Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/235346542
CITATIONS READS
3 1,645
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao on 28 January 2016.
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 59–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 59)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
60 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
1 Introduction 1
2
The Council of Europe developed the Common European Framework of Reference 3
for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe 2001) as a means of describing profi- 4
ciency in foreign languages. The CEFR is now gaining ground in North America, 5
in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond as its usefulness becomes increasingly ap- 6
parent (Little 2007; Duff 2008; Broeder and Fu 2009). The HSK (Hanyu Shuiping 7
Kaoshi) test of proficiency in Chinese (Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters 8
2008), which was introduced at the end of 2009, applies the CEFR to the descrip- 9
tion of levels of proficiency in Chinese. 10
Li and Zhang (2004) have argued that the CEFR should not be applied to Chi- 11
nese for three reasons. First, the political agenda of the CEFR is to achieve greater 12
unity among Council of Europe member states, which does not include China; 13
second, the CEFR is primarily for European languages that use alphabetic writing 14
systems, whereas Chinese is a non-alphabetic language; and third, the socio- 15
cultural differences between Chinese and European languages lie beyond the 16
scope of CEFR. This article is particularly concerned with the second of these rea- 17
sons and explores the implications of the new HSK and the CEFR for the learning 18
and teaching of Chinese, with particular reference to writing skills. Teachers have 19
reported problems when using the HSK/CEFR to design their curriculum and stu- 20
dents have reported problems when using self-assessment scales. 21
22
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 60–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 60) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
61
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR
1 – Proficient user (levels C1 and C2): the levels at which the learner has hardly
2 any problems with communication and interlocutors do not need to take
3 account of his or her non-native speaker status.
4
5 The six proficiency levels are specified for five skills: listening, reading, spoken
6 interaction, spoken production and writing. For each skill, the levels of language
7 proficiency are elaborated using “can do” descriptors; the overall scheme is sum-
8 marized in the so-called self-assessment grid (Council of Europe 2001: 26–27).
9 Since 2001 the CEFR has been translated into 38 languages (see www.coe.
10 int/t/dg4/linguistic/Cadre1_en.asp). As the CEFR is becoming more and more
11 influential in language policy and language education, a number of issues arise
12 that need to be addressed (see, for example, the special issue of the Modern Lan-
13 guage Journal 91(4), 2007). The CEFR levels do not refer to the specific linguistic
14 features of individual languages. The growing acceptance of the standards pre-
15 sented in the CEFR has created a situation in which public bodies, examination
16 institutes, language schools and university departments concerned with the
17 teaching and testing of languages are increasingly interested in relating their cur-
18 ricula and examinations to the common reference levels. A manual for relating
19 language examinations to the CEFR (Council of Europe 2009; see also Martyniuk
20 2010) was developed in order to assist Council of Europe member states and
21 national and international providers of examinations in linking their certificates
22 and diplomas to the CEFR in a reliable manner.
23
24
2.2 The new HSK Chinese Proficiency Test
25
26 In 2009, the HSK Chinese Proficiency Test was revised in order to be better able to
27 assess the Chinese language proficiency of non-native speakers learning Chinese
28 as a foreign language (Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters 2008, 2010). To
29 facilitate its general acceptance, Hanban decided to incorporate the CEFR levels
30 into the new HSK, which distinguishes the following six levels of Chinese lan-
31 guage proficiency:
32 – HSK-Level 1: Designed for learners who can understand and use some
33 simple Chinese characters and sentences to communicate; prepares them
34 for further learning of Chinese.
35 – HSK-Level 2: Designed for elementary learners who can use Chinese in a
36 simple and direct manner, applying it in a basic fashion in their daily lives.
37 – HSK-Level 3: Designed for elementary-intermediate learners who can use
38 Chinese to meet the demands of their personal lives, studies and work, and
39 are capable of completing most of the communicative tasks they experience
40 during a visit to China.
p. 60) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 61–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 61)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
62 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 62–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 62) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR 63
1
Old HSK (<2009) New HSK (>2010) CEFR (>2001)
2
Levels Levels
3 Levels Words Words Levels
(writing) (speaking)
4
5 11
Advanced >8,840 6 >5,000 C2
6 10
Advanced
7
9
8 5 2,500 C1
Intermediate 8 5,257
9
10 7
4 1,200 B2
11 6
12 Intermediate
Elementary 5 3,052
13 3 600 B1
4
14
15 3
2 300 A2
16 Basic 2 1,033 Beginners
17
1 1 150 A1
18
19
Table 1: Old and new structures of the HSK test
20
21
22 graphic form 大 天 夫
23
pronunciation dà tiān fū
24
meaning big sky, day husband
25
26
Table 2: Examples of three Chinese characters with similar graphic forms
27
28
29 more or less spell out the sounds they speak based on the alphabet and a number
30 of rules they have learned (Gao 2000). On the other hand, Chinese is a non-
31 alphabetic language that uses Chinese characters (zì, Hànzì, Zhōngguó zì) as its
32 writing system. Words are mostly composed of one or two characters, and unlike
33 the letters in an alphabetic language, each Chinese character has its own mean-
34 ing. For everyday reading and writing, about 3,000 characters are needed.
