Hi all,

I'm interested to know what your opinions are on the equivalence of the new HSK to the CEFR levels or any other framework. I've seen a lot of discussion online, particularly with reference to a German paper disputing that HSK1=A1, HSK2=A2, HSK3=B1, etc.

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

Does anyone have language teaching experience or personal experience to back up either side of the argument? Chinese is the only foreign language I know so I have no frame of reference, like IELTS for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyu_Shuiping_Kaoshi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages

Catherine

Hi Catherine, I'm an educational materials writer and spend a lot of time dealing with CEFR and their links to assessments. As you already know, CEFR is set of "can-do" statements for each ability level. (You can read all of them here: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf)

The difficulty with CEFR is that these statements are meant to describe proficiency in any European language. For this reason, the can-do statements are very broad (or vague) and do not mention specific grammar or vocabulary that a student at a certain level should know. This is obviously a big headache for anyone who wants to correlate CEFR levels to a textbook or to a test that is focused on grammar and vocabulary.

Correlating CEFR to other exams like IELTS or TOEFL is even more difficult since none of these tests have exactly the same tasks and none of them match up well with the can-do statements.

As for the HSK, the correlations to HSK or HSKK seem to me to be very weak. The CEFR can-do statements are usually about things like writing a simple postcard, ordering in a restaurant, relating a story about the past, etc. These don't line up clearly with the task types in the HSK or HSKK at all.

In the world of English language teaching, there has been a lot of work to try to figure out what grammar and vocabulary learners should know for each level, but this is not easy to do because it is usually not easy to take a CEFR statement and determine what target language is required by it. (Many of the statements are very vague.) There is an interesting project called English Profile which has analyzed past exam papers from ESOL exams to figure out which words are most frequently used by students at each level. The methodology of this is definitely not perfect but it is a start: http://vocabulary.englishprofile.org/

Similarly, Hanban has put out vocabulary lists for HSK1-6, but their method for coming up with this list is not clear to me. Some of the words on the HSK 4 and HSK 5 lists are included in the first few units of beginning textbooks like New Practical Chinese Reader.

I hope some of this is helpful!

Something indisputable is that HSK6 doesn't correspond to C2, if C2 means the ability to understand anything in the target language. The listening section of the HSK6 is slower, simpler and clearer than a lot of native speech. (Compare it to 新聞聯播, for example.)

I am somewhere in between HSK4 and HSK 5 now but I would rather say my level corresponds to a B1, but definetely not the B2/C1 stated in some sites.
I'd rather agree with the German article and the much lower European levels it suggests as equivalents for the HSK.

HSK is mainly designed for university admissions like IELTS, CEFR is part of a political movement, they don't have the same goals. CEFR goals/achievements are subjective and other language tests are just as faked as HSK - it is arguable the majority of native speakers don't meet the C2 or C1 criteria. Kryby's test of really understanding the 新聞聯播 is a true challenge (or a daily humbling in my case), congratulations to anyone who has reached that.

I would agree with Zhangyanglu's statement that HSK 5 is roughly equivalent to B1 on the European common framework.

As regards HSK 6 I would place it at B2. Which is perhaps overly generous, as the comprehension texts that make up the exam are not sufficiently complex or abstract to match up well with the can do statements for B2.

Similarly a person who passed HSK 6 would certainly have trouble reading technical discussions relating to their field.

One problem with comparing CEFR and the HSK examinations is that reading and writing are significantly harder to master in Chinese than in European languages.

With HSK 3 for example the test taker is not required to produce a connected text, so it's hard to agree with placing it at B1 as you have mentioned. I would probably place it at A2. Although someone who passes HSK 3 may well fulfill all the speaking/listening can do statements for B1.

My opinion:

HSK 1 & 2 = A1
HSK 3 & 4 = A2
HSK 5 = B1
HSK 6 = B1/B2

Thanks for all the useful thoughts everybody! I think the general consensus is (unfortunately) that HSK's supposed equivalency doesn't quite stack up. That makes sense because although I've studied part time for 6 years and I'm working towards HSK 4, I don't feel I fulfil the 'can do' statements for anything higher than B1.

I also agree with the idea that HSK isn't a way to learn Chinese, just a milestone - hardly anyone learns the words in that order. But it is useful to classify your ability in a language, particularly when you're trying to get your employer to post you in China!

I'd also like to ask, what's the difference between a HSK6 180 and a HSK6 300? Hanban claims that HSK6 210 is equivalent to old HSK11, but I get the feeling that Hanban designed their new HSK as an open-ended exam with a wide range of results; you can "pass" HSK6 with a 180/300 result and get the equivalent of B2, or you can max the HSK6 with 300/300 and get the equivalent of C2.

Remember, if this were a university course, a 180/300 would be equivalent to a F or a 60%, while a 300/300 would be an A+ or a 100%.

For people who have passed or aced the HSK6, what do you think of my proposition?

One other way to put it: I recently took the HSK3 and obtained, to my surprise, a 300, despite having likely errors in places. Then I took the HSK5 practice and managed to obtain the equivalent of 180.

I may be making a mistake here, but this suggests HSK3 to HSK5 equivalency is essentially a deduction or addition of 120 points, or in a naive way, HSK 6 @ 300 is equivalent to a virtual pass on a HSK 8.

The German Chinese teachers assumed that HSK6 @ 180 is equivalent to B2 or, charitably, a C1, but what this essentially means is that a HSK6 @ 210 / HSK11 is a C1, but a HSK6 @ 300 is equivalent to a HSK~8, a HSK~13 on the old HSK, or a C2.

I passed old HSK9 a while back and think I'm probably at B1 in most of those tasks, perhaps nudging towards B2. Does new HSK require an essay or recording like the old one does? If not it is not testing spoken and written production. I don't think the old one had anything much like spoken interaction.

I passed new HSK 5 (score 216) and I have no problem admitting that I am not quite C1, but I would at least give myself credit for B2.

If I'm understanding the paper correctly, the German teachers went by the number of words on the official vocab lists from Hanban. But there are tons of words on the test that aren't on the list, at least in the reading section. The time limit may also be a factor.

Basically, I agree that the HSK is clearly easier than the supposedly equivalent CEFR levels. But I wish I wasn't seeing this German paper presented as fact so often. The authors just used one (in my opinion fairly inadequate) way of comparing the two.

It is possible to some extent to compare HSK levels to CEFR levels, as the HSK outline does describe skills. However, the descriptions are quite different from CEFR, and comparisons between CEFR and HSK only make sense if done separately for listening, reading, speaking and writing skills. (One of the main controversies is about writing. And HSK does not reqire any knowledge of Chinese characters for levels 1 and 2, but Pīnyīn only.)

There has been a concerted effort to establich CEFR standards for Chinese: the European Benchmarking Chinese Language Project (EBCL, http://ebcl.eu.com). The project involves Chinese teachers from schools and universities in Britain, France, Italy and Germany. They have published recommendations on vocabulary (words and characters) based on surveys of textbooks for European languages that follow the CEFR levels, as well as surveys of textbooks for Chinese, Chinese vocabulary frequency lists etc.

The choice between CEFR or HSK depends on where you will be using it, in particular, for work. HSK, is recognize in China whereas CEFR is not.

I'm not sure for CEFR but there are a lot of resources for help in HSK. Websites like mdbg.net and android apps like HSK locker are some of my favorites in learning. Further HSK examination is well rounded covering reading, writing, comprehension and vocabulary.