IELTS Reading: Các Chương Trình Đọc Hợp Tác Xuyên Văn Hóa – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Mở bài

Chủ đề về các chương trình đọc hợp tác xuyên văn hóa (Collaborative Reading Programs Across Cultures) đang ngày càng xuất hiện nhiều hơn trong các đề thi IELTS Reading gần đây. Đây là một chủ đề thuộc lĩnh vực giáo dục và văn hóa, kết hợp giữa phương pháp học tập hiện đại với sự đa dạng văn hóa toàn cầu – hai khía cạnh mà ban giám khảo IELTS đặc biệt yêu thích.

Trong bài viết này, bạn sẽ được trải nghiệm một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với đầy đủ 3 passages từ dễ đến khó, thiết kế giống như các đề thi Cambridge IELTS thực tế. Cụ thể, bạn sẽ nhận được: một bài đọc cấp độ cơ bản về sáng kiến đọc sách cộng đồng, một bài đọc trung cấp phân tích các mô hình hợp tác quốc tế, và một bài đọc nâng cao về tác động sâu rộng của những chương trình này đối với phát triển nhận thức. Mỗi passage đi kèm với 13-14 câu hỏi đa dạng dạng, đáp án chi tiết và giải thích cặn kẽ, cùng với kho từ vựng quan trọng được chọn lọc kỹ lưỡng.

Đề thi mẫu này phù hợp cho học viên có trình độ từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với format thi thật, rèn luyện kỹ năng quản lý thời gian và nâng cao khả năng phân tích văn bản học thuật một cách bài bản.

Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test kéo dài 60 phút với 3 passages và tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Đây là bài thi đòi hỏi không chỉ khả năng đọc hiểu mà còn kỹ năng quản lý thời gian hiệu quả. Điểm đặc biệt là bạn không có thời gian riêng để chuyển đáp án, vì vậy cần viết đáp án trực tiếp vào phiếu trả lời trong khi làm bài.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1 (dễ): 15-17 phút
• Passage 2 (trung bình): 18-20 phút
• Passage 3 (khó): 23-25 phút

Với cách phân bổ này, bạn có thể giữ được năng lượng cho passage 3 – phần khó nhất và thường mang lại điểm số quyết định cho band 7.0 trở lên.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến và quan trọng nhất trong IELTS Reading:

• Multiple Choice: Câu hỏi trắc nghiệm với 3-4 lựa chọn
• True/False/Not Given: Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hoặc không được đề cập
• Matching Headings: Nối tiêu đề phù hợp với đoạn văn
• Sentence Completion: Hoàn thành câu với từ trong bài đọc
• Summary Completion: Điền từ vào bản tóm tắt
• Matching Features: Nối thông tin với các đặc điểm được liệt kê
• Short-answer Questions: Trả lời câu hỏi ngắn bằng từ trong bài

Sự đa dạng này giúp bạn rèn luyện toàn diện các kỹ năng cần thiết cho kỳ thi thực tế.

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – Community Reading Initiatives Around the World

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

Reading has always been considered a fundamental skill for personal development and social integration. In recent years, collaborative reading programs have emerged as an innovative approach to promoting literacy and cultural understanding across different communities worldwide. These programs bring people together, often from diverse cultural backgrounds, to share the experience of reading and discussing books, articles, and other written materials.

One of the earliest and most successful examples of such initiatives is the “One Book, One Community” program, which originated in Seattle, United States, in 1998. The concept was simple yet powerful: encourage an entire city to read the same book and then participate in discussions about it. The program’s founder, Nancy Pearl, believed that shared reading experiences could foster connections between people who might otherwise never interact. The initiative quickly spread to other American cities and eventually to countries around the world, including Canada, Australia, and several European nations.

In Singapore, the “Read! Singapore” campaign has taken a slightly different approach. Launched by the National Library Board, this program focuses on promoting bilingual reading among the country’s multicultural population. Participants are encouraged to read books in both English and their mother tongue, whether that be Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil. The campaign includes reading workshops, author talks, and book discussion groups that specifically address how different cultures interpret the same stories. This approach has proven particularly effective in a society where linguistic diversity is both a challenge and a treasure.

The “Living Library” concept, which started in Denmark in 2000, represents another innovative form of collaborative reading. Rather than focusing on physical books, this program treats people as “books” that others can “borrow” for conversations. The initiative aims to challenge stereotypes and prejudices by facilitating direct dialogue between individuals from different backgrounds. A person might “borrow” a refugee, a person with disabilities, or someone from a different religious faith for a 30-minute conversation. While not traditional reading in the literal sense, the program embodies the spirit of cultural exchange through narrative and storytelling, which are fundamental aspects of reading culture.

In rural areas of Kenya, the “Camel Library Service” has been operating since the 1980s, bringing books to nomadic communities. While initially focused on simply providing access to reading materials, the program has evolved to include group reading sessions where community members, particularly women and children, gather to read together and discuss the materials. These sessions have become important social occasions that transcend mere literacy development, serving as platforms for sharing traditional stories, discussing modern challenges, and bridging generational gaps.

