1 Introduction

This section introduces the background and significance of the "Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards for International Chinese Language Education," compares it with existing international standards for Chinese language teaching, and highlights the current research focus on adult learners rather than K–12 education. It emphasizes the necessity and practical value of conducting a comparative study with the American "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" and outlines specific aspects for comparison.

2 Differences in the Positioning of Chinese Proficiency Levels

This section delves into the significant differences in how Chinese proficiency levels are defined between the "Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards" and the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning." The "Grading Standards" center on language competence, detailing learners' abilities in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and translation. They specify quantitative indicators for language elements required to complete specific communicative tasks, aligning closely with the evaluation philosophies of the ILR, ISLPR, and CLB scales in focusing on language skills to quantify proficiency. This approach supports curriculum design, syllabus development, textbook creation, and proficiency assessment. In contrast, the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" focus on learners' actual performance in using Chinese within the "5C" goal areas, employing a "can-do" descriptive framework rooted in speech act theory. They emphasize observable language behaviors at different developmental stages and prioritize authentic language use in sociocultural contexts, transforming language learning into a practical process that enables learners to apply Chinese in multilingual communities.

3 Differences in the Structural Framework of Chinese Proficiency Levels

This section compares the structural frameworks of the "Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards" and the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning." The "Grading Standards" establish a "three levels with nine sub-levels" system based on four fundamental language elements: syllables, characters, vocabulary, and grammar. It ranges from "simple" at the elementary level to "complex" at the advanced level, with the intermediate level described as "relatively" proficient. Each sub-level varies in verbal expression, task difficulty, text structure complexity, and quantitative language indicators, with content and requirements progressing accordingly. Conversely, the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" are built on the "World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages," organizing proficiency into five levels from novice to distinguished, further subdivided by grade bands to form a structure of three stages and ten grades. Tailored to K–12 Chinese education in the U.S., they use linguistic grade bands to frame a long-term learning sequence across K–4, K–8, and K–12, detailing learning progress and language performance. The key difference lies in the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" accounting for learners' age and educational stage, making them specific to K–12 assessment. In contrast, the "Grading Standards" offer broader applicability, unrestricted by age, grade level, learning sequence completeness, or duration.

4 Differences in Interpreting the Connotation of Chinese Communicative Competence

This section explores the differences in how Chinese communicative competence is interpreted between the "Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards" and the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning." It begins by reviewing theoretical foundations, noting the contrast between Hymes's sociocultural perspective and Chomsky's concept of linguistic competence, and underscoring the importance of communicative competence in sociocultural contexts. It then analyzes how the "Grading Standards" describe Chinese communicative competence through traditional language skills, while the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" construct a "5C" framework from a sociopragmatic viewpoint. The latter emphasizes the interactive, negotiable, and context-dependent nature of interpersonal communication, proposing a tripartite model—interpersonal communication, interpretive communication, and presentational communication—to replace the traditional four-skill model. Additionally, it discusses designing communicative tasks from a pedagogical perspective and how the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" transform language learning into practical application, enabling learners to become genuine language users.

5 Differences in the Applicability of Chinese Proficiency Standards

This section examines the differences in applicability between the "Chinese Proficiency Grading Standards" and the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning." The "Grading Standards," as an international benchmark for evaluators, focus on assessing Chinese proficiency through discrete language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing, translation) and quantitative indicators. They establish a "four-dimensional benchmark" evaluation system conducive to curriculum standard development, textbook compilation, and test design. In contrast, the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" serve as a self-assessment tool for learners, describing proficiency from a "can-do" perspective. They are open-ended, referential, and flexible, designed to assist educators in developing Chinese language curricula.

6 Conclusion

This section summarizes the differences between the "Grading Standards" and the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning," noting that the former is an "input-driven" language competence standard, while the latter is an "output-driven" language performance standard. It emphasizes the importance of establishing quantitative language element indicators for the "Standards for Chinese Language Learning" to facilitate effective alignment with the "Grading Standards" and enhance Chinese language teaching practices in American K–12 education.