HSK computer based exam has no value

[Aphorisme]

Yes, I believe so. Since you can type, it kills the main difficulty of chinese language. I don't understand how some students can be proud of passing this HSK computer based exam. I can see around me many students who claim that they master chinese because they passed HSK5, or HSK6...and apparently their inability to write chinese doesn't disturb them. I have a friend, who is not an english-native speaker, who speaks a good english but cannot write it. Consequence: my american friends believe that he clearly doesn't master english, because he can't write. But when it's about chinese, suddenly it seems like ability to write is not part of mastering a language anymore, especially for many new students...kind of strange double standard, especially when we know that the main issue in chinese is handwriting.

 

The general answer given by the students than I mentioned before is that nowadays handwriting is useless, and that learning handwriting is old-fashioned and a waste of time. They believe that the paper based test is disconnected from reality. I think this point of vue too pragmatic though. We don't have to miss the point: HSK is a test which measures your command of chinese language, and since chinese characters are a part of this language, they should be taking into account. Now HSK has become a test who doesn't measure your real command of chinese, but your ability to use chinese in everyday life. It's such a pitty. 

 

I think it's a good way for flattering 老外 ego, especially for new students who are impressed by the fact than they can pass HSK5 in one year...but without learning handwriting of course ; but except that, I don't see any interest in taking this computer based exam.

 

Victory without risk brings triumph without glory: that's how I see this HSK computer based test.

 

If someone here is proud of having passed HSK computer based exam, i would be glad to hear why. 

 

Have a good night everyone

 

Louis

 

 

[Shelley]

Hello and welcome to the forum,

I agree with you in as much a learning to write Chinese is necessary to have, as you say, a command of the Chinese language.

 

Handwriting Chinese is, in my opinion only as useless as writing English is in this electronic age,ie:not useless at all.

 

People have not given up writing in English because they could use a phone/tablet etc. I see no reason why Chinese should be any different.  Chinese and English children are still taught to write.

 

I think writing with pen and paper is a very good way to memorize characters. Using tablets and various apps to practice characters is quite useful and fun but is not the same as paper and pen, for a start the size is usually very different.

 

Unfortunately this opinion is not shared by everyone, and they feel knowing how to type pinyin is good enough, but if you have to choose which character it is, you must have learned quite a bit towards writing, so why not take that extra step and actually learn to write.

 

I think it is not unreasonable to be proud of passing any exam, with the computer based HSK as long as the distinction is made, people who pass the paper version should be that bit more proud of themselves.

 

Maybe there should be an extra mark for writing as apposed to typing. Or something like HSK5 with a C or a P to denote which version you passed. If employers cared if they could write, then they would have a way to tell.

 

I haven't taken any HSK tests but the uni I did my course at included handwriting in the exam. I got a pass at what they call Chinese stage 2a.

 

I think this is one of things that depends on what you are going to do with your Chinese when you finish your exams.

 

I am for handwriting Chinese, maybe you should start a poll , for or against handwriting.

 

But I don't think the test has no value just a different value.

[Touchstone57]

Has no value for whom? 

 

Being able to produce coherent sentences in Chinese is what is important, it doesn't really matter if its on a piece of paper or on a computer screen. The same goes for English. If you can communicate with someone in the written form that is usually good enough. However, if you learning to write characters is important to you, then by all means continue to do so! As long as you enjoy it, do it.

 

For some people it is about maximizing your time. They would rather learn more by learning less, which could be avoiding to write characters so they can focus time on other areas. Whilst some people may feel a sense of pride after having learnt characters, it is not functionally very useful unless you are perhaps pursuing certain academic studies which require Chinese handwriting. Whilst I think it is great some people choose to learn, after a few years in China 99% of all the situations I have been in have never required handwritten Chinese.

 

Some people may feel a sense of pride of passing their HSK because it is a personal goal or milestone, handwritten or not. Passing a goal is always motivational! 

Not everyone will hold the same requirements or look down upon people who don't meet their requirements of 'Mastery', it is simply about making progress in something they enjoy. 

[abcdefg]

...kind of strange double standard, especially when we know that the main issue in chinese is handwriting.

 

Can't help wondering how you you reached this conclusion. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

[Xiao Kui]

I think the test is still worthwhile but agree with this

I think writing with pen and paper is a very good way to memorize characters. 