35 Chinese characters are composed of strokes, and each character has its own
36 graphic form, pronunciation and meaning. The relationship between graphic
37 form and pronunciation is so complex that it is not possible to know the pronun-
38 ciation from seeing the graphic form of a character. For example, the three char-
39 acters in Table 2 look very similar to each other, but their pronunciation is totally
40 different.
p. 62) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 63–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 63)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
64 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 64–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 64) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR 65
1 Mean Standard
2 Deviation
3 It is difficult learning to write Chinese characters 3.82 .99
4 Learning radicals helps to write Chinese characters 4.59 .42
5 Learning the stroke order helps to write Chinese characters 4.09 .86
It is better to postpone writing Chinese characters until after some 3.62 1.28
6
basic Chinese has been learned
7
Pinyin transcription helps to learn the correct pronunciation 4.59 .56
8
9
Table 4: Difficulty of learning Chinese characters according to university students after
10
completing Chinese beginners course A1-Level (n = 34; 5-point scale, 1 = disagree, 5 = agree)
11
12
13 participants confirm what is well-known, that learning Chinese characters is
14 difficult.
15 Thus far, we have examined the sixth skill – learning and teaching the writ-
16 ing system – from the perspective of characters. However, there is a second aspect
17 to this skill: learning the Romanization of Chinese characters known as Pinyin.
18 Since learners of Chinese cannot get information about pronunciation
19 directly from most characters, it was found necessary to provide visual pronun-
20 ciation prompts for learning Chinese characters. For this reason, in the 1950s the
21 Chinese government developed Pinyin (spelled sounds) as the official system for
22 transcribing the sounds of Chinese characters using the Latin alphabet (Swofford
23 2004). In the Pinyin system, a character is transcribed as a syllable composed of
24 a consonant (initial), a vowel (final) and a tone with a diacritic sign placed above
25 the vowel. As shown in Table 3, the Pinyin transcription of the character 台 is tái.
26 Pinyin is commonly used with native, second and foreign language learners of
27 Chinese at beginner’s level. In many learning materials, Pinyin transcription is
28 printed above the Chinese characters. Though it might seem more convenient to
29 use Pinyin transcription as the only writing system, most Chinese native speakers
30 use characters rather than Pinyin for written communication. Thus to be able to
31 read and write, Chinese learners still have to learn characters (Gao 2000).
32 Based on our recent classroom survey, students agree that it is useful and
33 necessary to learn Pinyin, but they also feel that learning and using Pinyin is no
34 easy task. Our results showed that students often encounter the following three
35 problems:
36 – Confusion due to the fact that most European languages use the same
37 alphabet to represent totally different sounds (e.g., j, q, x, z, c, r – for ‘j’, for
38 instance, compare Dutch ‘jas’, English ‘job’, Spanish ‘Juan’);
39 – Complicated rules of spelling, e.g., the indication of diphthongs (e.g., ü/u,
40 iou/iu, uei/ui);
p. 64) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 65–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 65)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
66 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 66–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 66) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR 67
1 scriptors should be explicit about the skills and learning content to be acquired.
2 Unfortunately, this is not the case for students who use the CEFR to assess their
3 proficiency in Chinese writing skills.
