɪv/ | có lợi cho, tạo điều kiện | conducive to creative thinking | conducive to/for |
| contentious | adj | /kənˈtenʃəs/ | gây tranh cãi | contentious challenge | contentious issue/debate |
| formative | adj | /ˈfɔːmətɪv/ | mang tính hình thành | formative feedback | formative assessment/years |
| summative | adj | /ˈsʌmətɪv/ | mang tính tổng kết | summative grades | summative assessment/evaluation |
| instrumental | adj | /ˌɪnstrəˈmentl/ | quan trọng, có vai trò then chốt | instrumental in successful programs | instrumental in/to |
| scalability | n | /ˌskeɪləˈbɪləti/ | khả năng mở rộng quy mô | scalability of education | improve/ensure scalability |
| dilute | v | /daɪˈluːt/ | làm loãng, giảm chất lượng | risks diluting the quality | dilute quality/effectiveness |
| tiered | adj | /tɪəd/ | phân tầng, theo cấp bậc | tiered approaches | tiered system/structure |
| hierarchical | adj | /ˌhaɪəˈrɑːkɪkəl/ | có cấp bậc | hierarchical educational systems | hierarchical structure/organization |
| persist | v | /pəˈsɪst/ | kiên trì, bền bỉ | institutions that persist | persist in/with |
| alumni | n | /əˈlʌmnaɪ/ | cựu sinh viên | alumni surveys | alumni association/network |
Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary
| Từ vựng | Loại từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa tiếng Việt | Ví dụ từ bài | Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| burgeoning | adj | /ˈbɜːdʒənɪŋ/ | đang phát triển mạnh | burgeoning interest | burgeoning market/industry |
| scrutinize | v | /ˈskruːtənaɪz/ | xem xét kỹ lưỡng | scrutinize underlying processes | scrutinize carefully/closely |
| cognitive | adj | /ˈkɒɡnətɪv/ | thuộc về nhận thức | cognitive foundations | cognitive ability/function |
| abductive | adj | /æbˈdʌktɪv/ | quy nạp giả thuyết | abductive reasoning | abductive logic/inference |
| instantiate | v | /ɪnˈstænʃieɪt/ | thể hiện cụ thể | instantiates this principle | instantiate a concept |
| externalize | v | /ɪkˈstɜːnəlaɪz/ | biểu hiện ra bên ngoài | externalize their ideas | externalize thoughts/feelings |
| encompass | v | /ɪnˈkʌmpəs/ | bao gồm, bao trùm | encompass fundamental shifts | encompass a range |
| affective | adj | /əˈfektɪv/ | thuộc về cảm xúc | affective dimensions | affective domain/response |
| mitigate | v | /ˈmɪtɪɡeɪt/ | giảm nhẹ | mitigate performance anxiety | mitigate risk/impact |
| vicarious | adj | /vɪˈkeəriəs/ | gián tiếp, thay thế | vicarious experience | vicarious learning/pleasure |
| decentering | n | /diːˈsentərɪŋ/ | phi tập trung hóa | capacity for decentering | practice decentering |
| neuroimaging | n | /ˈnjʊərəʊˌɪmɪdʒɪŋ/ | chụp hình thần kinh | neuroimaging studies | neuroimaging technique/data |
| divergent | adj | /daɪˈvɜːdʒənt/ | phân kỳ, suy nghĩ mở rộng | divergent thinking | divergent perspective/approach |
| convergent | adj | /kənˈvɜːdʒənt/ | hội tụ, tập trung | convergent thinking | convergent evidence/solution |
| cumbersome | adj | /ˈkʌmbəsəm/ | rườm rà, cồng kềnh | prove cumbersome | cumbersome process/system |
| preponderance | n | /prɪˈpɒndərəns/ | sự chiếm ưu thế | preponderance of evidence | preponderance of opinion |
| nuanced | adj | /ˈnjuːɑːnst/ | tinh tế, có nhiều sắc thái | more nuanced understanding | nuanced view/approach |
| multifaceted | adj | /ˌmʌltiˈfæsɪtɪd/ | đa diện, nhiều khía cạnh | multifaceted competencies | multifaceted problem/approach |
Bảng từ vựng quan trọng IELTS Reading về Design Thinking và khởi nghiệp
Kết Bài
Chủ đề “Design Thinking in Entrepreneurship Education” không chỉ phản ánh xu hướng giáo dục hiện đại mà còn thường xuyên xuất hiện trong IELTS Reading với nhiều góc độ tiếp cận khác nhau. Như giáo dục khởi nghiệp đang định hình những nhà lãnh đạo tương lai trong How sustainability education is shaping future leaders, design thinking cũng đóng vai trò quan trọng trong việc phát triển năng lực toàn cầu.
Bộ đề thi mẫu này đã cung cấp đầy đủ 3 passages với độ khó tăng dần từ Easy (Band 5.0-6.5) đến Hard (Band 7.0-9.0), tổng cộng hơn 2400 từ và 40 câu hỏi đa dạng dạng. Passage 1 giúp bạn làm quen với chủ đề và từ vựng cơ bản, Passage 2 đào sâu vào thực tiễn triển khai, còn Passage 3 phân tích các chiều kích tâm lý và nhận thức phức tạp.
Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể đã chỉ ra chính xác vị trí thông tin trong bài, cách paraphrase giữa câu hỏi và đoạn văn, cũng như lý do tại sao các đáp án khác không phù hợp. Điều này giúp bạn không chỉ biết đáp án đúng mà còn hiểu rõ chiến lược tìm thông tin và kỹ thuật làm bài.
Hệ thống từ vựng được phân loại theo từng passage với hơn 40 từ quan trọng, kèm phiên âm, nghĩa tiếng Việt, ví dụ từ bài và collocations thường gặp. Những từ này không chỉ hữu ích cho chủ đề design thinking mà còn xuất hiện trong nhiều bài đọc học thuật khác.
Với việc ôn tập kỹ lưỡng qua đề thi này, bạn sẽ:
- Nắm vững cách tiếp cận từng dạng câu hỏi
- Cải thiện tốc độ đọc và khả năng tìm thông tin
- Mở rộng vốn từ vựng học thuật quan trọng
- Tự tin hơn khi đối mặt với các chủ đề tương tự trong thi thật
Hãy dành thời gian làm lại đề này ít nhất 2-3 lần, mỗi lần tập trung vào một kỹ năng khác nhau: lần đầu làm đúng giờ, lần hai phân tích kỹ từng câu, lần ba ghi nhớ từ vựng. Tương tự như Role of education in fostering global citizenship và Cultural differences in parenting styles and education, các chủ đề giáo dục thường mang tính liên kết cao, việc hiểu sâu một chủ đề sẽ giúp bạn dễ dàng tiếp cận các chủ đề liên quan khác.
Trong bối cảnh tự động hóa đang ảnh hưởng đến thị trường việc làm như What are the effects of automation on job markets?, việc đầu tư vào giáo dục và phát triển kỹ năng tư duy sáng tạo như design thinking trở nên quan trọng hơn bao giờ hết. Đây cũng là một lý do tại sao chủ đề này xuất hiện thường xuyên trong IELTS.
Chúc bạn học tập hiệu quả và đạt band điểm mong muốn trong kỳ thi IELTS Reading sắp tới. Hãy nhớ rằng sự kiên trì và phương pháp luyện tập đúng đắn là chìa khóa dẫn đến thành công, tương tự như những nguyên tắc trong Tips for achieving financial security – đầu tư thời gian và công sức đúng cách sẽ mang lại kết quả tốt đẹp về lâu dài.