 

My mom, who learned German and Russian, gave me the advice to "write the words 5 times each" and this strategy served me well.  I set aside about 4 hours each week to practice this for a year and when I moved to China I could already read 80% of signs and was ready to tackle real texts with the help of a dictionary.  Now I can read 3000+ characters and many more words, and I think this practice contributed to my success in this area.  It also helps that I'm a visual learner.

[anonymoose]

I certainly agree that a distinction should be made between the computer based exam and the written exam (I don't know - is such a distinction made?), at least so it is clear whether one has proved their mastery of writing or not.

 

Having said that, I understand that different people have different needs and goals. For some, writing may be important. For others, learning just to speak may be sufficient. For most, not learning Chinese at all seems not to be a critical impediment to their existence in China. These are just different levels on a continuous spectrum.

[MarsBlackman]

The ability to write characters flawlessly does not display more of a command of the language than a heritage speaker who grew up outside China speaking Chinese at home but doesn't write characters. Maybe you write characters better than your classmates. That's great. But if their command of speaking Chinese is better than yours, it's impossible to say who has "better Chinese." Learning a language is comprehensive and measuring it definitively is actually pretty subjective. Most tests measure what you don't know, not what you do know...and there is always something you don't know. Even the written HSK exam allows you to absolutely bomb the written portion and still pass the exam overall. 

 

I acknowledge that all components are equally important in the long run...in the long run. I'd rather be as functional as possible overall and as quickly as possible. Knowing how to write characters simply doesn't have the same return on investment as listening, speaking, and reading. The latter allow you to interact in the language which is self-reinforcing, continually improving and solidifying your Chinese. Knowing how to write characters simply doesn't provide that. Anybody physically writing is likely doing it for their own personal use (class notes, meeting notes, grocery list, etc). A language is for communication. In today's world, listening, speaking, reading, and typing pinyin allow for two way communication. Writing characters is a one way street for most people and is why they place less importance on it. 

 

I would argue speaking and listening is actually more difficult than writing characters. Anybody can sit at a desk in any corner of the world and learn characters. Written Chinese is the same everywhere...even in Hong Kong more or less. But the 口语 varies quite a bit from region to region and even city to city, even among supposed Mandarin speakers, and requires actual exposure. 

 

As already stated above, everybody's goals are different. You need to find what works for you and measure your success by achieving your own goals. You'll never be satisfied if you measure yourself by somebody else's criteria.

 

I took and passed the internet based HSK 5 exam. Am I proud? Absolutely. How in the world could I be proud of such a thing? It provided me, someone who works full time and hasn't taken a formal Chinese class since beginner level Chinese, a way to quantify my command of the language. Have I mastered Chinese? I'm absolutely nowhere close.

 

Writing physical characters actually doesn't prove any command in the language. Similarly, writing the 26 letters of the English alphabet doesn't prove you can write a coherent sentence. Writing characters certainly helps, but its not the end all be all. Its only one part of a much larger picture.

[JustinJJ]

I think the OP is just trolling.

 

My two cents is that hand-writing and "mastering Chinese" have no relationship: 

• There are even some Chinese native speakers who can't read/write (of an older generation). E.g. an elderly lady once asked me to read a form for her because she couldn't read it let alone write, but she is a "native-level" speaker
• I am a native English speaker and I'd estimate 99.999%+ of the English I use is typed, not hand-written, so typing skills are more important to me. Not sure why it would be different with Chinese.

[abcdefg]

I think the OP is just trolling.

 

You may be right. Naively, I hadn't considered that possibility.

 

Now HSK has become a test who doesn't measure your real command of chinese, but your ability to use chinese in everyday life. It's such a pitty.

 

I'm one of those "daily life" guys, so I really don't agree that it's such a pity the test has changed.

 

Maybe in the future they will offer two different HSK certificates at each level, one with handwriting and one without. If it were a perfect world and I were an ideal student, I'd like to master all the relevant skills, instead of making a pragmatic compromise like I've done.

[zhouhaochen]

I do not think the OP is a troll and while I do not agree with the general argument, the points made have value. Especially for native Chinese language teachers learning Mandarin without being able to write it is like missing one of the main points of the language. I - like most foreign learners - have a much more pragmatic view on this, however the other view does exist and I hear it all the time from teachers who start new at our school and spend a lot of time trying to change that attitude. It is just a different way of looking at things.