Latin America has witnessed the rise of “Reading Circles” (Círculos de Lectura) in countries like Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. These are typically informal gatherings in public spaces such as parks, libraries, or community centers where people meet regularly to read aloud and discuss literature. What makes these circles particularly significant is their focus on making literature accessible to populations that might face economic or educational barriers. Many circles specifically choose works by local authors or books that address relevant social issues, creating a direct connection between reading and community empowerment.

The digital age has also transformed collaborative reading. Online platforms like Goodreads and various book club applications have created virtual communities where readers from different countries can share their thoughts on books. While these lack the face-to-face interaction of traditional programs, they offer unprecedented opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue. A reader in Japan can discuss a novel with someone in Brazil, sharing insights shaped by their respective cultural perspectives. These digital spaces have proven especially valuable during the COVID-19 pandemic when physical gatherings became restricted.

Research conducted by the International Literacy Association has shown that collaborative reading programs offer benefits beyond improved literacy. Participants often report increased cultural sensitivity, expanded social networks, and greater community engagement. A 2019 study involving 500 participants across five countries found that 78% felt they had developed a better understanding of cultures different from their own through these programs. Additionally, 65% reported making friendships with people they would not have met otherwise.

However, challenges remain in implementing these programs across cultures. Language barriers are an obvious obstacle, though many programs address this through multilingual materials or translation volunteers. More subtle challenges include different reading traditions and preferences. For instance, some cultures favor oral storytelling traditions over silent reading, while others place different values on various literary genres. Successful programs recognize and adapt to these differences rather than imposing a single model.

Funding represents another significant challenge. While some programs receive government support or backing from non-profit organizations, many rely on volunteers and donations. This can limit their reach and sustainability, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas where such programs might be most needed. Despite these obstacles, the global growth of collaborative reading programs demonstrates both their appeal and their potential to create more literate, connected, and culturally aware communities.

The future of collaborative reading programs across cultures looks promising. As societies become increasingly multicultural and interconnected, the need for initiatives that promote understanding through shared experiences becomes even more critical. Whether through traditional book clubs, innovative living libraries, or digital platforms, these programs continue to prove that reading, when done collaboratively, can be a powerful tool for building bridges between cultures and creating more inclusive communities worldwide.

Questions 1-13

Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

1. The “One Book, One Community” program was founded on the belief that
   A. reading is more enjoyable when done alone
   B. books should be chosen by city officials
   C. shared reading can bring diverse people together
   D. libraries need more funding

2. What makes Singapore’s “Read! Singapore” campaign unique?
   A. It focuses exclusively on English literature
   B. It encourages reading in multiple languages
   C. It only targets young children
   D. It bans certain types of books

3. The “Living Library” concept is different from traditional reading programs because
   A. it uses actual people as sources of stories
   B. it requires payment to participate
   C. it only operates in Denmark
   D. it focuses on digital books

4. The “Camel Library Service” in Kenya has evolved to become
   A. a purely mobile book delivery system
   B. an online reading platform
   C. a social gathering place for community discussion
   D. a bookstore chain

5. According to the passage, digital reading platforms offer
   A. better books than physical libraries
   B. opportunities for international cultural exchange
   C. free books for everyone
   D. guaranteed improvements in literacy

Questions 6-9: 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. The “One Book, One Community” program started in Seattle in 1998.
7. All Reading Circles in Latin America charge membership fees.
8. During the COVID-19 pandemic, online book clubs became more important.
9. The International Literacy Association is based in Switzerland.

Questions 10-13: Sentence Completion

Complete the sentences below. Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

10. In Singapore, participants are encouraged to read in both English and their ____.
11. The Living Library initiative aims to challenge ____ through direct conversations.
12. According to a 2019 study, 78% of participants developed better understanding of ____.
13. Many collaborative reading programs rely on ____ to continue operating.

---

PASSAGE 2 – The Pedagogical Framework of Cross-Cultural Reading Collaborations

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The rise of collaborative reading programs that transcend cultural boundaries represents more than just a trend in literacy education; it embodies a fundamental shift in how educators and community organizers understand the social dimensions of reading. While reading has traditionally been conceptualized as a solitary activity, contemporary research in educational psychology and cultural anthropology increasingly demonstrates that reading, particularly when conducted in cross-cultural contexts, functions as a profoundly social and transformative practice.

Dr. Elena Ramirez, a professor of comparative education at the University of Toronto, has spent the past decade studying international reading partnerships between schools in different countries. Her research reveals that when students engage in synchronized reading activities with peers from other cultures—reading the same texts and exchanging interpretations through video conferences or written correspondence—they develop what she terms “interpretive flexibility”. This concept refers to the ability to recognize that texts can yield multiple valid interpretations depending on the reader’s cultural framework. In one notable study, Canadian and Japanese students reading the same novel about family relationships produced markedly different interpretations, with Canadian students emphasizing individual autonomy while Japanese students focused on collective harmony. Rather than viewing one interpretation as correct, the collaborative framework encouraged students to appreciate both perspectives, thereby enriching their understanding of the text and of cultural differences.

