面向人才选育的高考难度理论分析：思维品质优先的失分概率

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.09.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文旨在探讨中国高考难度设置、能力评价与国家人才选育质量之间的关系，以增强高考选育人才的效能。考试难度通常被理解为试题的失分概率。高思维挑战与其他因素都会造成失分，从理论上明确区分两者是提高考试评价导向与核心素养目标一致性的关键。在国内外文献与政策文本的基础上，本研究制定了强调思维品质的高考理科命题难度的分析框架，包括高阶认知挑战、阅读时长、语言理解障碍、知识点数量、运算难度和情景题功能等方面。依据此框架对北京、上海、全国乙卷400道高考物理试题难度进行了量化处理和比较分析，尝试评价高考实际考查了学生何种能力，并在多大程度上符合我国人才选育目标。研究发现，当前高考物理命题中运算难度和审题压力成为影响失分概率的主要因素，高阶认知能力考查不足，知识点深度和广度比较有限，与核心素养目标的关联性不足。最后，本文提出评价高考理科命题难度的理想模型，并讨论了不同性质的失分概率与考试压力感的关系，有助于在关照社会接受度的同时完善考试难度设置。

关键词: 高考理科难度模型, 思维品质, 熟练度, 应试, 人才选拔

Abstract:

This paper aims to explore the relationship between the difficulty setting of the Gaokao (China’s National College Entrance Examination), ability evaluation, and the quality of national talent selection, in order to enhance the effectiveness of talent cultivation through the Gaokao. Exam difficulty is typically understood as the probability of score deduction, influenced by high cognitive challenges and other factors. Theoretically distinguishing between these factors is crucial for aligning exam evaluation with core competency goals. Based on domestic and international literature and policy documents, this study develops an analytical framework for Gaokao science exam difficulty that emphasizes cognitive challenges. This framework includes aspects such as high-order cognitive challenges, reading duration, language comprehension obstacles, number of knowledge points, computational difficulty, and the function of contextual questions. Using this framework, about 400 physics questions from the Beijing, Shanghai, and National B versions of the Gaokao were quantitatively analyzed and compared. The study attempts to evaluate the types of abilities the Gaokao actually assesses and the extent to which it aligns with China's talent cultivation goals. Findings indicate that in current Gaokao physics questions, computational difficulty and question comprehension pressure are the primary factors affecting score deduction probability, with insufficient assessment of high-order cognitive abilities and limited depth and breadth of knowledge points. The correlation with core competency goals is overestimated. Finally, the paper proposes an ideal model for evaluating the difficulty of Gaokao science questions and discusses the relationship between different types of score deduction probabilities and exam pressure, aiming to improve exam difficulty setting while considering social acceptability.

Key words: Gaokao science difficulty model, thinking quality, proficiency, exam-oriented learning, talent selection

方士心, 陆一, 盛煜森. 面向人才选育的高考难度理论分析：思维品质优先的失分概率[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(9): 54-68.

Shixin Fang, Yi Lu, Yusen Sheng. The Impact of Cognitive Challenge and Gaokao Difficulty：A Theoretical Analysis for Selection and Development of Well-Rounded Talents[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2025, 43(9): 54-68.

图/表 5

表 1

高考物理试题认知分类标准"

认知层次	描述与要求
记忆	在学生作答过程中，需准确回忆物理学的史料、公式、定理及概念。题目允许学生仅凭对这些概念或公式的记忆进行解答，而无需深入理解或应用。此层次的考查重点在于学生对教材内容的记忆能力，而非对知识的理解和应用能力。
理解	学生应能够准确阐述物理定律或理论，并进行基础的比较、转换、解释或概括。学生需将记忆的公式或概念直接迁移到熟悉的或类似场景中进行阐释。
应用	学生能够将单一的物理概念、规律和公式应用于相对简单的非熟悉物理情境，并解决相应的问题。这要求学生能够根据题目所提供的情景，联想到相关的公式、概念和理论，并有效地运用物理知识进行解答。此外，所有涉及图像解释或分析的题目至少应归类于应用层次。
分析	学生必须将多个（至少两个）物理概念、理论、规律或公式进行分解、重组或交叉应用，以解决复杂问题。在此过程中，学生需要构建复杂的物理模型，并对所提供的信息进行提炼和筛选。这一层次的评估旨在考查学生在复杂情境中综合运用多个知识点的能力。
评估	学生应具备对数据、信息或理论方法进行批判性评估的能力，包括提出假设并进行验证，并基于这些假设对结果进行解释。在答案中，学生应展示对不同解决方案的比较，并依据有效性、可行性、效率等标准进行综合判断和选择。这一层次的评估旨在考查学生在分析和评价过程中的高级认知技能，以及他们在面对多种可能解决方案时的决策能力。已给定答案的评估题型不算做“评估”。
创造	学生应展现创新能力，通过构建新的方法、理论或工具来解决特定问题。这包括设计创新的实验方案以探究问题、发现新的物理问题，以及实现跨学科知识的整合以解决问题。此层次要求学生表现出高度的原创性和创新思维，能够超越传统框架，提出独到见解和解决方案。