4 As we have noted, mastering the use of Pinyin and characters is the sixth
5 skill, which distinguishes Chinese from European languages. Writing both in Pin-
6 yin transcription and in characters requires specific learning activities and teach-
7 ing approaches. This causes problems when the CEFR scales and descriptors are
8 applied to Chinese, since the CEFR does not provide teachers and students with
9 guidance on how to approach this sixth skill. According to the CEFR, to perform
10 communicative tasks and activities in the context of the target language requires
11 learners to have linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences. Linguistic
12 competences include lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, orthographic
13 and orthoepic competence. Learners of Chinese also need to acquire these six
14 linguistic competences, but because the CEFR is a language-independent docu-
15 ment, its level descriptors do not take account of most of the typological features
16 Chinese.
17 According to the HSK guidelines (Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquar-
18 ters 2009a and 2009b), the tests at levels 1 and 2 do not include writing skills
19 (Table 6), whereas the corresponding levels of the CEFR do include writing skills
20 (Table 5). In addition, the instructions are not clear on whether or not it is
21 necessary to learn Chinese characters. As shown in the sample tests, all Chinese
22 characters are provided with Pinyin transcriptions at levels 1 and 2 (Figure 1)
23 (http://new.chinesetesting.cn). Test takers need neither to recognize characters
24 when reading the test items nor to write any characters. Since answering the test
25 items does not require them to use characters, do learners have to learn charac-
26 ters at all at Levels 1 and 2?
27 If we look at a sample test at level 3 (Figure 2) (http://new.chinesetesting.cn),
28 we find that all test items are written in characters only, including the test
29
30
HSK levels Listening Reading Writing Total items Total time
31
items items items (minutes)
32
33 1 20 20 – 40 40
2 35 25 – 60 50
34
3 40 30 10 80 85
35
4 45 40 15 100 100
36 5 45 45 10 100 120
37 6 50 50 1 101 135
38
39 Table 6: Overview of the number of items for the three language skills tested in the new HSK
40 (Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters 2010)
p. 66) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 67–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 67)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
68 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fig. 1: An online sample test of the new HSK at Level 1 and 2 (www.chinesetesting.cn) 27
28
29
i nstructions. This effectively means that the level one wants to achieve in the lan- 30
guage has far-reaching consequences for the effort involved. The way the levels 31
are tested now, the shift from level 2 to level 3 involves a shift from the (exclusive) 32
use of Pinyin to the exclusive use of characters, requiring a major additional effort 33
for learners compared to a shift from level A2 to B1 in any of the European lan- 34
guages. For students with a modest short-term goal, such as getting to know the 35
Chinese language, Pinyin suffices to learn pronunciation and enables one to com- 36
municate with others. For students with long-term goals such as learning Chinese 37
as a major or studying in China, it is difficult to achieve higher levels without 38
learning characters. In other words, if students do not learn characters at lower 39
levels, their progress to higher levels will be very challenging. 40
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 68–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 68) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Fig. 2: An online sample test of the new HSK at Level 3 (http://new.chinesetesting.cn)
14
15
16
17
4 Towards a HSK/CEFR-based syllabus
18
19 4.1 Current instructional designs for learning Chinese writing
20 systems at Dutch universities
21
22 To investigate whether it is appropriate to apply CEFR writing scales in HSK, we
23 analyzed Chinese course descriptions at beginners’ levels (levels 1 and 2) at eight
24 university language centres in The Netherlands and Belgium. Chinese is offered
25 either on a non-credit basis or as a credit-bearing option. Students typically take
26 Chinese because they believe in its vocational value. We looked at three aspects
27 of the courses in particular:
28 1. How do they plan the instruction of Chinese writing systems (Pinyin and
29 characters)?
30 2. How many characters do students have to learn at levels 1 and 2?
31 3. Do the language centres provide a description of instructional design or of
32 the teaching and learning activities used to develop writing skills?
33
34 At level 1 there are three possible situations: 1) Pinyin and characters are in-
35 troduced at the same time after the first few classes and based on the characters
36 in the textbook; 2) a limited number of characters are taught, such as those for
37 the numbers 1–10 and the most frequently used characters; and 3) only Pinyin
38 is taught. At level 2 most teachers continue with Pinyin as a means of commu
39 nicating pronunciation but there is no longer any instruction or training in its
40 use. With one exception, all universities teach Chinese characters at this level.