Học sinh từ các nền văn hóa khác nhau cùng tham gia chương trình đọc hợp tác xuyên văn hóa và trao đổi sách

The theoretical foundation for cross-cultural reading programs draws heavily from sociocultural theory, particularly the work of Lev Vygotsky and his concept of the “zone of proximal development”. Vygotsky argued that learning occurs most effectively through social interaction, with more knowledgeable individuals helping others bridge the gap between what they can do independently and what they can achieve with assistance. In cross-cultural reading contexts, this theory extends beyond individual cognitive development to encompass cultural knowledge acquisition. When a reader from one cultural background encounters unfamiliar references or perspectives in a text, collaboration with readers from that culture can provide the necessary scaffolding for deeper comprehension.

The European Union’s Erasmus+ program has incorporated collaborative reading into its educational exchange initiatives. Under the “Reading Without Borders” project, schools across 15 European countries participate in coordinated reading activities. Teachers receive training in facilitating cross-cultural discussions, and students use specially designed digital platforms to share their reading responses. The program’s evaluation data from 2018-2021 shows significant improvements not only in reading comprehension scores but also in measures of intercultural competence and critical thinking skills. Particularly noteworthy is the finding that students who participated in the program demonstrated greater ability to identify and question their own cultural assumptions when interpreting texts.

However, implementing effective cross-cultural reading programs requires careful attention to several pedagogical considerations. First among these is the challenge of text selection. Texts must be accessible across different linguistic proficiency levels while still offering sufficient complexity to generate meaningful discussion. Many programs have found success with contemporary young adult literature that addresses universal themes—such as identity, belonging, and justice—while being culturally specific enough to prompt questions and discovery. Some initiatives use parallel texts: different books from different cultures that explore similar themes, allowing participants to compare not just interpretations but the stories themselves.

Language mediation presents another significant challenge. While some programs operate entirely in English as a lingua franca, this approach can privilege native English speakers and potentially reinforce linguistic imperialism. More equitable models incorporate multilingual practices, using translation technologies, providing texts in multiple languages, or employing multilingual facilitators. The “Translingual Reading Communities” project in Switzerland takes an innovative approach by having participants read in their native languages and then work collectively to translate key passages, making the act of translation itself a site of cultural learning.

The concept of “dialogic pedagogy” has proven particularly relevant to cross-cultural reading programs. Developed by educator Robin Alexander, dialogic teaching emphasizes purposeful, collective discussion that builds understanding through extended exchanges rather than simple question-and-answer sequences. In cross-cultural contexts, this approach becomes even more essential, as participants need space to articulate perspectives that might not fit neatly into binary right-wrong frameworks. Skilled facilitators learn to embrace what some researchers call “productive confusion”—moments when cultural differences generate genuine puzzlement that, if properly guided, can lead to significant insights.

Assessment of learning outcomes in these programs has evolved beyond traditional literacy metrics. While reading comprehension remains important, evaluators increasingly focus on measuring intercultural communication skills, perspective-taking abilities, and critical cultural awareness. The “Global Reading Assessment Framework”, developed by a consortium of international educators, includes measures such as the ability to identify culturally-specific references in texts, recognize culturally-influenced interpretations, and articulate how one’s own cultural background shapes reading experiences. These assessments acknowledge that the goals of cross-cultural reading programs extend far beyond technical reading skills.

Recent research has also examined the role of power dynamics in collaborative reading across cultures. Dr. Kwame Osei, a postcolonial scholar based in Ghana, argues that many international reading programs inadvertently replicate colonial patterns by centering Western literature and Western interpretive frameworks. His work calls for more reciprocal models where all participating cultures contribute texts and interpretive approaches equally. Some programs have responded by implementing rotating cultural focus months or ensuring that diverse literature from multiple traditions comprises the core reading list.

Technology has opened new possibilities for cross-cultural reading collaboration while also introducing new challenges. Asynchronous online discussions allow participants in different time zones to engage deeply with texts and responses at their own pace. However, the absence of nonverbal communication in text-based online exchanges can lead to misunderstandings, particularly across cultures with different communication norms. Some programs have found that hybrid models combining regular video conferences with written exchanges offer the best of both approaches.

The COVID-19 pandemic paradoxically accelerated innovation in cross-cultural reading programs even as it disrupted traditional educational exchanges. Schools that had never considered international collaboration suddenly found themselves connecting classrooms across continents through virtual reading partnerships. While these emergency measures lacked the planning and pedagogical sophistication of established programs, they demonstrated the feasibility and appeal of such collaborations, potentially laying groundwork for more sustained initiatives as normal operations resume.

Looking forward, the field of cross-cultural reading education faces both opportunities and obligations. As global migration patterns create increasingly multicultural classrooms within individual countries, the intercultural competencies developed through collaborative reading programs become not just valuable but essential. Similarly, addressing global challenges from climate change to public health requires the kind of perspective-taking and cultural humility that these programs cultivate. The question is no longer whether collaborative reading across cultures is beneficial, but how to make such experiences accessible to all learners, regardless of their geographic or economic circumstances.

Questions 14-26

Questions 14-18: Yes/No/Not Given

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in the passage?

Write:

• YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer
• NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer
• NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

14. Reading has always been understood primarily as a social activity.
15. Dr. Elena Ramirez believes students can develop “interpretive flexibility” through cross-cultural reading.
16. Canadian and Japanese students interpreted a novel about family in exactly the same way.
17. The Erasmus+ program improved students’ ability to recognize their own cultural biases.
18. All cross-cultural reading programs use English as the primary language.

