IELTS Reading: Vai trò của Robot trong Học tập Thực hành – Đề thi mẫu có đáp án chi tiết

Giới thiệu

Chủ đề công nghệ giáo dục, đặc biệt là vai trò của robot trong học tập thực hành (hands-on learning), đang trở thành xu hướng phổ biến trong các đề thi IELTS Reading gần đây. Theo thống kê từ Cambridge IELTS và British Council, các bài đọc liên quan đến công nghệ giáo dục xuất hiện với tần suất 15-20% trong kỳ thi IELTS Academic.

Bài viết này cung cấp cho bạn một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với 3 passages theo đúng format thi thật, bao gồm 40 câu hỏi đa dạng từ cơ bản đến nâng cao. Bạn sẽ được thực hành với các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến như Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given, Matching Headings, và nhiều dạng khác. Đặc biệt, mỗi câu hỏi đều có đáp án chi tiết kèm giải thích cụ thể về vị trí thông tin và cách paraphrase, giúp bạn hiểu rõ phương pháp làm bài hiệu quả.

Bộ đề này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, với độ khó tăng dần qua từng passage, giúp bạn làm quen với áp lực thời gian và rèn luyện kỹ năng đọc hiểu học thuật một cách bài bản. Hãy tự đặt thời gian 60 phút và làm bài như trong kỳ thi thật để đánh giá chính xác trình độ của mình.

Hướng dẫn làm bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading Test gồm 3 passages với tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi, thời gian làm bài là 60 phút. Đây là phần thi không có thời gian phụ để chuyển đáp án sang phiếu trả lời như phần Listening, vì vậy bạn cần quản lý thời gian rất chặt chẽ.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

• Passage 1 (Easy): 15-17 phút – Bài đọc ngắn nhất với nội dung dễ hiểu, câu hỏi trực tiếp
• Passage 2 (Medium): 18-20 phút – Độ phức tạp tăng lên, yêu cầu kỹ năng paraphrase tốt
• Passage 3 (Hard): 23-25 phút – Bài khó nhất với từ vựng học thuật và cấu trúc câu phức tạp

Lưu ý quan trọng: Đừng bị kẹt quá lâu ở một câu hỏi. Nếu không chắc chắn, hãy đánh dấu và quay lại sau khi hoàn thành các câu dễ hơn.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Đề thi mẫu này bao gồm 8 dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

1. Multiple Choice – Chọn đáp án đúng từ 3-4 lựa chọn
2. True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hay không được đề cập
3. Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề phù hợp với các đoạn văn
4. Matching Features – Nối thông tin với các đối tượng/người được nhắc đến
5. Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu với từ trong bài
6. Summary Completion – Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
7. Short-answer Questions – Trả lời ngắn gọn các câu hỏi
8. Matching Sentence Endings – Nối phần đầu và phần cuối câu

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – Robots Enter the Classroom: A New Era of Learning

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

In recent years, educational robotics has emerged as a powerful tool for enhancing hands-on learning experiences in schools around the world. These programmable machines, ranging from simple wheeled robots to sophisticated humanoid assistants, are transforming the way students engage with complex subjects like science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The integration of robotics into classroom activities represents a significant shift from traditional teaching methods, where students primarily learned through textbooks and lectures.

The appeal of robots in education lies in their ability to make abstract concepts tangible. When students program a robot to navigate through a maze, for instance, they are not just learning coding syntax – they are experiencing firsthand how algorithms work in the physical world. This concrete manifestation of computational thinking helps bridge the gap between theory and practice, making difficult subjects more accessible to learners of all ages. Teachers report that students who struggle with conventional mathematics often thrive when solving problems through robotic challenges, as the immediate visual feedback provides motivation and clarity.

One of the most significant advantages of robotic learning platforms is their capacity to promote collaborative problem-solving. Unlike individual desk work, robotics projects typically require teams of students to work together, each contributing different skills to achieve a common goal. Some students might excel at programming, while others demonstrate strengths in mechanical design or project management. This division of labour mirrors real-world professional environments and helps students develop essential soft skills such as communication, negotiation and conflict resolution. Research conducted at Stanford University found that students who participated in robotics programmes showed a 40% improvement in teamwork abilities compared to control groups.

The hands-on nature of robotics also addresses different learning styles more effectively than traditional instruction. Visual learners benefit from seeing robots move and respond to commands, while kinesthetic learners engage through the physical construction and manipulation of robotic components. Even auditory learners find value in the discussions and explanations that arise during collaborative debugging sessions. This multi-sensory approach ensures that robotics can reach a broader spectrum of students, including those who might otherwise be marginalized in conventional educational settings.

Furthermore, robots serve as excellent vehicles for teaching iterative thinking and resilience. When a robot fails to complete its task, students must analyse what went wrong, adjust their approach and try again. This cycle of trial and error is fundamental to scientific inquiry and engineering design, yet it is often discouraged in traditional education systems that penalise mistakes. In robotics classrooms, failure becomes a learning opportunity rather than something to be avoided. Students quickly learn that setbacks are not just normal but necessary steps toward success.

However, the implementation of robotics in education is not without challenges. The initial financial investment can be substantial, with quality robotics kits costing anywhere from $200 to several thousand dollars per unit. Schools in disadvantaged communities may find these costs prohibitive, potentially creating a digital divide where only well-funded institutions can offer robotics programmes. Additionally, teachers require professional development to effectively integrate robots into their curriculum. Many educators feel unprepared to teach robotics, particularly if they lack backgrounds in computer science or engineering.

