Bridging Academic Proficiency and Global Standards: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis of The China Scholastic Competency Assessment (CSCA) and PISA Frameworks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65168/bs.221-9Keywords:
CALP, CSCA, PISA, Comparative linguistic analysisAbstract
The world education has highly increased the need for assessment frameworks that reliably measure learners’ linguistic comprehension for academic study across borders and disciplines. Global benchmarking tools are applied widely. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assess general literacy and functional competencies. The China Scholastic Competency Assessment (CSCA) evaluate academic Chinese language skills necessary for successful study in undergraduate programs taught in Chinese. Despite their growing global influence, few study examines whether the academic language concepts underlying these assessment frameworks are coherent or aligned.
This study undertakes a comparative linguistic examination of the official CSCA 2025 syllabus and the PISA 2025 Foreign Language Assessment framework, informed by Cummins’ model of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency and Weir’s socio cognitive approach to language testing. By examining the linguistic constructs, cognitive demands, and assessment design, the study shows that both tools share a strong overlap in how they assess higher order academic language skills. The CSCA emphasizes on discipline specific academic language in Chinese medium higher education. The PISA FLA focuses on functional multilingual literacy for global comparison. Even so, both frameworks assess similar aspects of cognitive academic language processing. The findings reveal that regional academic language assessments can align with international frameworks. They can do this without losing their disciplinary focus. This offers practical guidance for policymakers who want to connect local and global standards.
References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
China Scholarship Council. (2025a). CSCA Liberal Arts Chinese examination syllabus. China Scholarship Council.
China Scholarship Council. (2025b). CSCA Science Chinese examination syllabus. China Scholarship Council.
China Scholarship Council. (2025c). CSCA physics examination syllabus. China Scholarship Council.
China Scholarship Council. (2025d). CSCA chemistry examination syllabus. China Scholarship Council.
China Scholarship Council. (2025e). CSCA mathematics examination syllabus. China Scholarship Council.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum
age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Ministry of Education and Science of Mongolia. (2023). PISA 2022 national report of Mongolia. Government of Mongolia.
OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 technical standards. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023b). PISA 2025 foreign language assessment framework. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2025). PISA 2025 technical standards. OECD Publishing.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
