关注并使用具有较强统摄力和广泛解释力的核心概念整合学科知识，匹配“少而精”的课程设计理念。地理学科核心概念位于学科中心地位并反映学科本质特征，“区域”即是其中之一。通过中学地理课程学习，学生对该核心概念的理解及相关认知能力应当发生与发生了怎样的变化、是否存在不同水平层级，回答这些问题能够为课程科学设计、教师有效教学、学生自我监控等提供参考标尺。学习进阶是对学生在一段时间内深化理解某一核心概念等的连续、典型过程进行的兼顾应然与实然的逐级描述，本研究以学习进阶的视角，解构与刻画中学阶段学生在“区域”概念方面的认知发展过程，研究主要包括5个模块。
       第1模块，梳理我国地理学习进阶研究现状。参考系统性文献综述的逻辑与方法，分析筛选得到的104篇文献，发现跨学段研究受到重视、基本形成“构建进阶框架 - 开发测评工具 - 探知进阶现状 - 实施教学方案”的通用研究   路径、研究主题分为“核心概念”“核心素养”“其他”“学习进阶的教学实践” 四类。未来，该领域的研究应关注地理学习进阶研究的功能与目的、部分维度    进阶与整体进阶的关系、提升测评工具效度与测评开展效率的方式等。
       第2模块，构建与优化中学地理“区域”概念学习进阶框架。以我国现行地理课程标准为基础，参考地理学科研究、教育文件及测评框架中关于“区域”的内容要求等，提炼区域划分、区域位置、区域特征、区域差异、区域联系、区域发展6个进阶维度，选取通过识别列举、描述归纳等行为动词表征的认知水平为主要进阶变量，以维度为“纬”、变量为“经”构建学习进阶框架。框架呈塔型结构，共包含3个水平层级，以处于各水平的学生在“区域”概念理解方面应具备的行为表现为实质内容。此后，根据开展专家咨询得到的意见调整框架的部分表述及呈现形式，以提升其科学性与合理性。
       第3模块，开发学习进阶测评工具并检验其质量。基于四基石模型、依据构建的框架开发了“区域”概念学习进阶测评工具，耦合协调度计算结果显示，工具坚持以进阶水平锚定试题难度，未出现二者错配的现象。开展第一轮测评（有效样本量为160）后，使用基于Rasch模型的Winsteps软件对数据进行建模与分析，各项指标反映出工具的整体质量良好，同时调整了存在不符合单维性假设、数据-模型不拟合、与试卷整体测量目标一致性较差等问题的试题，以提升测评工具效度。第二轮测评（有效样本量为236）数据的分析结果显示，测评工具整体及其中的试题在信度、分离度、数据-模型拟合、标准误差、点-测量相关系数等方面表现良好，对应不同水平以及维度的试题在难度上分别存在与不存在显著差异，与预设相符。对比发现，调整后测评工具的质量相较调整前有所提升，但存在部分需要做进一步讨论并考虑调整的试题。此后，针对这些试题拟定了调整方案。
       第4模块，探知学生“区域”概念学习进阶现状并基于结果再论测评工具的质量与框架的合理性。测评结果反映的学生进阶现状为：①高一、高二年级学生的“区域”概念认知能力存在显著差异，两个年级学生分别平均达到水平1、水平2；②就学生在不同水平层级的表现而言，达到不同水平的学生的能力存在显著差异，且在各年级内部存在显著差异，但在各水平内部不存在显著差异，这同时反映进阶框架的水平层级划分具有外部差异性与内部一致性；③就学生在不同进阶维度的表现而言，ConQuest软件的项目间多维分析结果显示学生在区域位置、区域联系维度的能力表现相较其他维度更好，两个年级学生在多数维度以及试题上的作答得分不存在显著差异，而整体认知能力存在显著差异，这反映各进阶维度间存在较强的耦合关系。此后，基于测评结果分析认为：①水平1与水平2跨度差距较大主要受到试题容量有限、题型不同以及任务情境与知识内容存在差异的综合影响；②进阶框架中水平1可同时对标初二年级与高一年级，水平2、3则可分别对标高二年级与高三年级。此外，结合学生作答情况与教师反馈意见，二次调整了进阶框架的部分表述。
       第5模块，调查学习进阶实践现状并提出促进策略。对6名不同学历、教龄、拥有不同学段教学经验的教师访谈，发现受访教师认同概念理解对于地理学习的重要性，但对核心概念及其学习进阶的认知与实践不足，教师针对性地促进学生理解核心概念时面临的时间及精力屏障、学段间的有效衔接落地困难、教师专业素质参差不齐是促使进阶发生的实践障碍点。基于此，使用NVivo 12软件从促进“区域”概念学习进阶的策略视角编码访谈资料，进而从课程设计、教学实施、评价开展、教师培训、教学研究5个角度拟定了策略。
       学习进阶的设计是一个“理论构建 - 实证检验 - 修订优化”的迭代递进过程，本研究在构建中学地理“区域”概念学习进阶框架、开发测评工具并探知进阶现状等方面取得了阶段性的进展，未来可通过优化测评工具、扩大测评范围、开展教学干预检验框架有效性等对该主题做进一步探索。

       Focusing on and using core concepts with strong unifying and broad explanatory capability to integrate subject knowledge matches the curriculum design philosophy of “less is more”.  Core concepts of geography occupy a central position in the subject and reflect its essential characteristics, and “region” is one of them. Investigating how secondary school students’ understanding of this core concept and the related cognitive capacity evolve through the study of geography program, and whether there exist different levels can provide reference ruler for scientific design of curriculum, effective teaching and student’s self-monitoring, etc. Learning progression is a step-by-step description of the continuous and typical process in which students deepen their understanding of a core concept over a period of time, taking into account both ideality and reality. This research adopts the perspective of learning progression to deconstructs and portrays the cognitive development process of secondary school students concerning the core concept of “region”, and consists of five main modules.
