TOEFL score data for 2018 is now available.  Download a PDF right here.

The most notable bit of data is that the mean score of all test takers reached 83 points for the first time, after being stuck at 82 points for two years.

Here is a short history of mean score progression for a few selected dates.  Note that the mean score of the TOEFL iBT has increased by four points over the life of the test.  It also seems to be increasing more rapidly than before these days.  That probably accounts for the “required score creep” that bugs a lot of students.

  • 2006: 79
  • 2007: 78
  • 2008: 79
  • 2009: 79
  • 2010: 80
  • 2013: 81
  • 2014: 80
  • 2015: 81
  • 2016: 82
  • 2017: 82
  • 2018: 83 

Note that the data summaries from 2011 and 2012 don’t contain an overall mean score, as far as I can tell.

Score recipients have revised their requirements to keep up with these increases, which represent a challenge for all students. 

What makes this a challenge for some students more than others is that this increase is likely driven by huge jumps in countries with well-developed test preparation industries (and tons of test-takers).  For example, the mean score in Korea has jumped twelve points since 2006.  Korea has the absolute best TOEFL preparation options in the world, and it shows.  Here are scores from Korea for a few selected years:

  • 2006: 72
  • 2007: 77
  • 2010: 81
  • 2014: 84
  • 2017: 83
  • 2018: 84 

Meanwhile, scores in Taiwan have jumped 11 points:

  • 2006: 71
  • 2007: 72
  • 2010: 76
  • 2014: 80
  • 2017: 81
  • 2018: 82 

It is worth noting that scores in China have increased less dramatically, rising only four points from 76 to 80 between 2006 to 2018.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, China has a consistency problem when it comes to the test prep industry.  They have some of the best options for students… but some of the worst as well. It seems like things are improving for Chinese students, though, as China is likely the source of more recent increases to the overall mean score. Note that most of China’s increase has come since 2014.

In contrast to China’s recent growth, it is worth noting that the mean score in Korea has remained about the same since 2014. This indicates that there is a limit to the benefits that students can gain from research into test design and scoring. I imagine that the mean score in Taiwan will probably top out around the same level in a few years.

Once China reaches that level as well,  ETS should probably start developing the “next generation” TOEFL to replace the iBT. If there are too many teachers around the world who can show students how to “beat” the test and score way above their actual level the reliability of the iBT will be called into question.

For fun, here is the growth in a few notable countries from 2006 to 2018

  • Germany: 96 to 98
  • Brazil: 85 to 87
  • Japan: 65 to 71
  • Russia: 85 to 87
  • Iran: 78 to 85
  • India: 91 to 95

In case you are curious, the top performing countries in 2018 were Netherlands and Switzerland.  The mean score in both of those countries was 99 points.  

There is now an  Amazon listing  for an updated edition of the Official Guide to the TOEFL.  According to the guide, the sixth edition of the guide will be published on July 10.  This will be the first version of the guide to reflect the changes to the test that were introduced in August of 2019.

Update:  The Amazon release date is now August 28

Update:  Amazon listings for KINDLE versions of new books have been removed.

The listing does not indicate much about what else has changed in the book, but fortunately the audio and software content will be provided online instead of on a DVD.  It is also mentioned that the book will still contain just four tests.  Previously,  updated editions of the book included a new practice test.

In addition, there are also listings for updated editions of both Volume 1 (4th ed) and Volume 2 (3rd ed) of the “Official TOEFL iBT Tests” books.

Well, the TOEFL iBT Home Edition is still not available in China.  Since it is unlikely to ever be offered in China, ETS has just introduced an alternative – the TOEFL ITP Plus.  A general introduction is  available here

It appears to be the same as the existing TOEFL ITP currently marketed by ETS to institutions as a way to assess the English proficiency of students, but with an added video interview conducted through Vericant.  It is taken on paper (no computer). Scores, and the interview, are sent electronically to designated recipients.  The interview is not scored.

The test measures reading and listening comprehension (with questions similar to the TOEFL) and written expression (questions totally unlike the TOEFL).

Curiously, this test is offered at test centers.  It is puzzling that test centers are able to be used for this test, but not for the regular TOEFL iBT.  Perhaps it is easier to distance students who are taking a test on paper.

Sample questions for the ITP are available here, but I don’t know if the test uses “level 1” or “level 2” questions… or if adjustments have been made for this particular use.  ETS once had an “Official Guide” to the TOEFL ITP, but it is mostly out of print now.

For more information, consult this graphic:

 

 

I‘ve never had a student ask me about McGraw-Hill Education’s main TOEFL book.  It must have had a tiny print run, as I haven’t even seen people talking about it online.  Regardless, a copy just came into my hands, so you guys get a quick review of the book. 

To make a long story short, it isn’t very good.  I actually had high hopes for this one, since McGraw-Hill has the licence to publish official TOEFL materials (they publish the Official Guide and the two iBT Tests books).  However, it doesn’t look like they have access to insider information or notes about test design from ETS.  Most of the sample questions in the book are inaccurate.  This includes really major problems like integrated writing questions where the reading has just two paragraphs, and minor problems like “campus announcement” speaking questions where the opinionated student gives three reasons for their position.  Or reading questions where you have to search through the whole article to find the article.  For these reasons I don’t recommend the book to anyone.  Note, meanwhile, that this book was published before the TOEFL was changed (August, 2019) so it is dated in a general sense.

Regular readers of my reviews will know that I am not particularly enthusiastic about TOEFL vocabulary books (I think it is probably better to just study the Academic Word List), but McGraw-Hill’s “400 Must-Have Words for the TOEFL Test” (2014) is a book I’m happy to recommend to students.

What you get here are 41 chapters, each containing a themed list of 10 words with detailed definitions and practice exercises (fill-in-the-blanks, matching).  The last page of each chapter contains a paragraph “excerpted” from a larger TOEFL reading and two accompanying questions .  What sets this book apart from, say, Barron’s TOEFL Vocabulary is that these questions are not just vocabulary style questions.  Instead, all of the TOEFL reading question types are represented.  Those, specifically, make this a valuable study resource for anyone preparing for the TOEFL reading section.

The lists themselves are meant to represent the various topics used in the writing of the reading passages on the TOEFL.  The authors have included a few topics that probably don’t ever appear on the test (spirituality and ghosts) but most of them are relevant.   The words themselves are a mix of those which are mostly just used in discussion of the given topic, but also words used beyond the given topic.  That means that the list in the chapter on agriculture contains the words “irrigation” and “photosynthesis” but also the words “adversely” and “aggregate.” 

The vocabulary here seems to be a bit more challenging than words in the aforementioned Barron’s book, and are much more challenging than those in the Princeton Review’s TOEFL Power Vocab.  That’s a good thing!

Note that the second edition is quite similar to the first edition.  The main difference seems to be the addition of a single chapter on “Parenting.”  There may be some revisions to the other chapters, but I didn’t look that closely.