新汉语水平考试（HSK 3.0）的设计原则及其对外汉语教学启示

Sukma Tajuddin, Sukma Sukma, Leni Cahyati

Abstract

The reform of the Chinese Proficiency Test under the New HSK 3.0 framework marks a significant shift in the assessment of Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL). While previous studies primarily examine vocabulary expansion or standard alignment, the design principles underlying the reform remain underexplored. This study investigates the conceptual logic of the New HSK 3.0 examination system and its implications for CFL education. Using qualitative document analysis and multi-source literature review, the research analyzes key policy documents, including the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education (CEFCIL) and the HSK Examination Syllabus (2025). The findings identify three core design principles: multidimensional competence construction, communicative authenticity, and receptive-productive differentiation in character learning. These principles are reflected in the expansion to a nine-level proficiency framework and the redistribution of vocabulary and character requirements across learning stages. The study provides insights into Chinese language assessment reform and its implications for curriculum design and language teaching in international Chinese education.

Keywords

Chinese Proficiency Testing; Communicative Competence; CFL Education; Language Assessment Reform; New HSK 3.0

References

[1] Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.

[2] Braun, V., Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology. 0887(2006).

[3] Canagarajah. (2013). Translingual Practice Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. In Routledge. https://doi.org/Translingual Practice Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations

[4] Cheng, L. (2004). Washback or Backwash: A Review of Testing on Teaching and Learning.

[5] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

[6] Hu, B. (2025). Unpacking the washback of the HSK on international Chinese language education : a study of the influencing factors. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00370-z

[7] Jin, Y. (2017). Construct and content in context : implications for language learning , teaching and assessment in China. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0044-1

[8] Kong, F. (2024). Investigating the Washback of the Chinese Language Proficiency Test ( HSK ): From the Perspective of CSL Students. March, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231224599

[9] Li, R. (2023). Comparative analysis of Chinese proficiency grading vocabulary between HSK 2.0 and HSK 3.0. Journal of Linguistics AndCommunication Studies, 2. https://doi.org/10.56397/JLCS.2023.03.01

[10] McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: the social dimension. 16(2).

[11] Nation. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

[12] Nie 聂丹, D., Zhao 赵琪凤, Q. (2022). The History and Development of Assessment of Chinese as a Second Language. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0924-4_4

[13] Peng, Y., Yan, W., & Cheng, L. (2021). Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi ( HSK ): A multi-level , multi-purpose proficiency test. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220957298

[14] Shi, C. (2025). A Comparative Study of the Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. 23(8), 194–204.

[15] Trihardini, A., Wikarti, M.A., A. R., Anggrini, R. N., & Abdurrahman, R. (2020). KESETARAAN HANYU SHUIPING KAOSHI LEVEL I-IV DENGAN CEFR PADA KETERAMPILAN BERBICARA BAHASA MANDARIN. Jurnal Cakrawala Mandarin, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.36279/apsmi.v4i1.94

[16] Teng, Y. (2017). Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi ( HSK ): Past , Present , and Future. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4089-4

[17] Xinsheng, G. (2020). New Chinese Proficiency Standards and Its Impacts on Chinese Proficiency Test. June 2020, 24–26.

[18] Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional Competence in Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Routledge, 18. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203836507-30/interactional-competence-language-learning-teaching-testing-richard-young

[19] Zhao, M. (2025). The Washback Effect of HSK on Students ’ Learning and Teachers ’ Teaching : Implications for Chinese Language Education. 18(3).

[20] 曹贤文,等. (2025). “HSK3.0新考纲及考试推广”大家谈. 云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版), 23(05), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.16802/j.cnki.ynsddw.20251029.001

[21] 梁波, 孙明材. (2025). 汉语国际教育本科用文学教材词表与HSK词汇适配情况研究. 品位·经典, (24), 40–43.

[22] https://doi.org/10.14014/j.cnki.cn11-2597/g2.2025.24.043

[23] https://www.chinesetest.cn/

[24] https://www.ecnu.edu.cn/info/1426/71479.htm

[25] https://www.mandarinzone.com/new-hsk-test/

[26] Chinese Proficiency Levels Explained: HSK, CEFR & Real-World Ability | HSKLord

[27] New HSK levels for learning Chinese (Update 2025) - GoEast Mandarin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/sinolingua.v4i1.116760

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.