p. 68) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 69–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 69)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
70 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
However, the number of characters that students have to learn varies from 20 to 1
200. Most universities do not clearly state that characters should be used for three 2
types of written communication specified in CEFR/HSK level descriptors: overall 3
written communication, correspondence, notes, messages and forms. 4
5
6
4.2 The teachers 7
8
To investigate teachers’ perceptions of the new HSK and its application of the 9
CEFR, we conducted telephone interviews with three teachers of Chinese at the 10
universities of Utrecht, Nijmegen and Leuven using the following open questions: 11
1. Are you familiar with the new version of Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) 12
implemented since 2009? 13
2. Do you base your course programs on the new HSK syllabus? 14
3. How do you plan the instruction of Chinese writing systems (Pinyin and 15
characters)? 16
4. Are the tables of new HSK test levels clear to you in terms of the number of 17
characters and which characters your students are to learn at levels 1 and 2? 18
Why/why not? 19
5. How do you decide on the number of characters and which characters your 20
students have to learn at levels 1 and 2? 21
6. Do you think it is useful for your students to use CEFR writing scales for 22
self-assessment? Why/why not? 23
24
During the telephone interviews we took extensive notes since it is difficult to 25
record interviewees’ responses. After each interview, we wrote a summary based 26
on the notes we had taken. After all the responses had been summarized, we ana- 27
lyzed and integrated the data to arrive at an overall response to each question. 28
Finally, we interpreted the data and clustered the answers to these questions, 29
which yielded the following results. 30
Three of the interviewed teachers knew the new version of HSK, but gener- 31
ally they were not familiar with the differences between the new and old HSK. 32
None of these teachers designed course programs based on the new HSK sylla- 33
bus. However, they were aware of the link between the new HSK and the CEFR. 34
These teachers taught the sixth skill of writing using Pinyin and characters in 35
different ways, but they all arranged the curriculum in such a way that both Pin- 36
yin and characters were introduced at level 1. Two teachers admitted that learn- 37
ing Chinese characters is not a course requirement since the Chinese courses are 38
not part of the formal curriculum: their students could choose whether or not 39
they wanted to learn characters, depending on their own progress and circum- 40
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 70–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 70) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
71
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR
1 stances. For these two teachers, written skills refer mostly to Pinyin transcrip-
2 tion. Only one teacher implemented characters as part of the formal course
3 requirements.
4 As for the new HSK test levels, the teachers were unsure what “vocabulary”
5 stood for; they assumed it referred either to words or to characters. They also
6 pointed out the differences between words and characters: a Chinese word con-
7 sists of one or more characters and characters can be used to compose new words
8 (Gao 2000). The number of words can be the same as or different from the number
9 of different characters.
10
11
12 4.3 The students
13
14 To investigate potential test takers’ level of understanding, we asked three stu-
15 dents who planned to take the HSK test at level 1 and three who planned to take it
16 at level 2 to complete a questionnaire. We asked them to view the sample test
17 online (http://new.chinesetesting.cn) and then to answer the following questions:
18 1. Look at the new HSK test levels (see Table 6). How many characters do you
19 think you need to learn to pass the exam?
20 2. Do you think that characters are required to pass this test? Why/why not?
21 3. Look at the CEFR writing descriptors for self-assessment (see Table 5). Do
22 the level descriptors make clear how you should assess your writing skills in
23 Chinese? Why/why not?
24
25 At level 1 the number of characters that students thought they would have to
26 learn ranged from 0 to 10. This differs from the number of vocabulary items listed
27 in Table 6 and implies that students consider that learning characters is different
28 from learning vocabulary. Because they first viewed the sample tests, it is not
29 surprising that they thought it would not be necessary to learn characters to pass
30 the test. As for question 2, it is interesting that one student who indicated the
31 number of characters to be learnt as zero thought characters were required to
32 pass the test. This shows the confusion caused by conflicting interpretations after
33 viewing the sample tests and the self-assessment descriptors (see Table 5). The
34 level 1 students also stated that it might be better to learn characters as well as
35 Pinyin, although they thought it would be difficult to learn both at the same time.
36 As for using the A1 CEFR descriptors, they thought writing a postcard in Pinyin
37 was sufficient to achieve this level. Their interpretation of the level 1 descriptors
38 was that it would be sufficient to be able to write words rather than sentences.
39 At level 2 the number of characters that students thought they would have to
40 learn ranged from 0 to 400. This again differs from the number of vocabulary
p. 70) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 71–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 71)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
72 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
items listed in Table 6. Since the level 2 test does not require writing skills, one 1
student thought that he would not have to learn any characters at all. On the 2
other hand, two students thought that it might be better to learn characters as 3
well because it might help them to establish the meaning of the words with cer- 4
tainty, and because tones are particularly important when writing in Pinyin. As 5
for using the CEFR writing descriptors for self-assessment, one student pointed 6
out the ambiguity of the descriptors: he was not sure whether writing in Pinyin or 7
characters was required. 8
9
10
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 72–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 72) (CS4)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM PMU:
Applying the writing scales of the CEFR 73
1 but also prevents them becoming overloaded as a result of having to learn too
2 many words at the beginning.