Despite these obstacles, the momentum behind educational robotics continues to grow. Governments and private foundations are increasingly funding initiatives to bring robotics to schools, recognizing its potential to prepare students for an automation-driven future. As robots become more affordable and user-friendly, experts predict that they will become as common in classrooms as computers are today, fundamentally changing how we think about hands-on learning and practical education.

Questions 1-6

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?

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

1. Educational robots range from basic models to advanced humanoid types.
2. Students who find traditional mathematics difficult often perform better when using robotics.
3. Robotics projects are designed primarily for individual rather than group work.
4. Research at Stanford University demonstrated improvements in students’ collaborative abilities.
5. Robotics learning is equally effective for all types of learners.
6. All schools now have equal access to robotics equipment.

Questions 7-10

Complete the sentences below.

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

7. When students program robots to move through mazes, they gain practical experience with how __ function in reality.
8. In robotics teams, students contribute different skills, creating a __ similar to professional workplaces.
9. The process of repeated attempts and adjustments teaches students about __ and resilience.
10. Many teachers feel they need more __ before they can successfully incorporate robotics into their lessons.

Questions 11-13

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

11. According to the passage, what is the main educational benefit of robots making abstract concepts tangible?

    • A. Students learn coding more quickly
    • B. Theory becomes connected to practice
    • C. Teachers can work less
    • D. Classrooms become more modern

12. What does the passage suggest about failure in robotics education?

    • A. It should be avoided whenever possible
    • B. It is treated as a valuable learning experience
    • C. It discourages students from continuing
    • D. It only affects weak students

13. The main challenge to widespread robotics adoption mentioned in the passage is:

    • A. Student disinterest
    • B. Complex technology
    • C. High costs
    • D. Limited research

---

PASSAGE 2 – The Cognitive Benefits of Robotic Manipulation

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The integration of robotics into educational curricula has sparked considerable interest among cognitive psychologists and educational neuroscientists, who are increasingly documenting the profound effects that hands-on robotic activities have on brain development and learning processes. Unlike passive forms of instruction, where students receive information unidirectionally, robotic learning requires active engagement across multiple cognitive domains simultaneously, creating what researchers term “cognitive scaffolding” – a framework that supports the development of higher-order thinking skills.

At the neurological level, manipulating physical robots activates several brain regions concurrently. When a student builds a robotic arm, for instance, the motor cortex engages in planning and executing movements, the visual cortex processes spatial relationships, and the prefrontal cortex – responsible for executive functions like planning and decision-making – coordinates these activities into a coherent strategy. This multi-region activation produces what neuroscientists call “enriched learning”, where neural connections are strengthened through varied and complex stimulation. Research using functional MRI scanning has revealed that students engaged in robotics tasks show significantly greater neural connectivity between these regions compared to those completing traditional paper-based exercises.

The tactile dimension of robotics is particularly significant for cognitive development. Proprioceptive feedback – the sensory information we receive from our own body movements – plays a crucial role in memory formation and conceptual understanding. When students physically manipulate components, adjust mechanisms, or troubleshoot mechanical failures, they create what educational theorist Jean Piaget termed “sensorimotor schemas” – mental representations grounded in physical experience. These schemas serve as cognitive anchors, making abstract concepts significantly more memorable and accessible than information learned purely through verbal or visual means.

Moreover, robotic activities naturally promote what psychologists call “metacognition” – thinking about one’s own thinking. As students design, test and refine their robotic creations, they must constantly monitor their problem-solving strategies, evaluate their effectiveness and adjust their approaches accordingly. This self-reflective process is fundamental to becoming an independent learner. Dr. Marina Chen, a developmental psychologist at MIT, explains: “When students work with robots, they’re essentially having a conversation with their own thinking. The robot’s behaviour provides immediate, non-judgmental feedback about the validity of their ideas, creating a safe space for metacognitive development.”

The collaborative nature of most robotics projects adds another layer of cognitive benefit through what Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky called the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD). According to this theory, learners achieve optimal growth when working on tasks slightly beyond their current capabilities with the support of more knowledgeable peers. In robotics teams, students naturally operate within their ZPD, as they tackle challenges that would be too difficult individually but become manageable through collective problem-solving. This peer scaffolding not only accelerates learning but also develops social cognition – the ability to understand and predict others’ thoughts, intentions and perspectives.

However, the cognitive benefits of robotic learning are not uniformly distributed across all implementations. The quality of the educational experience depends heavily on how robotics activities are structured and facilitated. When robots are used merely as “technological novelties” – where students follow prescriptive instructions without genuine problem-solving opportunities – the cognitive benefits largely disappear. Effective robotics pedagogy requires what researchers call “productive struggle” – tasks challenging enough to require sustained cognitive effort but not so difficult as to cause frustration and disengagement.

The temporal aspect of robotic learning also warrants attention. Unlike discrete learning events such as watching a demonstration or reading a chapter, robotics projects typically unfold over extended periods, allowing students to engage in what cognitive scientists term “distributed practice”. This spaced repetition of skills and concepts, interspersed with periods of rest and consolidation, has been shown to produce more durable learning than massed practice – intensive study over short periods. Furthermore, the iterative nature of robotics work, where students repeatedly return to and refine their projects, facilitates what researchers call “knowledge compilation” – the transformation of declarative knowledge (knowing what) into procedural knowledge (knowing how).