 

The bigger problem is that the HSK was not designed to be administered by computer though and needs a serious overhaul.

 

A huge problem that rarely gets mentioned is the predictive power of many Chinese computer sofwares. When you start typing a few characters, the software might finnish the sentence for you. It might also correct sentences you wrote for grammar mistakes etc.

 

There are no HSK guidelines which kind of Chinese character input software can be installed or not on on computers used to take the test. This means that you might get different results for students depending on which software they use to enter Chinese characters.

 

Hanban needs to come up with regulations for that. If in the written part we only want to measure the ability to communicate via electronic means with someone else in Mandarin, then this should a) be clearly marked as such and b) come with a clear definition which electronic aids can or cannot be used for this.

[tooironic]

I agree with the OP that the "typed"-version of the HSK cannot really evaluate one's handwriting skills.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the handwritten version of the HSK is a good evaluator of Chinese writing either. When I took HSK6 I was required to read a short story for 10 minutes, after which time the passage was taken away and I had to summarise the content of the story in handwriting. In my opinion, all this really tests is your memory. And, regardless, I did a very poor job of summarising the story when I took the exam - I left whole bits out, there were many 错别字, etc. - and yet I still passed with marks as high as the reading section which I aced.

 

So, again, I do not feel that the HSK6 writing section - as either a handwritten or computer test - is a good evaluator of actual writing ability in Chinese.

[Demonic_Duck]

For those that don't think the OP is trolling, here are a selection of claims s/he makes:

• The computer test "has no value"
• S/he doesn't see how someone could be proud of passing it
• Mastery of reading, computer-aided writing, speaking and listening doesn't demonstrate "command of Chinese" unless handwriting is included
• Apart from "flattering 老外 ego" there's no point taking computer-based HSK tests
• "[W]e know that the main issue in chinese is handwriting"

I rest my case.

 

With that said, by all means let's continue to disregard these ridiculous claims and discuss the importance of learning handwriting. Personally it's something I've only just started to really concentrate on, due to starting a course at Tsinghua which requires it. However, on the whole I'm more in the "it's a nice (and impressive) extra skill to have" camp than the "it's absolutely essential" camp.

 

I also do think that a distinction should be made between the two types of HSK test - the certificate itself should include information on whether it was pen-based or computer-based (which as far as I know isn't currently included, though I could be wrong).

[li3wei1]

There are people who, for a variety of reasons, will never be able to handwrite characters. They may be visually impaired, or have poor fine motor skills, or movement may cause severe pain. There are a variety of technical aids to help them get through life and produce written documents in whatever language they are operating in. We wouldn't say that these people have not mastered their language, would we?

 

There's a bit of ambiguity in the OP's post, when he talks about people who can speak English but not 'write' it. I don't think he means they can type it but they haven't mastered the 26 letters of the alphabet, which is the equivalent of what he's complaining about amongst learners of Chinese.

[ZhangKaiRong]

OP is obviously trolling, I mean, who starts his/her career on this forum with such a topic?

 

HSK is an over-mystified, stupid and crappy "proficiency" test, passing it proves that you're dedicated enough to sit long hours, grind characters and memorize how to solve the standard exam excercises as fast as possible. IMO it's pretty pointless to argue which one is crappier, the computer-based or the paper one. I passed the paper one of HSK4 and the computer one of HSK5, and there is no big difference between the two exam type, since 2/3 of the exam is made of multiple choice questions. Yes, you can mark your answers on your sheet with the character 口 instead of a circle, proving that your handwriting is "really" top-notch, but apart from this, there is no use of your handwriting skills. You can earn 200 points in the listening and reading sections, therefore you have some room for errors up to 20 points for passing the 60%. And, 书写 also have parts where you actually need to copy the given characters to write a sentence. You can even score some points in the story writing and writing about the picture part, with a very limited ability to write characters. Yes, it is true that you have more room for errors in case of the computer based exams, but it doesn't really matter, if you were a good droid and have grinded enough during your preparation to the exam.