Questions 19-22: Matching Headings

The passage has several paragraphs. Choose the correct heading for paragraphs discussing each topic from the list of headings below.

List of Headings:

• i. The challenge of choosing appropriate reading materials
• ii. How technology creates both opportunities and difficulties
• iii. Traditional approaches to teaching reading skills
• iv. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on reading programs
• v. The problem of power imbalances in international programs
• vi. Commercial benefits of reading programs
• vii. Assessment methods beyond traditional literacy testing

19. Paragraph discussing text selection challenges
20. Paragraph discussing assessment frameworks
21. Paragraph discussing colonial patterns in reading programs
22. Paragraph discussing pandemic effects

Questions 23-26: Summary Completion

Complete the summary below. Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

Cross-cultural reading programs are based on sociocultural theory, particularly Vygotsky’s concept of the (23) ____. When readers collaborate across cultures, they can help each other understand unfamiliar references by providing necessary (24) ____. The concept of (25) ____, developed by Robin Alexander, emphasizes extended discussion rather than simple question-answer formats. Researchers now focus on measuring skills like (26) ____ rather than just traditional reading comprehension.

---

PASSAGE 3 – Epistemological Implications of Transnational Reading Communities

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The proliferation of collaborative reading initiatives that transcend national and cultural boundaries invites profound questions about the nature of textual interpretation, the construction of meaning, and the epistemological assumptions underlying literacy education. While much of the discourse surrounding these programs emphasizes their practical benefits—enhanced comprehension, improved intercultural competence, and increased empathy—a deeper analysis reveals that they fundamentally challenge certain Western Enlightenment notions of reading as an individualized encounter between a solitary reader and an autonomous text. Instead, these programs implicitly advance a more relativistic, or perhaps more accurately, pluralistic epistemology that recognizes meaning-making as inherently communal, contextual, and culturally mediated.

The philosophical underpinnings of cross-cultural collaborative reading can be traced to hermeneutic theory, particularly the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Gadamer’s concept of the “fusion of horizons” (Horizontverschmelzung) provides a useful framework for understanding what occurs when readers from different cultural backgrounds engage with the same text. According to Gadamer, understanding is not a matter of a reader simply extracting meaning that exists objectively within a text, but rather a dialogical process in which the reader’s “horizon” of pre-existing knowledge, assumptions, and cultural frameworks meets the “horizon” of the text. In cross-cultural reading contexts, this process becomes exponentially more complex and potentially more revelatory, as multiple cultural horizons intersect, each bringing distinct interpretive traditions, literary conventions, and semantic associations.

Professor Amrita Chakravarty, whose research at the intersection of comparative literature and postcolonial theory has significantly shaped contemporary thinking about transnational reading practices, argues that collaborative reading across cultures performs what she calls “epistemic disruption”. This occurs when a reader encounters not just a foreign text but a foreign interpretation of a familiar text, thereby rendering visible the previously invisible cultural frameworks that had seemed like natural, inevitable ways of reading. In her seminal study comparing reading groups in India, the United Kingdom, and Nigeria discussing Victorian literature, Chakravarty documented how contemporary Indian readers brought postcolonial critiques to bear on texts that British readers approached through aesthetic appreciation or historical contextualization, while Nigerian readers emphasized aspects of the texts related to commerce and labor that other groups had overlooked. Crucially, none of these readings could be dismissed as incorrect; rather, each revealed different dimensions of the texts that became visible from particular cultural vantage points.

The implications of such epistemic pluralism for literacy education are both exciting and unsettling. Traditional pedagogical approaches to literature have often operated on an implicit hierarchy of interpretations, with certain readings endorsed by cultural authorities—teachers, critics, textbooks—and others relegated to the status of misreadings or misunderstandings. The collaborative, cross-cultural model necessarily destabilizes this hierarchy, suggesting instead that diverse interpretations might be equally valid, or at minimum, that the question of validity itself requires reconsideration. This shift aligns with broader constructivist and sociocultural theories of learning, which emphasize that knowledge is not transmitted but collaboratively constructed through social interaction.

However, this epistemic relativism risks collapsing into an “anything goes” approach where all interpretations are deemed equal, a concern raised by critics of reader-response theory and postmodern hermeneutics. Addressing this concern requires distinguishing between weak relativism—which maintains that texts support multiple valid interpretations—and strong relativism—which suggests that there are no constraints on interpretation whatsoever. Most sophisticated practitioners and theorists of cross-cultural reading programs advocate for a position of “constrained pluralism”: while texts can sustain diverse culturally-informed readings, these readings must still be textually grounded and internally coherent. The text provides what Umberto Eco termed “limits of interpretation”, even as different cultural frameworks illuminate different aspects within those limits.

Recent empirical research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience has begun to provide biological grounding for what might otherwise seem like purely philosophical abstractions. Studies using fMRI technology to observe brain activity during reading have revealed that readers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds activate different neural networks when processing the same textual material. For instance, research conducted by Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka at the University of Kyoto demonstrated that readers whose first language uses logographic writing systems (such as Chinese or Japanese) show different patterns of visual cortex activation when reading alphabetic texts compared to native alphabetic readers, even when both groups have achieved equivalent proficiency in the language of the text. These findings suggest that cultural differences in reading are not merely interpretive but potentially embedded in the neurological substrate of literacy itself.

