教科书作为课程资源的核心部分，在实际教学中具有举足轻重的地位，一方面反映了课程标准对于教学活动在内容、方法及目标上的要求，另一方面为教师开展教学活动提供了重要的文本依据。那么，作为教科书使用的主体，教师在实际教学活动中使用教科书能力及程度将直接影响到教科书的使用价值能否被充分发挥，进而影响到课堂教学的效果甚至课程实施的进程。因此，如何界定与评价教师使用教科书的能力及程度，对于这一问题的解决，不论在理论层面还是现实层面，都具有重要的研究价值及现实意义。 关于教师使用教科书能力及程度的界定与划分，国外研究主要将其划分为三种类型：忠实使用或依赖、调适使用、即兴或甚少使用；国内研究则有多种划分标准，较为突出的有孔凡哲的五等级划分——误用、机械使用、常规使用、有点新意、创造性使用，也有与国外相类似的三类型划分——教教材、用教材教、不用教材教。但通过检索文献发现，关于教师使用教科书程度及能力评价的理论建构还未充分展开，孔凡哲曾提出“教师使用教科书水平模型”（下简称“水平模型”），但严家丽在后续研究指出，“水平模型对于测评者的素质有较高的要求”、“水平模型中某些维度评判的关键点不利于评判者把握”，并对“水平模型”的测定过程进行了细化，不过整体来看，后续的相关研究大多是基于孔凡哲模型的直接运用与实证研究，少有从理论层面的细化及审思，因此，对于教师使用教科书程度及能力评价的理论研究还有待进一步的深入进行。 本研究在古德莱德课程理论的整体视角下，在孔凡哲的“水平模型”的基础上，调整了教科书使用过程四阶段的顺序及表述——“理解教科书”、“评价教科书”、“使用教科书备课”、“使用教科书教学”，并按照“内容—方法—目标”的模式，重构了“教师使用教科书水平评判框架”（下简称“水平评判框架”），最后基于建构的“水平评判框架”，采用个案研究的方法对某高中数学教师使用教科书水平进行了综合评判，结果表明： （1）被试教师对于课标及教科书的研读，更多的关注教学内容层面的要求，对于方法及目标层面的关注则不够细致； （2）被试教师能够基于学情对教科书进行合理评价，但缺乏对于评价依据的进一步研究； （3）被试教师能够基于学情对教科书进行适当处理并进行合理的教学设计，但在教学方法、目标的处理上不够契合整体学生； （4）被试教师能够在课堂教学中达到甚至超出个人教案中预期的效果，但整体课堂缺乏开放、民主的教学方式； 研究最终评定被试教师的使用教科书水平等级为“常规使用（有些新意）”，并给出了相应的教学建议。

As the core part of curriculum resources, textbooks play an important role in practical teaching. On the one hand, it reflects the requirements of curriculum standards on the content, methods and objectives of teaching activities, on the other hand, it provides important textual basis for teachers to carry out teaching activities. As the main body of textbook use, the ability and degree of teachers to use textbooks in practical teaching activities directly influence whether the value of textbooks can be brought into full play, and then influence the effect of classroom teaching and even the process of curriculum implementation. Therefore, how to define and evaluate the ability and degree of teachers to use textbooks, the answers to this question, whether in theory or in reality, are of great research value and practical significance. As for the definition and division of teachers' ability and degree of using textbooks, foreign studies mainly classify it into three types: faithful use or dependence, adaptive use, improvisation or little use; Domestic research has a variety of criteria, the more prominent five-level division of Kong Fanzhe - misuse, mechanical use, conventional use, a little innovative, creative use. There are also three types of classifications similar to those of foreign countries-teaching textbooks, teaching by textbooks and teaching by no textbooks. However, through searching the literature, it is found that the theoretical construction on the evaluation of teachers' use of textbooks and their abilities has not been fully developed. Kong Fanzhe once put forward "the level model of teachers' use of textbooks" (hereinafter referred to as "the level model"), but Yan Jiali pointed out in the follow-up study that "the level model has higher requirements for the quality of the assessors", "the key points of some dimensions in the level model are not conducive to the judges' grasp", and she refined the determination process of "the level model". However, on the whole, most of the follow-up studies are based on the direct application and empirical research of "the level model" and few of them is refined and thought from the theoretical level. Therefore, the theoretical research on the evaluation of teachers' use of textbooks and their abilities needs to be further carried out. From the overall perspective of Goodlad' s curriculum theory and on the basis of Kong fanzhe's "the level model", this study adjusts the order and expression of the four stages of textbook use process - "understanding textbooks", "evaluating textbooks", "preparing lessons with textbooks" and "using textbooks to teach". In accordance with the model of "content-method-goal", the framework for evaluating teachers' level of using textbooks (hereinafter referred to as "the framework for evaluating teachers' level") is reconstructed. Finally, based on the constructed "level evaluation framework", a case study method is used to evaluate the level of textbook use of a high school mathematics teacher. The results show that: (1) For the study of curriculum standards and textbooks, the teacher pays more attention to the requirements of teaching content, but less attention to methods and objectives. (2) The teacher can reasonably evaluate textbooks based on their teaching conditions, but they lack further research on the basis of evaluation. (3) The teacher can deal with textbooks appropriately and make reasonable instructional design based on their teaching conditions, but the treatment of teaching methods and objectives does not suit the students as a whole； (4) The teacher can achieve or even exceed the expected results of individual teaching plans in classroom teaching, but the overall classroom lacks an open and democratic teaching method. the study assessed the level of textbook use of the tested teachers as "conventional use (some new ideas)", and gave the corresponding teaching suggestions in the end.