Recent longitudinal studies have begun to document the long-term cognitive effects of sustained robotics exposure. Students who participated in robotics programmes throughout their secondary education showed enhanced spatial reasoning abilities, improved executive function, and greater cognitive flexibility – the capacity to adapt thinking strategies to new situations – compared to matched controls. Perhaps most intriguingly, these benefits appeared to transfer beyond the specific context of robotics, with students demonstrating improved performance in seemingly unrelated domains such as mathematical proof construction and scientific hypothesis testing.

Questions 14-18

Reading Passage 2 has eight paragraphs, A-H.

Which paragraph contains the following information?

Write the correct letter, A-H.

14. A comparison between concentrated study and learning spread over time
15. An explanation of why touching and manipulating objects aids memory
16. Evidence from brain imaging technology supporting robotics education
17. A description of optimal learning conditions involving peer support
18. The finding that robotics skills can improve unrelated academic areas

Questions 19-23

Complete the summary below.

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

When students work with robots, multiple areas of the brain are activated simultaneously, creating what researchers describe as (19) __. This happens because building robots requires students to use various cognitive abilities at once. The sense of touch is especially important because it provides **(20) __, which helps create stronger mental frameworks for understanding concepts.

Robotics also encourages (21) __, where students reflect on their own thinking processes. The immediate responses from robots give (22) __ that helps students evaluate their ideas without feeling judged. However, for these benefits to occur, activities must involve genuine challenges rather than simply following **(23) __ step by step.

Questions 24-26

Choose THREE letters, A-G.

Which THREE benefits of robotics education are explicitly mentioned in the passage?

A. Increased neural connections between brain regions
B. Better performance in language learning
C. Development of independent learning skills
D. Higher scores in standardized tests
E. Improved ability to understand others’ perspectives
F. Enhanced artistic creativity
G. Greater adaptability in thinking approaches

---

PASSAGE 3 – Robotics, Embodied Cognition, and the Future of Pedagogical Practice

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The proliferation of robotic technologies in educational settings has catalysed a fundamental re-examination of long-held assumptions about the nature of learning itself, particularly challenging the Cartesian dualism that has traditionally separated mind and body in Western educational philosophy. Contemporary research in embodied cognition – the theory that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body’s interactions with the physical environment – suggests that the kinaesthetic engagement inherent in robotics may not simply be an effective pedagogical method but rather a manifestation of how human cognition fundamentally operates. This paradigm shift has profound implications for understanding why hands-on robotic learning produces such robust educational outcomes.

The theoretical foundations of embodied cognition can be traced to the phenomenological philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who argued that perception and understanding are inextricably linked to bodily experience. In his seminal work, Merleau-Ponty contended that consciousness itself is not a disembodied rational process but is fundamentally situated in and shaped by our physical corporeal interactions with the world. When translated to educational robotics, this perspective suggests that students are not merely using their bodies as tools to serve their minds; rather, the physical manipulation of robotic components is itself a form of thinking – what researchers now term “enactive cognition”.

Recent advances in neuroimaging technology and computational neuroscience have provided empirical validation for these theoretical propositions. Studies employing diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) have revealed that extended engagement with robotics leads to measurable changes in white matter microstructure – the neural pathways connecting different brain regions. Specifically, researchers at the Karolinska Institute documented significant increases in fractional anisotropy (a measure of neural connectivity) in the corpus callosum of adolescents who participated in year-long robotics programmes, suggesting enhanced interhemispheric communication. These structural changes correspond with observed improvements in tasks requiring the integration of analytical and spatial reasoning, providing a neurobiological substrate for the cognitive benefits of hands-on robotic learning.

The concept of “distributed cognition” offers another theoretical lens through which to understand robotics’ educational efficacy. Proponents of this framework, notably Edwin Hutchins and Andy Clark, argue that cognitive processes extend beyond the individual mind to encompass tools, technologies and the social environment. In robotics education, this distributed cognitive system comprises not only the student’s brain but also the physical robot, programming software, collaborating peers and the material constraints of the task itself. This perspective reconceptualizes learning not as information transfer into individual minds but as the development of proficiency in navigating increasingly complex sociotechnical systems – arguably a more appropriate educational goal for the 21st century.

The affordances – the action possibilities – that robots provide also merit careful consideration. Unlike purely digital computational environments, physical robots operate under real-world constraints of physics, mechanics and materials science. A programming error that causes a digital avatar to walk through a virtual wall creates minimal cognitive impact; the same error causing a physical robot to collide with an obstacle produces immediate, salient feedback with multiple sensory modalities – visual, auditory and sometimes even proprioceptive if students are holding the robot. This multimodal grounding of abstract computational concepts in physical consequences creates what cognitive scientists call “epistemic actions” – physical movements undertaken not to advance directly toward a goal but to support cognitive processes such as problem-solving and learning.

However, the integration of robotics into mainstream education faces systemic institutional barriers beyond mere resource allocation. The epistemological assumptions underlying standardized testing regimes and traditional academic structures privilege declarative knowledge – facts and concepts that can be verbally articulated – over the procedural and tacit knowledge that robotics cultivates. This creates a misalignment between what educational robotics can effectively develop and what institutional assessment mechanisms can easily measure. Students might demonstrate profound understanding through their ability to design, troubleshoot and optimize a robotic system, yet struggle to articulate this knowledge in formats valued by conventional evaluation. This assessment paradox represents perhaps the most significant obstacle to robotics’ systemic integration.