表 1

表 2

图 1

表 3

图 2

参考文献

	程晓堂, 王瑶. (2021). 基于高考英语难题的试题命制技术探讨. 中国考试, (05), 63- 71.
	吕世虎, 于丽芳, 王尚志. (2020). 数学试卷综合难度的内涵及其指标体系建构. 数学教育学报, 29 (04), 1- 6.
	澎湃新闻. (2019). “数学大赛中国队全军覆没”, 别忽略背后的“勤能补拙”陷阱. 取自(2019年3月4日)澎湃号: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_3072123.
	于涵. (2024). 中国高考难度分析理论构建初探. 中国考试, (02), 1- 10.
	刘海峰. (2019). 新高考改革的实践与改进. 江苏高教, (06), 19- 25.
	王后雄, 孙建明. (2013). 新课程高考化学试题命制与课程标准一致性研究. 中国考试, (11), 10- 21.
	王后雄, 孙建明. (2013). 新课程高考化学试题命制研究综述. 中国考试, (07), 9- 17.
	中国高考报告学术委员会. (2023). 高考评价体系解读. 北京: 现代教育出版社.
	Alloway, T. P., & Copello, E. (2013). Working memory: The what, the why, and the how. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 30 (2), 105- 118.
	Anderson, L. W. , & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessment. London: Longman.
	Beckmann, J. F., Birney, D. P., & Goode, N. (2017). Beyond psychometrics: The difference between difficult problem solving and complex problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1739.
	Beckmann, J. F., & Goode, N. (2017). Missing the wood for the wrong trees: On the difficulty of defining the complexity of complex problem solving scenarios. Journal of Intelligence, 5 (2), 15.
	Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
	Barbu, O. C., & Beal, C. R. (2010). Effects of linguistic complexity and math difficulty on word problem solving by English learners. International Journal of Education, 2 (2), 1- 19.
	Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of US and Chinese students' mathematical performance on tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, i–151.
	College Board. (2020). AP® Calculus AB and BC: Course and exam description. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdfhttps://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-calculus-ab-and-bc-course-and-exam-description.pdf.
	College Board. (2021). AP® Physics C: Mechanics Course Overview. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-physics-c-mechanics-course-overview.pdfhttps://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-physics-c-mechanics-course-overview.pdf.
	DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (3), 1616- 1641.
	Eloundou, T. , Manning, S. , Mishkin, P. , & Rock, D. (2023). GPTs are GPTs: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models. Retrieved from https://ownyourai.com/gpts-are-gpts-an-early-look-at-the-labor-market-impact-potential-of-large-language-models/.
	Fisher-Hoch, H. , & Hughes, S. (1996). What makes mathematics exam questions difficult. In Proceedings of the British Educational Research Association, England: University of Lancaster.
	Freeman, S., Haak, D., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2011). Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10 (2), 175- 186.
	Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24 (6), 49- 50.
	International Baccalaureate Organization. (2014). Diploma Programme: Physics guide. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://ibphysics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ib-physics-syllabus.pdfhttps://ibphysics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ib-physics-syllabus.pdf.
	Kim, E., & Pak, S. J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70 (7), 759- 765.
	Lin, C. S., Lu, Y. L., & Lien, C. J. (2021). Association between test item’s length, difficulty, and students’ perceptions: Machine learning in schools’ term examinations. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 9 (6), 1323- 1332.
	Moore, D. A. , & Tenney, E. R. (2012). Time pressure, performance, and productivity. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 15, 305-326.
	Orfus, S. (2008). The effect of test anxiety and time pressure on performance. The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation, 46(1).
	Pollitt, A. , Hutchinson, C. , Entwhistle, N. , & de Luca, C. (1985). What makes examination questions difficult? Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press.
	Pelánek, R., Effenberger, T., & Čechák, J. (2022). Complexity and difficulty of items in learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32 (1), 196- 232.
	Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27- 57.
	Wright, C. D., Eddy, S. L., Wenderoth, M. P., et al. (2016). Cognitive difficulty and format of exams predicts gender and socioeconomic gaps in exam performance of students in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15 (2), ar23.
	Yaneva, V. , Baldwin, P. , & Mee, J. (2019). Predicting the difficulty of multiple choice questions in a high-stakes medical exam. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications.
	Zheng, A. Y., Lawhorn, J. K., Lumley, T., & Freeman, S. (2008). Application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the "MCAT myth". Science, 319 (5862), 414- 415.

	北京	上海	全国乙
记忆	0.63%	2.52%	0.00%
理解	10.00%	16.89%	9.88%
应用	58.13%	57.23%	49.38%
分析	30.00%	22.64%	40.74%
评估	0.00%	0.63%	0.00%
创造	1.25%	0.00%	0.00%

失分概率因素	失分概率来源	对应考生素质	如何应试：采取何种教与学策略
A.高阶认知水平	高阶思维挑战	认知才能扎实基础	需要真正的理科素养与天赋扎实地开展学习思考与实践活动
B.知识点广度和深度	高阶思维挑战	认知才能扎实基础	需要真正的理科素养与天赋扎实地开展学习思考与实践活动
I.运算复杂度	熟练度难关	刻苦努力专心致志	大量重复性练习，熟悉解题技巧和套路，阻碍主动思考
J.阅读和时长压力	熟练度难关	刻苦努力专心致志	大量重复性练习，熟悉解题技巧和套路，阻碍主动思考
X.试题审读障碍	非理科障碍	文科素质、生活经历与偶然机遇等	非学科性积累，带来不确定性压力和焦虑情绪
Y.情境关联	非理科障碍	文科素质、生活经历与偶然机遇等	非学科性积累，带来不确定性压力和焦虑情绪

[1]	柯政, 梁灿. 论应试教育与学生创造力培养之间的关系[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(4): 72-82.
[2]	游畅, 王阳, 朱晓超, 宋可即, 何鑫, 黄晓平, 陈昶安, 郑方贤, 丁光宏. 科学选拔创新人才的理念、方法与成效——2006-2017复旦大学改革探索综述[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2018, 36(3): 115-124+170.
[3]	张会杰. 兴起与废止：科举考试的制度特征及其批判性反思?[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2015, 33(4): 107-112.
[4]	黄明喜. 论王安石的陶冶成才观[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2000, 18(1): 88-95.