       The first module of this research reviews the current status of study on the learning progression of geography in China. Referring to the logic and methodology of the systematic literature review, the analysis of the 104 papers obtained from the screening reveals: (1) cross-stage research is being emphasized; (2) the general research path has been established, encompassing "constructing a progression framework - developing assessment tool - investigating the current situation of progression - implementing teaching programs"; (3) research topics can be categorized into "core concepts", "core competencies", "others" and "teaching practice of progressions". Future research in this area should focus on the function and purpose of geography learning progressions studies, the relationship between partial dimensional progressions and overall progression, and ways to improve the validity of assessment tools and the efficiency of assessment delivery.
       The second module involves constructing and optimizing a framework of the “region” concept’s learning progression in secondary school geography. Based on the current geographical curriculum standards in China, and referencing the content requirements of “region” in geography research, educational documents and assessments’ frameworks, six progression dimensions were identified: “regional division” “regional location” “regional characteristics” “regional differences” “regional connections” and “regional development”. Cognitive levels, represented by verbs such as “identifying and listing”, “describing and summarizing”, were selected as the main variables for the progression. Using dimensions as “latitudes” and variables as “longitudes”, a learning progression framework was constructed. The framework was structured in the form of a tower, consisting of three levels, and is based on the expected behavioral performances of students at each level regarding the “region” concept. Subsequently, some of the expressions and the presentation of the framework were adjusted on feedback from expert to enhance its scientific validity and rationality.
       The third module involves the development of assessment tool and validation of tool quality. Based on the “Four Cornerstones” model and the established framework, an assessment tool about the learning progression of the “region” concept was developed. The results of the coupling coordinate degree calculation confirm that the tool maintains the alignment of item difficulty with progression levels, without any mismatch. Following the first round of assessment ( with a valid sample size of 160), the data were modeled and analyzed using Winsteps software based on the Rasch model. The indicators reflected the overall good quality of the tool, and items that did not meet the one-dimensionality assumption, had problem with overfitting of data to model, or had poor consistency with the overall measurement objectives of the tool were improved to enhance the validity of the assessment tools. The second round of assessment (with a valid sample size of 236) using Rasch analysis indicated that the assessment tool and items involved performed well in terms of reliability, separation, data-model fit, standard error, point-measure correlation, and the structure of rating scales. Significant differences in item difficulty were observed in different levels but not in dimensions, which is consistent with the presuppositions. The comparison revealed that the quality of the adjusted assessment tool had improved compared to the pre-adjusted version, but there were still some questions that needed to be further discussed and considered for adjustment. Afterwards, adjustment plans were formulated for these questions.
       The fourth module involves the exploration of the current status of progression and discussion about the quality of the tool and the rationality of the framework based on the results. The assessment results revealed the current state of students’ progression, including: (1) significant differences in cognitive capacity of the “region” concept between first-year and second-year high school students, with average achievements at level 1 and 2, respectively; (2) in terms of students' performance at different levels, significant differences in ability of students at different progression levels and within the same grade, but not within the same level, indicating external differentiation and internal consistency of progression framework levels; (3) in terms of students' performance at different progression dimensions, the results of the inter-item multidimensional analysis using ConQuest software showed that students' ability to perform better in the dimensions of “regional location” and “regional connections” than in other dimensions, and that there were no significant differences in the scores of students in the two grades on most of the dimensions and items, while there was a significant difference in the overall cognitive ability of the concept of “region”, suggesting a strong coupling relationship between the progression dimensions. Subsequent analysis based on assessment results suggested: (1) the difference in logit span between level 1 and level 2 was mainly due to the combined effects of the limited capacity of the questions, the different types of items, and the divergence in the task situation and knowledge content; (2) level 1 of progression framework could correspond to both the second year of middle school and the first year of high school, while level 2 and 3 could respectively correspond to the second and third years of high school. Additionally, based on students’ responses and feedback from geography teachers, secondary adjustments were made to some descriptions of progression framework.
       The fifth module involves the investigation of the current practices of learning progressions  and proposals on enhancement strategies. Interviews with six teachers of varying academic qualifications, teaching ages and experiences across different stages found that teachers agreed the importance of conceptual understanding in geography learning, but there was a lack of awareness and practical implementation of core concepts and their learning progressions. Time and energy constraints when teachers strive to promote students’ understanding of core concepts, difficulties in effectively transitioning between middle and high school stages, and varying levels of professional competence among teachers, which act as barriers to promoting learning progressions. Based on these insights, the NVivo 12 software was used to code interview material from the perspective of strategies for facilitating the learning progression of the “region” concept. Strategies were then formulated from five perspectives: curriculum design, teaching implementation, assessment conduct, teacher training, and pedagogical research.
       The design of learning progressions is an iterative and progressive process of “theory construction - empirical testing - revision and optimization”. This study has made some progress in constructing a framework of the “region” concept’s learning progression in secondary school geography, developing assessment tool, and exploring the current status of progression. This theme can be further explored in the future by optimizing assessment tool, expanding the scope of assessment, and conducting teaching interventions to test the effectiveness of the framework.