Furthermore, questions of pedagogical equity complicate the robotics education landscape. While advocates celebrate robotics’ potential to democratize access to high-status knowledge in computing and engineering, critical scholars highlight concerning patterns in participation and achievement. Research by Dr. Sapna Cheryan at the University of Washington documented how the cultural semiotics surrounding robotics – its association with particular gender identities, socioeconomic classes and ethnic groups – creates “identity-relevant achievement obstacles” for students from underrepresented backgrounds. Female students and students of colour, despite demonstrating equivalent or superior performance in blind assessments, reported significantly lower self-efficacy in robotics contexts, suggesting that the benefits of hands-on robotic learning may be mediated by complex sociocultural factors that transcend purely cognitive considerations.

The temporal dynamics of educational robotics implementation also warrant critical examination. Longitudinal studies tracking students over multiple years reveal that the relationship between robotics exposure and educational outcomes follows a non-linear trajectory. Initial engagement often produces dramatic gains in motivation and interest – what researchers term the “honeymoon effect” – but these benefits can attenuate if robotics activities become routinized or if students exhaust the developmental affordances of available platforms. This pattern suggests that effective robotics pedagogy requires not merely implementation but continuous curricular innovation and progressive complexity, demanding ongoing professional development for educators and sustained investment in evolving technological infrastructure.

Looking toward the future, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and adaptive robotics promise to further transform the landscape of hands-on learning. Robots capable of adjusting their behaviour based on student interaction patterns could provide individualised scaffolding previously possible only through intensive one-to-one tutoring. However, these same technologies also raise profound ethical questions about pedagogical surveillance, algorithmic bias in educational contexts, and the fundamental purposes of education in an increasingly automated society. As robotic systems become more sophisticated, educators and policymakers must grapple with whether the goal is to prepare students to work alongside machines, to maintain human cognitive capacities that machines cannot replicate, or to fundamentally reimagine what it means to be educated in a post-human condition.

Questions 27-31

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

27. According to the passage, embodied cognition theory suggests that:

    • A. The body serves as a tool for the mind to use
    • B. Physical interaction with objects is itself a form of thinking
    • C. Robotics is more effective than traditional teaching
    • D. Students learn better when they move around

28. The research at the Karolinska Institute demonstrated:

    • A. That robotics makes students more creative
    • B. Physical changes in students’ brain connectivity
    • C. That adolescents prefer robotics to other subjects
    • D. Improvements in students’ memory capacity

29. The concept of “distributed cognition” views learning as:

    • A. Sharing information among team members
    • B. Using multiple teaching methods simultaneously
    • C. Developing skill in complex systems including tools and people
    • D. Distributing lessons across different subjects

30. According to the passage, what creates an “assessment paradox”?

    • A. Robots are too expensive to use for testing
    • B. Students don’t perform well on robotics exams
    • C. Traditional tests cannot easily measure the skills robotics develops
    • D. Teachers lack training in robotics assessment

31. The “honeymoon effect” in robotics education refers to:

    • A. Students becoming bored with robotics over time
    • B. Initial enthusiasm that may decline without proper development
    • C. The period when robots are first introduced to schools
    • D. A temporary improvement in test scores

Questions 32-36

Complete each sentence with the correct ending, A-I, below.

32. Physical robots operating under real-world constraints
33. The emphasis on standardized testing
34. Dr. Sapna Cheryan’s research revealed that
35. Longitudinal studies of robotics programmes show that
36. Future AI-enhanced robots could potentially

A. creates obstacles for underrepresented students through cultural associations.
B. benefits decrease if activities become too familiar or repetitive.
C. provide feedback through multiple senses simultaneously.
D. requires expensive equipment that many schools cannot afford.
E. offer personalized learning support similar to individual tutoring.
F. privileges knowledge that can be verbally expressed over practical skills.
G. demonstrates superior cognitive abilities compared to other students.
H. eliminates the need for human teachers in robotics classes.
I. proves that all students benefit equally from robotics education.

Questions 37-40

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 3?

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

37. Western educational philosophy has traditionally separated mental and physical aspects of learning.
38. All schools should immediately replace traditional teaching with robotics-based education.
39. The benefits of robotics education may be influenced by social and cultural factors beyond cognitive elements.
40. Educators need to consider ethical implications as robotic systems become more advanced.

---

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

1. TRUE
2. TRUE
3. FALSE
4. TRUE
5. NOT GIVEN
6. FALSE
7. algorithms
8. division of labour
9. iterative thinking
10. professional development
11. B
12. B
13. C

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

14. G
15. C
16. B
17. E
18. H
19. enriched learning / cognitive scaffolding
20. proprioceptive feedback
21. metacognition
22. non-judgmental feedback
23. prescriptive instructions
24. A
25. E
26. G

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

27. B
28. B
29. C
30. C
31. B
32. C
33. F
34. A
35. B
36. E
37. YES
38. NOT GIVEN
39. YES
40. YES

---

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Educational robots, range, basic models, advanced humanoid types
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “These programmable machines, ranging from simple wheeled robots to sophisticated humanoid assistants”. Câu hỏi paraphrase “ranging from” thành “range from” và “simple wheeled robots” thành “basic models”, “sophisticated humanoid assistants” thành “advanced humanoid types”. Thông tin trùng khớp hoàn toàn.