Nghiên cứu thần kinh học về quá trình đọc hiểu xuyên văn hóa với công nghệ fMRI hiện đại

The political dimensions of transnational reading programs demand critical scrutiny. As postcolonial theorists from Edward Said to Gayatri Spivak have demonstrated, literary texts and reading practices have historically served as instruments of cultural imperialism. The British colonial education system, for example, used English literature as a tool for instilling British values and undermining indigenous cultures. Contemporary cross-cultural reading programs, even those animated by progressive intentions, risk reproducing these colonial dynamics if they are not carefully structured. Programs that center canonical Western literature while treating non-Western texts as supplementary or exotic, or those that position Western interpretive frameworks as neutral or universal while marking other approaches as culturally particular, perpetuate rather than challenge epistemic colonialism.

More equitable models require what decolonial scholars call “epistemic disobedience”—a willingness to question and move beyond the conceptual frameworks inherited from European colonialism. This might involve, for instance, organizing reading programs around indigenous or non-Western literary traditions, using non-Western literary theories as interpretive frameworks, or fundamentally questioning whether concepts like “literature” or “reading” as understood in Western contexts translate meaningfully across all cultures. The “Ubuntu Reading Project” in South Africa exemplifies this approach by centering African philosophical concepts and oral storytelling traditions, while incorporating written texts in a manner that honors rather than replaces indigenous knowledge systems.

The role of translation in cross-cultural reading collaborations presents another layer of complexity. When participants read texts in translation, they encounter not the original text but an intermediary construction shaped by a translator’s choices, which are themselves culturally informed. Translation scholars working in descriptive translation studies have demonstrated that translations are not neutral linguistic conversions but culturally embedded interpretations. The question of whether participants in cross-cultural reading programs should read in original languages, in translation, or in some combination thereof, carries significant implications for the nature of their cross-cultural encounter. Some programs have experimented with having participants read different translations of the same work, making the act of translation itself an object of discussion and cultural learning.

The ethical dimensions of cross-cultural reading programs extend beyond questions of cultural equity to encompass concerns about privacy, cultural appropriation, and emotional labor. When members of marginalized communities participate in these programs, they may find themselves positioned as cultural informants, expected to explain their communities’ perspectives to others—a burden that majority-culture participants typically do not bear. This dynamic can reproduce problematic power relations even within ostensibly egalitarian collaborative structures. Addressing this requires program designs that distribute interpretive authority more equitably, perhaps by rotating which cultural frameworks serve as starting points for discussion or by explicitly naming and compensating the labor of cultural translation.

Looking toward future directions, the field stands at a critical juncture. The technological infrastructure now exists to connect readers across the globe with unprecedented ease and scale. Digital platforms can incorporate machine translation, multimedia annotations, and interactive discussion forums that were unimaginable a generation ago. However, technology alone cannot resolve the deeper pedagogical, epistemological, and political questions that cross-cultural reading programs raise. As these initiatives expand, they must be accompanied by rigorous theoretical reflection and ethical deliberation about their purposes, methods, and implications.

The promise of collaborative reading programs across cultures ultimately lies not in producing consensus about textual meaning, but in cultivating capacities for epistemic humility—the recognition that our ways of knowing and reading are particular rather than universal—and epistemic curiosity—the desire to understand how others make sense of texts and worlds. In an era marked by political polarization, cultural fragmentation, and the erosion of shared narratives, these capacities may prove essential not just for literacy education but for the possibility of democratic coexistence in multicultural societies. The texts we read together, and how we read them, may matter more than we have yet fully realized.

Questions 27-40

Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

27. According to the passage, cross-cultural reading programs challenge which traditional view of reading?
    A. That reading requires formal education
    B. That reading is an individual activity with fixed meanings
    C. That reading should be done silently
    D. That reading is only for entertainment

28. Gadamer’s concept of “fusion of horizons” suggests that understanding occurs through
    A. memorizing information from texts
    B. following teachers’ interpretations exactly
    C. a dialogue between reader and text perspectives
    D. avoiding cultural influences on reading

29. Professor Amrita Chakravarty’s research demonstrated that
    A. Victorian literature should only be read in Britain
    B. Indian readers misunderstood British texts
    C. different cultural perspectives reveal different dimensions of texts
    D. there is one correct way to interpret literature

30. The passage distinguishes between “weak relativism” and “strong relativism” to argue that
    A. all interpretations are completely arbitrary
    B. texts support multiple valid but textually grounded interpretations
    C. only experts should interpret texts
    D. cultural differences make reading impossible

31. Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka’s neuroscience research suggests that
    A. some cultures are better at reading than others
    B. cultural differences in reading may have neurological foundations
    C. fMRI technology cannot measure reading processes
    D. all readers use exactly the same brain regions

Questions 32-36: Matching Features

Match each concept (32-36) with the correct description (A-H).

