本文以“集合与常用逻辑用语”这一部分为例，对沈阳市M中学高一（5）班数学作业题与《普通高中数学课程标准（2017年版2020年修订）》（以下简称《课标2020》）进行一致性研究。在这一部分，该班实际布置作业题242道，共计317小问，其中源自教材的有26道、29小问，教师自编的作业题有39道、43小问，教辅资料的有177道、245小问。

本研究从内容、认知两方面对作业题与《课标2020》进行一致性分析。内容方面，依照《课标2020》将“集合与常用逻辑用语”编码为A1、A2、A3、B1、B2、B3；认知方面，将《课标2020》中的“了解”、“理解”、“掌握”、“运用”分别编码为a、b、c、d。借助SEC模型进行一致性分析，得出结论如下：

1.在内容-认知二维方面，该班“集合与常用逻辑用语”作业题 与《课标2020》具有一致性，但未达到0.05显著水平，具体数值为：0.5772 <  P = 0.7005 < 0.7840。在侧重点上，作业题与《课标2020》一致性较高，均侧重对A3“集合的基本运算”在“掌握”水平的考查和对内容B2“必要条件、充分条件、充要条件”在“理解”水平的考查。从来源上看，源自教材的作业题与《课标2020》的一致性最高，其次是教辅资料，最后是教师自编。

2.在内容方面，作业题与《课标2020》的相关系数为0.825，达到了0.05水平的显著相关，内容上整体一致性较高。作业题对内容A2“集合的基本关系”、A3“集合的基本运算”、B2“全称量词与存在量词”的考查程度略高于《课标2020》的要求；而对A1“集合的概念与表示”、B1“必要条件、充分条件、充要条件”、B3“全称量词与存在量词命题的否定”考查程度略低于《课标2020》的要求。源自教材的作业题内容分布趋势与《课标2020》最相近、一致性最高，教师自编的作业题对内容A2“集合的基本关系”的考查明显高于《课标2020》，一致性较差。

3.在认知方面，作业题与《课标2020》的相关系数为0.951，达到了0.05水平的显著相关，整体一致性较高。在认知水平分配上，作业题与《课标2020》的趋势相同，从高到低依次是：b“理解”、c“掌握”、a“了解”、d“运用”。但二者也存在一些差异，作业题对认知水平a“了解”、d“运用”的考查程度高于《课标2020》的要求；而对b“理解”、c“掌握”的考查程度略低于《课标2020》的要求。源自教材与教辅资料的作业题认知分布与《课标2020》的一致性较高，教师自编的作业题与《课标2020》的差异相对较大，一致性较差。

根据研究结论，为沈阳市M中学高一（5）班数学作业题的布置提出建议：在内容方面，教师要根据学生的具体情况适当减少A2“集合的基本关系”、A3“集合的基本运算”、B2“全称量词与存在量词”的作业，适当增加 A1“集合的概念与表示”、B1“必要条件、充分条件、充要条件”、B3“全称量词与存在量词命题的否定”的作业。在认知水平方面，教师要根据学生的具体情况适当减少a“了解”和d“运用”水平的作业，适当增加b“理解”和c“掌握”水平的作业。

Taking the part of "Sets and Common Logical Terms" as an example, this paper conducts a consistent study between the mathematics homework of the first (5) class of high school in Shenyang and the "Mathematics Curriculum Standards for General High Schools (2017 Edition 2020 Revision)", (Later referred to as "Curriculum Standards (2020) "). In this part, the teacher actually assigned 242 homework questions, a total of 317 questions, the number of content-cognition tests was 449 times. Among them, 26 questions and 29 small questions were derived from textbook; There are 39 questions and 43 small questions designed by teachers; There are 177 questions and 245 small questions chosen from exercise book. There are a total of 13 items on "sets and common logical terms" in the "Course Standard (2020)".

In this paper, the consistency between homework and "Course Standards (2020)" was analyzed from the aspects of content and cognition. In terms of content, according to the "Course Standard (2020)", "set and common logical terms" are divided into two parts, "A set" and "B common logic terms". Then divided each part to the secondary dimension A1-B3 of the content. In terms of cognition, the a" recognizing", b "understanding", c "mastery" and d "application" given in the curriculum standards were divided into four levels. Using the SEC model, the consistency analysis was carried out from the three aspects of content-cognition two-dimensional whole, content dimension and cognitive level. The conclusions are as follows:

In the content-cognition dimension, the homework of "Set and Common Logical Terms" in this class are consistent with the "Course Standard (2020)", but they have not reached a significant level of 0.05. The values are: 0.5772 <  P = 0.7005 <  0.7840. In terms of emphasis, the homework is consistent with the "Course Standard (2020)". Among them, the homework questions derived from the textbook had the highest consistency with the "Course Standard (2020)". There is a high consistency between the homework questions and  the "Course Standard (2020)". In terms of emphases, both of them focus on the cognition of the mastery level of A3 "basic operation of sets" and the content of B2 "necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, sufficient and necessary conditions" in the "understanding" level.

2. In terms of content, the correlation coefficient between the content of all homework in this class and the "Course Standard (2020)" was 0.825, which reached the level of 0.05, and the overall consistency of content is high. However, the requirements of content A2 "basic relationship of sets", A3 "basic operations of sets", and B2 "universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers" in the homework questions are slightly higher than the requirements of the "Course Standard (2020)". The requirements of A1 "concept and expression of sets", B1 "necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, sufficient and necessary conditions", and B3 "negation of universal quantifiers and existential quantifier propositions" are slightly lower than the requirements of "Course Standard (2020)". Among them, the distribution trend of homework questions from textbook is the most similar and consistent with the "Course Standard (2020)". The requirements of content A2 in the homework designed by teachers are significantly higher than that of the "Curriculum Standard (2020)", and the consistency is poor. The homework questions derived from the textbook have good consistency with the "Curriculum Standard (2020)" in content B3, but the questions from exercise book are relatively lower in the requirements of B3.

3. In terms of cognition, the correlation coefficient between all homework in this class and the "Course Standards (2020)" is 0.951, which reaches the level of 0.05 and has a high overall consistency. In terms of cognitive level allocation, homework has the same trend as "Course Standards (2020)", from high to low: b "understanding", c "mastery", a "recognizing", d "application". However, there are also some differences between them, for example: the degree of cognitive level a "recognizing" and d " application " in the homework are higher than the requirements of the "Course Standard (2020)"; The degree of b "understanding" and c "mastery" is lower than the requirements of the "Course Standard (2020)". From the source of homework questions, the cognitive distribution trend of homework chosen from the exercise book is highly similar to "Curriculum Standard (2020)", it has good consistency. The cognitive distribution trend of homework from textbook and exercise book are relatively consistent with the "Curriculum Standard (2020)". But the difference between the homework designed by teachers and the "Curriculum Standard (2020)" was relatively large, and the consistency was poor.

According to the research conclusion, it is proposed for the arrangement of mathematics homework in the first (5) class of high school in Shenyang: in terms of content, the teacher should appropriately reduce the homework of A2 "basic relationship of sets", A3 "basic operations of sets", and B2 "universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers". And according to the specific situation of students, appropriately increase the homework of A1 "concept and representation of sets", B1 "necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, and sufficient conditions", and B3 " negation of universal quantifiers and existential quantifier propositions ". In terms of cognitive level, the teacher should appropriately reduce the homework of a "understanding" and d "application" level according to the specific situation of students, and appropriately increase the homework of b "understanding" and c "mastery" level.