Câu 2: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Students, traditional mathematics difficult, perform better, robotics
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 8-10
• Giải thích: Bài viết khẳng định “Teachers report that students who struggle with conventional mathematics often thrive when solving problems through robotic challenges”. “Struggle with” được paraphrase thành “find difficult”, “thrive” được paraphrase thành “perform better”. Đây là thông tin chính xác.

Câu 3: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Robotics projects, designed primarily, individual, group work
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-3
• Giải thích: Bài đọc nói “robotics projects typically require teams of students to work together”, nghĩa là chủ yếu làm theo nhóm, không phải cá nhân. Câu hỏi nói “primarily for individual” nên mâu thuẫn trực tiếp với thông tin trong bài.

Câu 4: TRUE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Stanford University, research, improvements, collaborative abilities
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 9-11
• Giải thích: Bài viết đề cập “Research conducted at Stanford University found that students who participated in robotics programmes showed a 40% improvement in teamwork abilities”. “Teamwork abilities” được paraphrase thành “collaborative abilities” trong câu hỏi.

Câu 5: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: Robotics learning, equally effective, all types of learners
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói robotics phù hợp với visual, kinesthetic và auditory learners, nhưng không khẳng định nó “equally effective” (hiệu quả như nhau) cho tất cả. Chỉ nói nó có thể “reach a broader spectrum of students”, không so sánh mức độ hiệu quả.

Câu 6: FALSE

• Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
• Từ khóa: All schools, equal access, robotics equipment
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 3-6
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ “Schools in disadvantaged communities may find these costs prohibitive, potentially creating a digital divide”, nghĩa là không phải tất cả trường đều có khả năng tiếp cận như nhau. Câu hỏi nói “all schools now have equal access” nên mâu thuẫn.

Câu 7: algorithms

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Program robots, move through mazes, practical experience
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói “they are experiencing firsthand how algorithms work in the physical world”. Từ cần điền là “algorithms”.

Câu 8: division of labour

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Robotics teams, students contribute different skills, professional workplaces
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 5-7
• Giải thích: “This division of labour mirrors real-world professional environments”. Cụm từ “division of labour” chính xác mô tả việc phân chia công việc.

Câu 9: iterative thinking

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Process, repeated attempts, adjustments, resilience
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Robots serve as excellent vehicles for teaching iterative thinking and resilience”. Câu hỏi paraphrase “repeated attempts and adjustments” từ khái niệm “iterative thinking”.

Câu 10: professional development

• Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
• Từ khóa: Teachers, need, incorporate robotics, lessons
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 7-9
• Giải thích: “Teachers require professional development to effectively integrate robots into their curriculum. Many educators feel unprepared…”. Đáp án là “professional development”.

Câu 11: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 2 nói rõ việc làm cho khái niệm trừu tượng trở nên cụ thể giúp “bridge the gap between theory and practice” – kết nối lý thuyết và thực hành. Đáp án B chính xác nhất.

Câu 12: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 5 nói “failure becomes a learning opportunity rather than something to be avoided”. Rõ ràng thất bại được coi là cơ hội học tập có giá trị.

Câu 13: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Giải thích: Đoạn 6 nhấn mạnh “The initial financial investment can be substantial” và chi phí có thể “prohibitive” cho các trường ở vùng khó khăn. Chi phí cao là thách thức chính được nhấn mạnh.

Robot giáo dục đang được học sinh sử dụng trong lớp học STEM thực hành

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: G (Đoạn 7)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
• Từ khóa: Comparison, concentrated study, learning spread over time
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7 (Paragraph G)
• Giải thích: Đoạn 7 nói về “distributed practice” (học phân tán) và “massed practice” (học tập trung), so sánh hai phương pháp này. “Spaced repetition” vs “intensive study over short periods” chính là so sánh giữa học phân tán và học tập trung.

Câu 15: C (Đoạn 3)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
• Từ khóa: Touching, manipulating objects, aids memory
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3 (Paragraph C)
• Giải thích: Đoạn này giải thích “Proprioceptive feedback” và “tactile dimension”, nói rõ rằng “physical manipulation” tạo ra “sensorimotor schemas” giúp nhớ lâu hơn.

Câu 16: B (Đoạn 2)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
• Từ khóa: Brain imaging technology, evidence supporting robotics
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2 (Paragraph B)
• Giải thích: Đoạn 2 đề cập “functional MRI scanning” (công nghệ chụp não) cho thấy học sinh làm robotics có “greater neural connectivity”.

Câu 17: E (Đoạn 5)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
• Từ khóa: Optimal learning conditions, peer support
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5 (Paragraph E)
• Giải thích: Đoạn này giải thích lý thuyết “zone of proximal development” của Vygotsky, nơi học sinh học tốt nhất khi được hỗ trợ bởi bạn bè có kiến thức hơn.

Câu 18: H (Đoạn 8)

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Information
• Từ khóa: Robotics skills, improve unrelated academic areas
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8 (Paragraph H)
• Giải thích: Đoạn cuối nói về “transfer beyond the specific context of robotics” với cải thiện trong “mathematical proof construction and scientific hypothesis testing” – các lĩnh vực không liên quan trực tiếp.

Câu 19: enriched learning / cognitive scaffolding

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1 và 2
• Giải thích: Đoạn 1 đề cập “cognitive scaffolding” và đoạn 2 nói về “enriched learning”. Cả hai thuật ngữ đều mô tả hiện tượng nhiều vùng não hoạt động cùng lúc.