Concepts:
32. Epistemic disruption
33. Constrained pluralism
34. Epistemic colonialism
35. Epistemic disobedience
36. Ubuntu Reading Project

Descriptions:
A. Recognition that texts support diverse but grounded interpretations
B. Using Western frameworks as if they were universal
C. When encountering foreign interpretations reveals invisible cultural assumptions
D. A program centering African philosophy and oral traditions
E. The belief that only one interpretation is correct
F. Willingness to question colonial conceptual frameworks
G. Using only digital technologies for reading
H. Avoiding discussion of cultural differences

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 theory provides philosophical foundations for understanding cross-cultural reading?
38. What technology has been used to observe brain activity during reading?
39. What two capacities does the passage identify as the ultimate promise of collaborative reading programs?
40. According to translation scholars, translations are not neutral but are ____.

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. C
2. B
3. A
4. C
5. B
6. TRUE
7. NOT GIVEN
8. TRUE
9. NOT GIVEN
10. mother tongue
11. stereotypes and prejudices
12. cultures different from
13. volunteers and donations

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. NO
15. YES
16. NO
17. YES
18. NO
19. i
20. vii
21. v
22. iv
23. zone of proximal development
24. scaffolding
25. dialogic pedagogy
26. intercultural communication skills (hoặc perspective-taking abilities)

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. C
29. C
30. B
31. B
32. C
33. A
34. B
35. F
36. D
37. hermeneutic theory
38. fMRI technology
39. epistemic humility (và epistemic curiosity)
40. culturally embedded interpretations

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: “One Book, One Community”, founded, belief
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ: “The program’s founder, Nancy Pearl, believed that shared reading experiences could foster connections between people who might otherwise never interact.” Điều này được paraphrase trong đáp án C “shared reading can bring diverse people together”. Các đáp án khác không được đề cập hoặc trái ngược với thông tin trong bài.

Câu 2: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Singapore, “Read! Singapore”, unique
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Đoạn văn chỉ ra: “this program focuses on promoting bilingual reading among the country’s multicultural population. Participants are encouraged to read books in both English and their mother tongue”. Đây chính là điểm độc đáo, được thể hiện ở đáp án B.

Câu 3: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Living Library, different from traditional
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói: “Rather than focusing on physical books, this program treats people as ‘books’ that others can ‘borrow’ for conversations.” Đây là sự khác biệt cốt lõi, người thật trở thành nguồn câu chuyện, như đáp án A nói.

Câu 6: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: One Book One Community, Seattle, 1998
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1
• Giải thích: Bài viết nêu chính xác: “originated in Seattle, United States, in 1998”. Thông tin khớp hoàn toàn với câu hỏi.

Câu 7: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Reading Circles, Latin America, membership fees
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6
• Giải thích: Đoạn văn mô tả Reading Circles là “informal gatherings” và đề cập đến việc “making literature accessible to populations that might face economic or educational barriers”, nhưng không có thông tin cụ thể về việc có hay không thu phí thành viên.

Câu 10: mother tongue

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Singapore, English and
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Câu trong bài: “Participants are encouraged to read books in both English and their mother tongue, whether that be Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil.” Đáp án chính xác là “mother tongue”.

Câu 12: cultures different from

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: 2019 study, 78%, better understanding
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: Thông tin chính xác: “78% felt they had developed a better understanding of cultures different from their own”. Cần lấy ba từ “cultures different from”.

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: reading, always, social activity
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói: “While reading has traditionally been conceptualized as a solitary activity”, điều này mâu thuẫn trực tiếp với câu hỏi nói reading “always been understood primarily as a social activity”. Đáp án là NO.

Câu 15: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Dr. Elena Ramirez, interpretive flexibility
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Đoạn văn nói rõ: “they develop what she terms ‘interpretive flexibility'”. Đây chính là quan điểm của Dr. Ramirez, khớp với câu hỏi.

Câu 16: NO

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Canadian, Japanese students, same way
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-8
• Giải thích: Bài đọc chỉ ra: “produced markedly different interpretations, with Canadian students emphasizing individual autonomy while Japanese students focused on collective harmony”. Họ hiểu khác nhau, không giống nhau, nên đáp án là NO.

Câu 17: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Erasmus+, cultural biases
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: Văn bản nêu: “students who participated in the program demonstrated greater ability to identify and question their own cultural assumptions”. “Cultural assumptions” được paraphrase thành “cultural biases” trong câu hỏi.

Câu 23: zone of proximal development

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: Vygotsky’s concept
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: Bài viết đề cập: “particularly the work of Lev Vygotsky and his concept of the ‘zone of proximal development'”. Đây là thuật ngữ chính xác cần điền.

Câu 24: scaffolding

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Từ khóa: help understand, unfamiliar references
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng cuối
• Giải thích: Câu trong bài: “collaboration with readers from that culture can provide the necessary scaffolding for deeper comprehension”. Từ “scaffolding” là đáp án chính xác.

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: challenge, traditional view
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: Đoạn văn nói: “they fundamentally challenge certain Western Enlightenment notions of reading as an individualized encounter between a solitary reader and an autonomous text”. Đây chính là quan niệm truyền thống bị thách thức, tương ứng đáp án B.