 

IMO, handwriting is a good skill, but it is the least useful language skill. You have to write on daily basis to constantly keep refreshing your memory, which is simply not effective. I have no problems reading characters and speaking, since nowadays I'm using Chinese on a daily basis due to work, but I obviously never draft an e-mail on paper, so I keep forgetting how to write characters from my memory. Sometimes I remember the radical, but I mess up some strokes in the other part of the character. I learnt 繁体字 before, so sometimes I mix the simplified and the traditional elements of the same character. No big deal, since I only handwrite for fun, and I don't think that this affect my current proficiency. I participated some Chinese business conferences this year, and I found that the native speakers also tend to forget characters, I saw them taking notes while checking their phones on how to write specific characters. Youngsters in their twenties have even started to use laptops to take notes, in order to peed up the process.

 

IMO, the most important skills for foreigners are understanding what others telling them in Chinese, being able to speak fluently (and by fluently, I mean using more or less good tones and without constant "emmm", "ummm", "eee" and other funny moanings), and being able to read texts with a decent speed. This is enough to make you busy for quite a long time. Compared to this, handwriting is just fancincess. These are my two cents.

 

PS: By the Way, if I remember correctly, Hanban would like to eliminate paper-based HSK on the long-run. I don't know where I read it, but I remember something about the computer-based exam was much more cost-effective on long-term (however, I guess in terms of CAPEX it is more expensive, since a lot of Confucius Institutes don't have the required hardware for being able to offer computer-based exams).

[roddy]

Folks, if you think someone's trolling, send in a post report and ignore the topic. I've seen more than one (ok, two) genuine posters get accused incorrectly of being a troll lately, and it isn't good for the site. It's much more likely that people are sincerely wrong. Which is I suppose better...

[Shelley]

So off topic but still slightly relevant what do you all think trolling is? I don't think it is making "ridiculous claims".

 

I also don't find any of what the OP said offensive, racist, rude or otherwise insulting.

 

Maybe s/he is just interested in getting a discussion going about the importance or not of handwriting Chinese in these modern times.

 

This might be a many times rehashed subject to the old hands here at the forums but to a newbie it might be relevant question.

 

I am not trying to defend trolling or in fact this OP,  just trying to understand why some people think this is a case of trolling.

[hedwards]

@Roddy that's a good point. I'm not personally convinced that the OP isn't being sincere, but way off base about the tests.

 

Knowing how to write the characters you use is defnitely worth aspiring to, but I don't see any particular value in putting off writing until you can handwrite and I certainly do think that learning to handwrite is somewhat easier once you have familiarity with a large number of characters and can use them to write entire sentences.

 

@Shelley, it is a ridiculous claim. Saying that the handwritten is better is probably reasonable, but saying that the computer based test is worthless because it doesn't test handwriting is ludicrous. Unless one is planning on working or going to school in an environment where they're going to need to be handwriting constantly, it's not really that important. I mean there are people who manage to get around without any meaningful understanding of the written language.

[Silent]

 

 

Now HSK has become a test who doesn't measure your real command of chinese, but your ability to use chinese in everyday life. It's such a pitty.

Sorry, I really don't understand this statement? It sounds to me like, the use of Chinese in everyday life is not real Chinese. IMHO the reason to learn a language is utility. Some-one able to communicate effectively with a lot of errors has imho better skills then someone using perfect grammar and pronunciation but unable to communicate well due to useless vocabulary. 

 

Sure, handwriting is part of the language. However nowadays you rarely need to hand write, or at least it tends to be avoidable. The correct question to ask is how much effort will it take to learn to hand write, how much value does it bring me and how much value does it bring me if I invest the same effort in something else? For many people handwriting is of minor importance and investing in something else will bring more value.

[Silent]

 

 

I mean there are people who manage to get around without any meaningful understanding of the written language.

Sure, but imho that's no validation for not learning it. Many people are functionally illiterate in their native language. Many people in the world are unable to communicate in English. That proves you can get by without these skills, but to me that no justification for not trying to become literate or to learn English. I at least can't imagine my life without these skills and sometimes wonder how these people survive in the modern world. But then, many people have skills I don't have and they may think exactly the same, that I'm to pity for lacking those skills.

 

Oftentimes you only learn the real added value of a skill by learning it. By learning a skill you also learn unexpected uses and that in some situations the skill doesn't bring what you expected. 

[Shelley]

@hedwards I think you misunderstand what I meant. I don't think the computer based exam is of no value just a different one. Did you read my post @#2?