Câu 20: proprioceptive feedback

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2
• Giải thích: “Proprioceptive feedback – the sensory information we receive from our own body movements – plays a crucial role in memory formation”.

Câu 21: metacognition

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-2
• Giải thích: “Robotic activities naturally promote what psychologists call ‘metacognition’ – thinking about one’s own thinking”.

Câu 22: non-judgmental feedback

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 7-8
• Giải thích: Dr. Marina Chen nói robot cung cấp “immediate, non-judgmental feedback about the validity of their ideas”.

Câu 23: prescriptive instructions

• Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 3-4
• Giải thích: “When robots are used merely as ‘technological novelties’ – where students follow prescriptive instructions without genuine problem-solving opportunities”.

Câu 24-26: A, E, G

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice (chọn 3 đáp án)
• Giải thích:
  • A (Increased neural connections): Đoạn 2 nói về “greater neural connectivity”
  • E (Improved ability to understand others’ perspectives): Đoạn 5 đề cập “social cognition – the ability to understand and predict others’ thoughts, intentions and perspectives”
  • G (Greater adaptability in thinking approaches): Đoạn 8 nói về “cognitive flexibility – the capacity to adapt thinking strategies to new situations”

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Embodied cognition theory
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 6-9
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ “the physical manipulation of robotic components is itself a form of thinking – what researchers now term ‘enactive cognition'”. Điều này khớp chính xác với đáp án B – tương tác vật lý chính là một hình thức tư duy.

Câu 28: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Karolinska Institute research
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 4-9
• Giải thích: Nghiên cứu “documented significant increases in fractional anisotropy… in the corpus callosum”, nghĩa là thay đổi cấu trúc trong kết nối não. Đây là bằng chứng về thay đổi vật lý trong khả năng kết nối của não.

Câu 29: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Distributed cognition
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-8
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói “This perspective reconceptualizes learning not as information transfer into individual minds but as the development of proficiency in navigating increasingly complex sociotechnical systems”. Đáp án C diễn đạt chính xác ý này.

Câu 30: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Assessment paradox
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 3-8
• Giải thích: Bài viết giải thích “epistemological assumptions underlying standardized testing regimes… privilege declarative knowledge… over the procedural and tacit knowledge that robotics cultivates”, tạo ra “misalignment” giữa những gì robotics phát triển và những gì các bài kiểm tra đo được. Đáp án C chính xác.

Câu 31: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
• Từ khóa: Honeymoon effect
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 3-6
• Giải thích: “Initial engagement often produces dramatic gains in motivation and interest – what researchers term the ‘honeymoon effect’ – but these benefits can attenuate if robotics activities become routinized”. Nghĩa là sự hứng thú ban đầu có thể giảm nếu không được phát triển đúng cách.

Câu 32: C

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 4-8
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói robot vật lý “produces immediate, salient feedback with multiple sensory modalities – visual, auditory and sometimes even proprioceptive”. Đáp án C đúng.

Câu 33: F

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 3-5
• Giải thích: “Epistemological assumptions underlying standardized testing regimes… privilege declarative knowledge – facts and concepts that can be verbally articulated – over the procedural and tacit knowledge”. Đáp án F chính xác.

Câu 34: A

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 3-7
• Giải thích: Nghiên cứu của Dr. Cheryan “documented how the cultural semiotics surrounding robotics… creates ‘identity-relevant achievement obstacles’ for students from underrepresented backgrounds”. Đáp án A đúng.

Câu 35: B

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 3-6
• Giải thích: “Initial engagement often produces dramatic gains… but these benefits can attenuate if robotics activities become routinized or if students exhaust the developmental affordances of available platforms”. Đáp án B chính xác.

Câu 36: E

• Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Sentence Endings
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: “Robots capable of adjusting their behaviour based on student interaction patterns could provide individualised scaffolding previously possible only through intensive one-to-one tutoring”. Đáp án E đúng.

Câu 37: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 2-4
• Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ về “Cartesian dualism that has traditionally separated mind and body in Western educational philosophy”. Tác giả khẳng định điều này là sự thật.

Câu 38: NOT GIVEN

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Giải thích: Tác giả không đưa ra quan điểm rằng TẤT CẢ các trường nên thay thế hoàn toàn giảng dạy truyền thống. Tác giả chỉ thảo luận về lợi ích và thách thức của robotics mà không đưa ra khuyến nghị cực đoan như vậy.

Câu 39: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 7, dòng 9-11
• Giải thích: Bài viết kết luận rằng lợi ích “may be mediated by complex sociocultural factors that transcend purely cognitive considerations”. Tác giả rõ ràng đồng ý với quan điểm này.

Câu 40: YES

• Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
• Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 5-8
• Giải thích: Tác giả nói “educators and policymakers must grapple with” các vấn đề đạo đức về “pedagogical surveillance, algorithmic bias”. Đây là quan điểm rõ ràng của tác giả.