3
4
5 References
6
7 Beeker, Anne, Jos Canton & Daniela Fasoglio. 2009. Learning Chinese at school: Proposal for a
8 curriculum Chinese language and culture for pre-university education. Enschede:
SLO-Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
9
Broeder, Peter & Guifang Fu. 2009. Establishing language skills in Europe: The inspirations on
10
Chinese foreign language study. Cross-cultural Communication 5(4). 32–42.
11 Broeder, Peter & Waldemar Martyniuk. 2008. Language education in Europe: The Common
12 European Framework of Reference. In Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl & Nancy H. Hornberger
13 (eds.), Encylopedia of Language and Education, Volume 4: Second and Foreign Language
14 Education, 209–226. New York: Springer.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
15
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16 Council of Europe. 2009. Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework
17 of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEF ). Council of Europe:
18 Strasbourg.
19 Duff, Patricia. 2008. Issues in Chinese language education and teacher development. In
Patricia Duff & P. Lester (eds.), Issues in Chinese language education and teacher
20
development, 5–48. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Centre for Research in
21
Chinese Language and Literacy Education.
22 Fei, Jin Chang. 2006. Zixing yanjiu [The graphic form of Chinese characters]. In De Jin Sun (ed.),
23 Duiwai Hanzi jiaoxue yanjiu [Research of teaching Chinese to foreigners], 3–104. Beijing:
24 Shangwu.
25 Gao, Mobo C. F. 2000. Mandarin Chinese: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters. 2008. Chinese Proficiency Test (HSK).
26
http://new.chinesetesting.cn (accessed 27 January 2012).
27 Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters. 2010. Bulletin of HSK Test (English version).
28 http://new.chinesetesting.cn (accessed 27 January 2012).
29 Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters. 2009a. Chinese Proficiency Test Syllabus: Level 1.
30 Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters. 2009b. Chinese Proficiency Test Syllabus: Level 2.
31
Beijing: Commercial Press.
32
Hsiao, Ya Ping. 2009. Chinese karakters leren: Mission impossible? [Learning Chinese
33 characters: Mission impossible?]. Levende Talen Magazine 8. 18–21.
34 Lee, Chee Hua, & Slava Kalyuga. 2011. Effectiveness of Different Pinyin Presentation Formats in
35 Learning Chinese Characters: A Cognitive Load Perspective. Language Learning 61(4).
36 1099–1118.
Li, Pei Yuan & Yuan Ren. 2006. Hanzi jiaoxue zonglun [Introduction of Chinese character
37
instruction]. In De Jin Sun (ed.), Duiwai Hanzi jiaoxue yanjiu [Research of teaching Chinese
38 to foreigners], 227–308. Beijing: Shangwu.
39 Li, L. M., & G. X. Zhang. 2004. A Common Framework for Chinese. http://www.llas.ac.uk/
40 resources/paper/2280 (accessed 30 July 2012).
p. 72) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 73–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 73)
0 AM PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012 17 December 2012 8:20 AM
74 Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao and Peter Broeder
Little, David. 2007. The Common European Framework of References for Languages: 1
Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern 2
Language Journal 91(4). 645–655.
3
Martyniuk, Waldemar. 2010. Aligning tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of
4
Europe’s Draft Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swofford, Mark. 2004. Pinyin info: A guide to the writing of Mandarin Chinese in Romanization. 5
http://pinyin.info/ (accessed 22 February 2012). 6
Xie, Xiao Qing. 2011. Weishenme yao kaifa xin HSK kaoshi? [Why is the new HSK Test 7
developed?]. Zhongguo kaoshi [China Examinations] 3. 12–15. 8
Zhou, Yawen. 2010. Learning and teaching Chinese online. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg
9
University MA Thesis.
10
11
Acknowledgments 12
13
14
This paper has benefited from the many helpful comments and suggestions that
15
we received from our anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Dirk
16
Derhaeg (Leuven), Camay Lin (Nijmegen), Suli Poell (Maastricht), Hans Verhulst
17
(Tilburg), Wang-Ju Tsai (Utrecht), Yawen Zhou (Shengzhen), and their students
18
for valuable contributions and discussions.
19
20
Bionotes 21
22
23
Ya Ping (Amy) Hsiao is a Lecturer in Chinese, Language Centre, Tilburg University,
24
The Netherlands; PhD researcher, Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies
25
(CELSTEC), Open University, The Netherlands.
26
Peter Broeder is an Assistant Professor, Department of Culture Studies, School of 27
Humanities, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2698 LLHE 2:1 pp. 74–74 2698_2-1_04 (p. 74)
PMU:(idp) 07/12/2012
View publication stats 17 December 2012 8:20 AM