HSK vs. CEFR

As I contemplate how I learn, and how I want/like to be taught, it is also important to contemplate what to learn. There has always been some confusion in mind to be considered “good” in Chinese, having passed HSK 4, when, in fact, I feel very much like a beginner. This deeply-entrenched thought is based on my previous experiences learning languages according to the CEFR framework.

CEFR stands for Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. This internationally recognised framework describes language ability on a scale of levels from A1 for beginners up to C2 for those who have mastered a language. The CEFR is used by organisations all over the world as a reliable benchmark of language ability.

In 2010, The Association of Chinese Teachers in German Speaking Countries published a statement about the introduction of Han Ban’s New HSK. Although they welcomed the attempt to bring the HSK in line with the CEFR, they strongly suggested the HSK levels do not, in fact, match those of the CEFR.

As I envisage the future communicative Chinese language classroom, will we follow Han Ban’s HSK*, or an adapted Chinese version of the CEFR?

Read the full commentary in German, Chinese or English here:

http://www.fachverband-chinesisch.de/sites/default/files/FaCh2010_ErklaerungHSK.pdf

*The HSK syllabus is a list of word and grammatical items, and cannot be directly compared with the CEFR. In order to make a fair comparison, we would need to use Han Ban’s CLPS, or Chinese Language Proficiency Scales for Speakers of Other Languages. Check future postings!