Sinh viên đại học đang lập trình và thử nghiệm robot giáo dục trong phòng thí nghiệm

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
educational robotics	n phrase	/ˌedʒuˈkeɪʃənəl rəʊˈbɒtɪks/	robot giáo dục	Educational robotics has emerged as a powerful tool	educational technology, robotics programme
hands-on learning	n phrase	/hændz ɒn ˈlɜːnɪŋ/	học tập thực hành	Enhancing hands-on learning experiences	hands-on experience, practical learning
abstract concepts	n phrase	/ˈæbstrækt ˈkɒnsepts/	khái niệm trừu tượng	Make abstract concepts tangible	concrete concepts, theoretical ideas
immediate feedback	n phrase	/ɪˈmiːdiət ˈfiːdbæk/	phản hồi tức thì	The immediate visual feedback provides motivation	instant response, direct feedback
collaborative problem-solving	n phrase	/kəˈlæbərətɪv ˈprɒbləm ˌsɒlvɪŋ/	giải quyết vấn đề theo nhóm	Promote collaborative problem-solving	teamwork, cooperative learning
division of labour	n phrase	/dɪˈvɪʒən əv ˈleɪbə/	phân công lao động	This division of labour mirrors real-world environments	work distribution, task allocation
soft skills	n	/sɒft skɪlz/	kỹ năng mềm	Develop essential soft skills such as communication	interpersonal skills, social skills
learning styles	n phrase	/ˈlɜːnɪŋ staɪlz/	phong cách học tập	Addresses different learning styles	learning preferences, educational approaches
iterative thinking	n phrase	/ˈɪtərətɪv ˈθɪŋkɪŋ/	tư duy lặp đi lặp lại	Teaching iterative thinking and resilience	repetitive process, cyclical thinking
trial and error	n phrase	/traɪəl ənd ˈerə/	thử và sai	This cycle of trial and error is fundamental	experimental approach, testing process
financial investment	n phrase	/faɪˈnænʃəl ɪnˈvestmənt/	đầu tư tài chính	The initial financial investment can be substantial	capital investment, funding
digital divide	n phrase	/ˈdɪdʒɪtəl dɪˈvaɪd/	khoảng cách kỹ thuật số	Potentially creating a digital divide	technology gap, inequality

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
cognitive development	n phrase	/ˈkɒɡnətɪv dɪˈveləpmənt/	phát triển nhận thức	Tactile dimension is significant for cognitive development	mental development, intellectual growth
neural connectivity	n phrase	/ˈnjʊərəl ˌkɒnekˈtɪvəti/	kết nối thần kinh	Show greater neural connectivity between regions	brain connections, synaptic links
enriched learning	n phrase	/ɪnˈrɪtʃt ˈlɜːnɪŋ/	học tập phong phú	Multi-region activation produces enriched learning	enhanced education, stimulating learning
proprioceptive feedback	n phrase	/ˌprəʊpriəʊˈseptɪv ˈfiːdbæk/	phản hồi từ cơ thể	Proprioceptive feedback plays a crucial role	sensory feedback, bodily awareness
executive functions	n phrase	/ɪɡˈzekjʊtɪv ˈfʌŋkʃənz/	chức năng điều hành (não)	The prefrontal cortex responsible for executive functions	cognitive control, mental processes
metacognition	n	/ˌmetəkɒɡˈnɪʃən/	tư duy siêu nhận thức	Robotic activities promote metacognition	self-reflection, thinking about thinking
zone of proximal development	n phrase	/zəʊn əv ˈprɒksɪməl dɪˈveləpmənt/	vùng phát triển gần nhất	Tasks within their zone of proximal development	ZPD, learning zone
peer scaffolding	n phrase	/pɪə ˈskæfəldɪŋ/	hỗ trợ từ bạn bè	Peer scaffolding accelerates learning	collaborative support, mutual help
productive struggle	n phrase	/prəˈdʌktɪv ˈstrʌɡəl/	đấu tranh hiệu quả	Requires productive struggle	beneficial challenge, constructive difficulty
distributed practice	n phrase	/dɪˈstrɪbjuːtɪd ˈpræktɪs/	thực hành phân tán	Engage in distributed practice	spaced repetition, interval learning
declarative knowledge	n phrase	/dɪˈklærətɪv ˈnɒlɪdʒ/	kiến thức trần thuật	Transformation of declarative knowledge	factual knowledge, explicit knowledge
procedural knowledge	n phrase	/prəˈsiːdʒərəl ˈnɒlɪdʒ/	kiến thức thủ tục	Into procedural knowledge	practical skills, knowing how
cognitive flexibility	n phrase	/ˈkɒɡnətɪv ˌfleksəˈbɪləti/	linh hoạt nhận thức	Greater cognitive flexibility	mental adaptability, thinking agility
spatial reasoning	n phrase	/ˈspeɪʃəl ˈriːzənɪŋ/	tư duy không gian	Enhanced spatial reasoning abilities	spatial awareness, geometric thinking
longitudinal studies	n phrase	/ˌlɒndʒɪˈtjuːdɪnəl ˈstʌdiz/	nghiên cứu dọc	Recent longitudinal studies document effects	long-term research, extended studies

