课程标准是教材编写的重要依据，教材是落实课程标准的课程目标、实现学科育人的重要载体和资源，教材与课程标准保持一致性至关重要。《普通高中英语课程标准（2017年版2020年修订）》（以下简称《新课标》）提出了培养学生的英语学科核心素养的英语课程目标，由主题语境、语篇类型、语言知识、文化知识、语言技能、学习策略等六要素构成的英语课程内容，以及践行英语学习活动观的英语课堂教学基本组织形式。这些变化对教材编写提出了新的建议和要求。以《新课标》为依据进行修订，于2019年审核通过的北师大版高中《英语》新教材（以下简称新教材）是国内基础教育阶段颇具代表性、使用范围较广的英语教材之一，它与《新课标》的一致性水平影响着我国基础教育英语课程改革的推进和英语教学质量的提升。但是目前鲜有研究采用一致性新范式对新教材和《新课标》的一致性程度展开精准且深入地探求。

因此，本研究基于阅读能力视角，以“SEC”(Surveys of Enacted Curriculum) 一致性分析范式为工具，分析新教材的必修和选择性必修模块与《新课标》的总体一致性程度，从认知水平维度和内容主题维度具体揭示新教材的必修和选择性必修模块与《新课标》在阅读能力培养方面的一致性水平，为教师深入理解新教材，更好地用教材教，推进新课程改革，提高学生的英语学科核心素养提供参考。

研究结果表明，必修教材与《新课标》在培养学生的阅读能力方面总体一致性较低，而选修教材与《新课标》的总体一致性较高。在认知维度上，必修教材与《新课标》的差异较大，《新课标》在必修阶段侧重培养学生定位提取等低认知能力，必修教材在此基础上兼顾了迁移应用等高认知能力的发展；选修教材在认知维度上与《新课标》差异较小，二者对认知能力的培养都较为均衡。在内容主题的一级维度上，必修和选择性必修教材与《新课标》都侧重“内容”层面，对“语言”和“结构”要求较低；在内容主题二级维度的“内容”方面，新教材在必修阶段侧重文章大意和主要观点，必修教材侧重细节信息，而选择性必修教材与《新课标》差异不大；在“语言”方面，必修和选择性必修教材的阅读活动都超出了《新课标》的要求；在“结构”方面，尤其是微观结构上，必修和选择性必修教材都未达到《新课标》的要求。

本研究认为新教材与《新课标》的一致性程度还有待进一步提高，尤其是必修教材在认知难度上需要尽可能与《新课标》靠拢，同时《新课标》的表述也希望能够进一步清晰明确具体，教师在此基础上需灵活地用教材教，发挥主观能动性，弥补新教材的不足，促进教学评一体化，推动《新课标》的真正落实。

Curriculum standards are the baseline of compilation of textbooks, and textbooks are the main resources to implement the idea of curriculum standards. It is of significance to keep the consistency between textbooks and curriculum standards. The Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (SHSECS, 2017 Edition) proposed that the English curriculum aims to cultivate students’ English subject core competencies, which needs to integrate the six elements of English curriculum content and activity-based approach to English learning. The new changes provide new requirements for the compilation of textbooks. English textbooks published by Beijing Normal University Press (BNUP) for senior high school students, revised and approved in 2019, are one of the most representative and widely used textbooks in China. The alignment between the textbooks and SHSECS is crucial to promote the English curriculum reform and the English teaching quality. However, few research searches for the real and precise extent of alignment between the two by adopting new alignment paradigm.

Therefore, this research aims to quest the general alignment, alignment by cognitive demand level and alignment by content area between the compulsory and elective required English textbooks and SHSECS for compulsory and elective required curriculum from the perspective of reading ability by applying the research tool of Surveys of Enacted Curriculum, so as to help English teachers have a deep understanding about English textbooks published by BNUP, promote new curriculum reform and improve students’ English subject core competencies.

There are several research findings. Firstly, the overall alignment between the compulsory English textbooks published by BNUP and SHSECS is generally insufficient, while there is a great deal of consistency between the elective required English textbooks published by BNUP and SHSECS for elective required curriculum. Secondly as for alignment by cognitive demand level, there is a big difference between the compulsory English textbooks and SHSECS, but there is great alignment between the elective required English textbooks and SHSECS. Specifically, SHSECS for compulsory curriculum over-represent low-order cognitive demand levels like locating and extracting, while the compulsory English textbooks are quite balanced for low-order and high-order cognition levels. Thirdly in terms of alignment by content area, at the first level, both English textbooks and SHSECS over-represent “Content” and under-represent “Language” and “Structure” at compulsory and elective required stages. When it comes to the second-level content areas of “Content”, great differences only exist in the compulsory English textbooks and SHSECS since SHSECS over-emphasize general idea and main idea of text, while the compulsory English textbooks put much emphasis on the detail of text. Additionally, English textbooks exceed the requirements of SHSECS in the content area of “Language”, while they can not satisfy the requirement of SHSECS in the content area of “Structure” especially for the micro-structure of text.

Based on the research findings, the study can reach conclusions that the misalignment between English textbooks and SHSECS needs to be reduced especially through the further reform of compulsory English textbooks in the cognition levels and the clarification of SHSECS. English teachers are also supposed to use textbooks flexibly based on the research findings and integrate teaching, learning and evaluating, and promote the implementation of SHSECS successfully.