Câu 28: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Gadamer, fusion of horizons, understanding
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 3-6
• Giải thích: Gadamer cho rằng: “understanding is not a matter of a reader simply extracting meaning that exists objectively within a text, but rather a dialogical process in which the reader’s ‘horizon’… meets the ‘horizon’ of the text”. Đây là quá trình đối thoại giữa người đọc và văn bản, như đáp án C.

Câu 29: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Professor Amrita Chakravarty, research
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 4-10
• Giải thích: Nghiên cứu cho thấy: “none of these readings could be dismissed as incorrect; rather, each revealed different dimensions of the texts that became visible from particular cultural vantage points”. Đáp án C phản ánh chính xác kết luận này.

Câu 31: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka, neuroscience
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-6
• Giải thích: Nghiên cứu cho thấy: “readers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds activate different neural networks when processing the same textual material”. Điều này chứng minh sự khác biệt văn hóa có nền tảng thần kinh học, như đáp án B.

Câu 32: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
• Từ khóa: Epistemic disruption
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Chakravarty định nghĩa: “This occurs when a reader encounters not just a foreign text but a foreign interpretation of a familiar text, thereby rendering visible the previously invisible cultural frameworks”. Khớp với mô tả C.

Câu 37: hermeneutic theory

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: philosophical foundations, cross-cultural reading
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1
• Giải thích: Bài viết nêu rõ: “The philosophical underpinnings of cross-cultural collaborative reading can be traced to hermeneutic theory”. Đáp án chính xác là “hermeneutic theory”.

Câu 39: epistemic humility

• Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer
• Từ khóa: ultimate promise, capacities
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn cuối, dòng 2-3
• Giải thích: Văn bản nói: “The promise… ultimately lies… in cultivating capacities for epistemic humility… and epistemic curiosity”. Câu hỏi hỏi về hai capacities, đáp án là “epistemic humility” (capacity thứ nhất được đề cập).

---

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
collaborative	adj	/kəˈlæbərətɪv/	hợp tác, cộng tác	collaborative reading programs	collaborative effort, collaborative approach
literacy	n	/ˈlɪtərəsi/	khả năng đọc viết	promoting literacy	literacy rate, literacy skills
diverse	adj	/daɪˈvɜːs/	đa dạng	diverse cultural backgrounds	diverse population, diverse perspectives
foster	v	/ˈfɒstə(r)/	nuôi dưỡng, thúc đẩy	foster connections	foster relationships, foster growth
bilingual	adj	/baɪˈlɪŋɡwəl/	song ngữ	promoting bilingual reading	bilingual education, bilingual speaker
stereotypes	n	/ˈsteriətaɪps/	định kiến, khuôn mẫu	challenge stereotypes	racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes
prejudices	n	/ˈpredʒudɪsɪz/	thành kiến	challenge prejudices	overcome prejudices, fight prejudices
nomadic	adj	/nəʊˈmædɪk/	du mục	nomadic communities	nomadic lifestyle, nomadic tribes
empowerment	n	/ɪmˈpaʊəmənt/	trao quyền, tăng quyền	community empowerment	women’s empowerment, social empowerment
cross-cultural	adj	/krɒs ˈkʌltʃərəl/	xuyên văn hóa	cross-cultural dialogue	cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural understanding
engagement	n	/ɪnˈɡeɪdʒmənt/	sự tham gia, cam kết	community engagement	civic engagement, social engagement
sustainability	n	/səˌsteɪnəˈbɪləti/	tính bền vững	program sustainability	environmental sustainability, financial sustainability

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
pedagogical	adj	/ˌpedəˈɡɒdʒɪkl/	thuộc sư phạm	pedagogical considerations	pedagogical approach, pedagogical methods
transformative	adj	/trænsˈfɔːmətɪv/	mang tính chuyển đổi	transformative practice	transformative experience, transformative power
interpretive	adj	/ɪnˈtɜːprətɪv/	thuộc giải thích	interpretive flexibility	interpretive skills, interpretive framework
sociocultural	adj	/ˌsəʊsiəʊˈkʌltʃərəl/	văn hóa xã hội	sociocultural theory	sociocultural context, sociocultural factors
scaffolding	n	/ˈskæfəldɪŋ/	giàn giáo, hỗ trợ học tập	provide scaffolding	instructional scaffolding, learning scaffolding
intercultural	adj	/ˌɪntəˈkʌltʃərəl/	liên văn hóa	intercultural competence	intercultural communication, intercultural dialogue
proficiency	n	/prəˈfɪʃnsi/	sự thành thạo	linguistic proficiency	language proficiency, reading proficiency
lingua franca	n	/ˌlɪŋɡwə ˈfræŋkə/	ngôn ngữ chung	English as lingua franca	global lingua franca, international lingua franca
dialogic	adj	/ˌdaɪəˈlɒdʒɪk/	thuộc đối thoại	dialogic pedagogy	dialogic approach, dialogic teaching
reciprocal	adj	/rɪˈsɪprəkl/	có đi có lại	reciprocal models	reciprocal relationship, reciprocal exchange
asynchronous	adj	/eɪˈsɪŋkrənəs/	không đồng bộ	asynchronous discussions	asynchronous learning, asynchronous communication
competencies	n	/ˈkɒmpɪtənsiz/	năng lực	intercultural competencies	core competencies, professional competencies
facilitate	v	/fəˈsɪlɪteɪt/	tạo điều kiện	facilitating discussions	facilitate learning, facilitate communication

