《普通高中英语课程标准（2017 年版）》提出了英语学科核心素养，将思维品质列入其中，强调思维在逻辑性、批判性和创新性等方面的发展。教材作为落实学科核心素养的重要载体，应充分体现对学生思维品质的培养。目前国内立足思维品质培养进行的高中英语教材研究多从思维品质的单一维度出发或聚焦教材的某一板块，缺少对新版教材思维品质培养情况的系统分析，且未能结合课程标准中的思维品质水平划分进行考察。
本研究以 2019 人教版高中英语教材必修 1-3 册为研究对象，采用内容分析法，依托修订版布卢姆教育目标分类学中的认知过程分类，结合课程标准中思维品质水平标准对教材中的学习活动进行分析，旨在探讨人教版新高中英语教材中学习活动的思维层次情况以及如何体现课程标准对思维品质的培养要求。
研究发现（1）在思维层次方面，人教版新高中英语教材中低阶思维活动占比为 56.81%，高阶思维活动占 43.19%，说明新教材仍侧重低阶思维训练，但对于高阶思维的发展也给予了一定的重视。新教材中听力、阅读和语法板块均以低阶思维活动为主体。指向低阶思维的学习活动侧重对已有知识或经验的回忆、对语篇中细节信息的定位以及对语言知识的操练等。“阅读与写作”和“自我检测” 两个板块侧重对高阶思维的培养。通过语篇分析、同伴互评和创编对话等学习活动促进学生分析、评价和创造思维能力的发展，体现了对逻辑思维、批判思维和创新思维的培养。“视频观看”板块中低阶思维活动与高阶思维活动占比相同。（2）在思维品质水平方面，课程标准将思维品质素养划分为三个水平级别。人教版新高中英语必修教材在学习活动中体现的思维品质培养水平主要集中在一级，侧重引导学生达到思维逻辑性、批判性和创造性的一级水平，能够顺应学生认知发展规律，帮助学生实现认知过渡;同时对二级水平的思维训练也有所涉及，为学生思维品质向更高水平发展做好准备。然而，人教版新高中英语必修教材对思维品质三个维度的培养不够均衡，其中，创新性思维活动占比最高，为 44%，逻辑性与批判性思维活动占比相同，为 28%，各自占比相对于创新性思维活动的占比要小得多，因此，可以适当增加逻辑性与批判性思维训练，为学生思维品质的全面提升创造条件。
最后，本研究针对教材编写与使用提出相应建议，如通过设计辩论活动来增加批判性思维的训练等，并对研究进行反思与展望。

English Curriculum Standards for Senior High School (2017) put forward English key competencies, ranked thinking quality as one of them, emphasizing the development of thinking in terms of logic, criticism and innovation. Textbooks, as an essential carrier for the implementation of key competencies, should fully reflect the cultivation of students' thinking quality. At present, the research on high school English textbooks based on the cultivation of thinking quality in China mostly deals with a single dimension of thinking quality or focuses on a certain section of the textbook. There is a lack of systematic analysis of the cultivation of thinking quality in new English textbooks, and few studies have combined with the division of thinking quality level in the curriculum standards.

This study takes the compulsory volumes (Vol. 1-3) of the 2019 new edition of high school English textbooks published by PEP as the research object, adopts the content analysis method, and relies on cognitive processes of Revised Bloom's Taxonomy to analyzes the learning activities in the textbooks in combination with the thinking quality level in the curriculum standards, aiming to explore the thinking level of learning activities in the new high school English textbooks and how the learning activities reflect the requirements of thinking quality in the curriculum standards.

The results show that: (1) In terms of thinking level, 56.81% of the learning activities in the new high school English textbooks are lower-order-thinking-oriented and 43.19% are higher-order-thinking-oriented, indicating that the new textbooks still focus on the training of low-order thinking, but also pay some attention to the development of higher-order thinking. Listening, reading and grammar sections of the new textbooks are all dominated by lower-order thinking activities which focus on the recall of existing knowledge or experience, the positioning of detailed information in the discourse, and the practice of language knowledge. “Reading for Writing” and “Assessing Your Progress” lay emphasis on higher-order thinking activities. The learning activities such as analyzing discourses, peer evaluation and creating dialogues promote the development of students' ability of analyzing, evaluating and creating, which embodies the cultivation of logical thinking, critical thinking and innovative thinking. The proportion of lower-order thinking activities in “Video Time” is the same as that of higher-ordr thinking activities. (2) In terms of the level of thinking quality, the curriculum standards divide thinking quality into three levels. The level of thinking quality embodied in the learning activities is mainly concentrated on the first level, aiming at inducing students to reach the first level of logical thinking, critical thinking and creative thinking, which is in line with the law of students' cognitive development and helps students achieve cognitive transition; However, the cultivation of the three dimensions of thinking quality is not balanced in the new high school English compulsory textbooks, among them, the proportion of innovative thinking activities is the highest, which accounts for 44%, while both the proportion of logical and critical thinking activities is 28%, which is much lower than that of innovative thinking activities.

Finally, this study puts forward some suggestions for the compilation and use of teaching materials, such as enhancing critical thinking skills through the design of debate activities, and reflects on and looks forward to the research.