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
embodied cognition	n phrase	/ɪmˈbɒdid kɒɡˈnɪʃən/	nhận thức cơ thể	Contemporary research in embodied cognition	physical cognition, situated thinking
Cartesian dualism	n phrase	/kɑːˈtiːziən ˈdjuːəlɪzəm/	nhị nguyên Đề-các	Challenging the Cartesian dualism	mind-body separation, philosophical dualism
paradigm shift	n phrase	/ˈpærədaɪm ʃɪft/	thay đổi mô hình tư duy	This paradigm shift has profound implications	fundamental change, revolutionary shift
kinaesthetic engagement	n phrase	/ˌkɪnəsˈθetɪk ɪnˈɡeɪdʒmənt/	sự tham gia vận động	The kinaesthetic engagement inherent in robotics	physical involvement, tactile participation
enactive cognition	n phrase	/ɪˈnæktɪv kɒɡˈnɪʃən/	nhận thức hành động	What researchers term enactive cognition	action-based thinking, embodied knowledge
diffusion tensor imaging	n phrase	/dɪˈfjuːʒən ˈtensə ˈɪmɪdʒɪŋ/	chụp hình tensor khuếch tán	Studies employing diffusion tensor imaging	DTI, brain imaging
white matter microstructure	n phrase	/waɪt ˈmætə ˈmaɪkrəʊˌstrʌktʃə/	vi cấu trúc chất trắng	Changes in white matter microstructure	brain tissue, neural pathways
interhemispheric communication	n phrase	/ˌɪntəˌhemɪsˈferɪk kəˌmjuːnɪˈkeɪʃən/	giao tiếp giữa các bán cầu não	Enhanced interhemispheric communication	brain hemisphere connection, bilateral processing
distributed cognition	n phrase	/dɪˈstrɪbjuːtɪd kɒɡˈnɪʃən/	nhận thức phân tán	The concept of distributed cognition	extended mind, shared thinking
sociotechnical systems	n phrase	/ˌsəʊsiəʊˈteknɪkəl ˈsɪstəmz/	hệ thống xã hội-kỹ thuật	Navigating complex sociotechnical systems	integrated systems, human-technology networks
affordances	n	/əˈfɔːdənsɪz/	khả năng cung cấp	The affordances that robots provide	action possibilities, functional features
multimodal grounding	n phrase	/ˌmʌltiˈməʊdəl ˈɡraʊndɪŋ/	nền tảng đa phương thức	Multimodal grounding of abstract concepts	multi-sensory basis, integrated understanding
epistemic actions	n phrase	/ˌepɪˈstiːmɪk ˈækʃənz/	hành động tri thức	Creates epistemic actions	knowledge-building actions, cognitive moves
epistemological assumptions	n phrase	/ɪˌpɪstəməˈlɒdʒɪkəl əˈsʌmpʃənz/	giả định nhận thức luận	Epistemological assumptions underlying testing	knowledge beliefs, theoretical foundations
tacit knowledge	n phrase	/ˈtæsɪt ˈnɒlɪdʒ/	kiến thức ngầm	Procedural and tacit knowledge	implicit knowledge, unspoken understanding
assessment paradox	n phrase	/əˈsesmənt ˈpærədɒks/	nghịch lý đánh giá	This assessment paradox represents obstacle	evaluation contradiction, testing dilemma
cultural semiotics	n phrase	/ˈkʌltʃərəl ˌsemiˈɒtɪks/	ký hiệu học văn hóa	The cultural semiotics surrounding robotics	cultural symbols, social meanings
self-efficacy	n	/self ˈefɪkəsi/	hiệu năng bản thân	Reported lower self-efficacy	self-confidence, belief in ability
non-linear trajectory	n phrase	/nɒn ˈlɪniə trəˈdʒektəri/	quỹ đạo phi tuyến	Follows a non-linear trajectory	complex pattern, irregular path
algorithmic bias	n phrase	/ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk ˈbaɪəs/	thiên lệch thuật toán	Questions about algorithmic bias	computational prejudice, system discrimination

Tác động của robot giáo dục lên sự phát triển nhận thức và kết nối não bộ của học sinh

Kết bài

Chủ đề “The Role Of Robotics In Hands-on Learning” không chỉ phổ biến trong các kỳ thi IELTS gần đây mà còn phản ánh xu hướng giáo dục toàn cầu đang hướng đến việc tích hợp công nghệ vào học tập. Bộ đề thi mẫu này đã cung cấp cho bạn trải nghiệm hoàn chỉnh với 3 passages theo đúng chuẩn IELTS, từ mức độ dễ đến khó, giúp bạn làm quen với các dạng câu hỏi đa dạng và rèn luyện kỹ năng quản lý thời gian hiệu quả.

Để hiểu rõ hơn về tác động rộng hơn của công nghệ đối với thị trường lao động, bạn có thể tham khảo thêm bài viết về what are the effects of automation on job markets, nơi phân tích những thay đổi cơ bản trong cách chúng ta làm việc và học tập trong kỷ nguyên tự động hóa.

Với 40 câu hỏi đã được giải thích chi tiết, bạn không chỉ biết đáp án đúng mà còn hiểu rõ phương pháp xác định thông tin, kỹ thuật paraphrase và cách tránh những “bẫy” thường gặp trong IELTS Reading. Đặc biệt, phần từ vựng được phân loại theo từng passage sẽ giúp bạn nâng cao vốn từ học thuật một cách có hệ thống, từ những thuật ngữ cơ bản như “hands-on learning” đến các khái niệm phức tạp như “epistemological assumptions” hay “distributed cognition”.

Hãy nhớ rằng việc làm một bài thi mẫu chỉ là bước đầu. Điều quan trọng là phân tích kỹ những câu bạn làm sai, hiểu tại sao bạn chọn đáp án đó và rút ra bài học cho những lần sau. Với phần giải thích chi tiết trong bài viết này, bạn có thể tự đánh giá trình độ hiện tại và xác định những kỹ năng cần cải thiện. Chúc bạn ôn tập hiệu quả và đạt band điểm mong muốn trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!