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
epistemological	adj	/ɪˌpɪstɪməˈlɒdʒɪkl/	thuộc nhận thức luận	epistemological assumptions	epistemological foundations, epistemological framework
hermeneutic	adj	/ˌhɜːmɪˈnjuːtɪk/	thuộc giải thích học	hermeneutic theory	hermeneutic approach, hermeneutic tradition
pluralistic	adj	/ˌplʊərəˈlɪstɪk/	đa nguyên	pluralistic epistemology	pluralistic society, pluralistic view
dialogical	adj	/ˌdaɪəˈlɒdʒɪkl/	mang tính đối thoại	dialogical process	dialogical relationship, dialogical approach
postcolonial	adj	/ˌpəʊstkəˈləʊniəl/	hậu thực dân	postcolonial theory	postcolonial literature, postcolonial studies
epistemic	adj	/ˌepɪˈstiːmɪk/	thuộc tri thức	epistemic disruption	epistemic violence, epistemic injustice
relativism	n	/ˈrelətɪvɪzəm/	chủ nghĩa tương đối	epistemic relativism	cultural relativism, moral relativism
constructivist	adj	/kənˈstrʌktɪvɪst/	theo thuyết kiến tạo	constructivist theories	constructivist approach, constructivist learning
neurological	adj	/ˌnjʊərəˈlɒdʒɪkl/	thuộc thần kinh	neurological substrate	neurological development, neurological disorder
imperialism	n	/ɪmˈpɪəriəlɪzəm/	chủ nghĩa đế quốc	cultural imperialism	linguistic imperialism, economic imperialism
decolonial	adj	/diːkəˈləʊniəl/	phi thực dân	decolonial scholars	decolonial theory, decolonial practice
marginalized	adj	/ˈmɑːdʒɪnəlaɪzd/	bị lề hóa	marginalized communities	marginalized groups, marginalized voices
appropriation	n	/əˌprəʊpriˈeɪʃn/	sự chiếm đoạt	cultural appropriation	cultural appropriation, land appropriation
polarization	n	/ˌpəʊləraɪˈzeɪʃn/	sự phân cực	political polarization	social polarization, increasing polarization
coexistence	n	/ˌkəʊɪɡˈzɪstəns/	sự cùng tồn tại	democratic coexistence	peaceful coexistence, mutual coexistence
humility	n	/hjuːˈmɪləti/	sự khiêm tốn	epistemic humility	intellectual humility, cultural humility
vantage point	n	/ˈvɑːntɪdʒ pɔɪnt/	điểm nhìn có lợi	cultural vantage points	strategic vantage point, unique vantage point
substrate	n	/ˈsʌbstreɪt/	chất nền	neurological substrate	cultural substrate, biological substrate

---

Kết bài

Chủ đề về các chương trình đọc hợp tác xuyên văn hóa không chỉ là một xu hướng giáo dục hiện đại mà còn phản ánh sự thay đổi sâu sắc trong cách chúng ta hiểu về đọc, học tập và giao tiếp văn hóa. Qua ba passages với độ khó tăng dần, bạn đã được trải nghiệm một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh, từ những thông tin cơ bản về các sáng kiến cộng đồng đến những phân tích sâu về khung lý thuyết sư phạm và những vấn đề nhận thức luận phức tạp.

Các passages này không chỉ cung cấp kiến thức về chủ đề mà còn minh họa đầy đủ các dạng câu hỏi quan trọng trong IELTS Reading: Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given, Yes/No/Not Given, Matching Headings, Sentence Completion, Summary Completion, Matching Features và Short-answer Questions. Sự đa dạng này giúp bạn rèn luyện toàn diện các kỹ năng cần thiết để đạt band điểm cao.

Đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể về vị trí thông tin, cách paraphrase và chiến lược làm bài sẽ giúp bạn tự đánh giá chính xác năng lực hiện tại của mình. Hãy chú ý đến cách các câu hỏi được xây dựng và mối liên hệ giữa thông tin trong bài với đáp án để phát triển kỹ năng scanning và skimming hiệu quả hơn.

Bộ từ vựng được tổng hợp từ ba passages, bao gồm hơn 40 từ và cụm từ quan trọng với phiên âm, nghĩa và collocations thông dụng, sẽ là tài liệu quý giá cho việc mở rộng vốn từ học thuật của bạn. Những từ này thường xuyên xuất hiện trong các bài thi IELTS Reading, đặc biệt là các chủ đề về giáo dục, văn hóa và xã hội.

Để tận dụng tối đa đề thi mẫu này, hãy thực hành trong điều kiện giống thi thật: đặt thời gian 60 phút, làm bài trong môi trường yên tĩnh và không tra cứu trong khi làm. Sau đó, dành thời gian phân tích kỹ lưỡng các câu trả lời sai và tìm hiểu tại sao bạn đã không nhận diện đúng thông tin. Chính quá trình phân tích này, hơn là chỉ việc làm bài, sẽ giúp bạn tiến bộ nhanh chóng trong IELTS Reading.

Chúc bạn luyện tập hiệu quả và đạt được band điểm mong muốn trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!