本研究是在教育部基础教育课程教材发展中心开展“全国首届新课程小学优秀课例研究与评选工作”的背景下所进行的。研究对象是吉林省选送的12节参赛课例，并将其中获一、二等奖的课例归为优秀课例，三、四等奖的课例归为一般课例，分析了教师课堂提问在思维导向性上的一般特征，并比较了两类课例的差异性，最终总结出改进教学的建议。“教师课堂提问”是指由教师在课堂上运用疑问句进行问题表述的言语行为，其目的是引发学生思维活动。对于思维导向性，我们给出操作性定义，即教师在提问数量及类型、候答时间、提问方式、反馈方式、回答类型以及追问情况这六个方面的表现。我们用录像分析法对课例中教师的提问逐一进行编码记录，然后利用相关软件进行分析，结果如下：在提问数量及类型上，整体而言体现了高密度的提问方式，且高水平的问题所占比例比以往的研究有所提高，此外两类课例在问题水平上差异显著，优秀课例中高水平问题所占比例高于一般课例；在候答时间上，问题水平与候答时间显著相关，但高水平问题的等待时间需要进一步提高，此外两类课例的差异显著，优秀课例在高水平问题上的候答时间长于一般课例；在提问方式上，问题水平与提问方式显著相关，低水平问题所对应的方式更加多样化，此外两类课例在该方面存在显著性差异，优秀课例中对低水平问题的提问方式更加多样化；在反馈方式上，大多以直接反馈为主，且赞赏性占有一定比例，忽略和打断现象极少发生，此外两类课例的差异显著，优秀课例中大多以直接反馈为主，“继续追问”所占比例低于一般课例；在回答类型上，学生以思考型为主，不同水平的问题之间差异性较显著，高水平问题的“创造型”回答较多，此外针对不同水平的问题，两类课例差异显著，由此推断优秀课例中的回答类型结构更合理；在追问方面，教师对低水平问题的重复追问占有较大比例，这不利于学生思维的提升，而且在逐层深入的追问方面，教师设计的问题多为低水平的问题，这反映出教学实践上的不足，此外两类课例在重复追问的问题水平上存在显著差异，一般课例更多地追问低水平的问题，优秀课例则更倾向于高水平的问题。最终我们总结出改进课堂提问的建议：增加高水平问题所占的比例；延长高水平问题的候答时间；提问方式多样化，但要控制齐答方式所占的比例，尤其是对于高水平问题；反馈方式以直接为主，但要保持赞赏性占有一定比例；回答类型以“思考型”为主，尽可能增加“创造型”方式；要减少对低水平问题的重复追问，多设计一些逐层追问的问题，并有意识提高追问问题的水平。此外对于评课，我们也有所启发，应适当关注高水平问题的候答时间，还要关注高水平问题的提问方式。

The Ministry of Education Textbook Development Centre launched “the first national primary school curriculum and the selection of excellent lesson study work”, which made this study carried out. The subjects are 12 video lessons which are participants from Jilin Province, and after classifying the first and second prize lessons as excellent-designate Lesson, the third and fourth prize lessons as general-designate Lesson, we analyze their general characteristics on oriented thinking and compare the differences between the two Lessons, then make a conclusion about how to improve teaching. “Questions” refers to the use of interrogative sentences in the classroom for teachers to raise a problem, and its purpose is to lead students in thinking activities. For the thinking-oriented, we give the operational definition, which is how a teacher performs on the six aspects we have mentioned before, the number and type of the questions, the asking-way, waiting time, feedback form, response type, and closely questioning.We encode each question of a teacher in each lesson using video analysis, the results are as follows. The number and type of questions embody the high-density questioning approach, and the proportion of high-level issues has increased than before, in addition there is a significant difference between the two Lessons on the type of questions which appears that the proportion of high-level questions in excellent-designate Lesson is larger than in general-designate Lesson; the level of a question designates a significant correlation of waiting time, however, the time for a high-level question needs to be improved further, in addition, the difference between the two Lessons is significant, which says that for a high-level question in excellent-designate Lesson is longer than that in the general-designate Lesson; the asking-way and the level of a question are significantly related, and corresponding a low-level problem question , the asking-way is much more diverse, in addition, there are significant differences between the two Lessons which appears that the asking-way in excellent-designate Lesson is marked by diversity; for the feedback form, the proportion of direct feedback is larger than other forms, and the phenomenon of neglecting and interrupting is rare, in addition, the difference between the two is significant, which appears that the proportion of “direct” feedback in excellent-designate Lesson is larger than the other Lesson, while “to follow up” is opposite; in response type, “thinking” occupies an important position, and there are significant differences between each levels of problems, and compared to low-level problem, "creative" response to the high-level problem has been to increase, in addition, there are significant differences between the two Lessons for low-level questions which appears that “Memory Type” and “Selective Type” both account for a larger proportion in excellent-designate Lesson; in the closely questioning, the teachers repeat the low-level questions which accounts for a large proportion, and is helpless to improve thinking, and in the layer-depth questioning, the teachers mostly design low-level issues of the problem, reflecting that there are deficiencies in the teaching practice，in addition, in the closely questioning, the teachers repeat the high-level questions which accounts for a larger proportion in excellent-designate Lesson, who also performs better in the layer-depth questioning, and in which the proportion of high-level questions is larger than in general-designate Lesson.Ultimately, we summarize the recommendations to improve classroom questions, which says that we should raise the proportion of high-level problems; extend the waiting time; make questioning approach much more diverse with controlling the proportion of “responding altogether”, especially for high-level problem; use “direct” feedback as the main method with maintaining a certain proportion of “appreciation ”; make “thinking” be a main answer type with increasing the "creative" approach as far as possible; minimize the problems of repeated questioning of low-level, and design more layer-depth questions of high-level.