本研究基于国内外的文献资料，综合比较并修改完善现有的情境问题测评方式来构建适合本文研究对象的分析框架，该框架以情境内容和数学内容为宏观研究维度，数学问题解决过程为微观分析维度，其中情境内容分为个人、职业、文化、社会、科学五类，数学内容分为函数、几何与代数、概率与统计三类，情境问题解决过程分为理解情境、数学化情境、数学求解、阐释结果和检验评估，每个过程细分为三个水平。依据该框架，对我国两版高中数学教科书必修册中（PEP 、JEP）呈现完整解题过程的情境问题进行编码，根据编码结果进行统计性分析和内容分析，最后，结合研究结果，对高中数学教科书情境问题设置和使用提出建议。

经过对两版教科书的比较分析，本研究发现：

（1）两版教科书都根据课程内容需要设置了不同类型的情境问题，但设置的文化情境类型问题数量较少，无论是数量分布还是内容质量上，PEP表现优于JEP。

（2）PEP注重在函数知识部分提供较多的情境问题，JEP中的情境问题均匀分布在三大知识领域。

（3）JEP和PEP在不同知识主题中设置的情境内容各具特色，PEP中文化情境类型问题全部分布在函数领域，JEP在函数部分设置的各情境类型问题数量分布均匀；两版教科书设置风格也存在许多共同点，如均在几何与代数主题下设置的情境问题以职业情境类型为主，PEP和JEP中个人情境类型问题和职业情境类型问题在三大知识领域中占比有着相似的分布规律。

（4）在五个问题解决过程中，PEP教科书除了在阐释结果过程平均水平低于JEP外，其他过程均不同程度的高于JEP。在理解情境环节，PEP设置水平明显高于JEP，并且对同一内容类型的情境经过丰富完善后设置了不同水平要求的问题，但两版教科书并未对问题的理解设置较大的困难，情境真实性水平存在改进空间；在数学化情境环节，两版教科书内容设置风格相似，各水平占比最多的分别是M0和M1；在数学求解环节，PEP比JEP更重视知识的综合应用，水平要求更高；在阐释结果环节，两版教科书水平相近， PEP提供了较多水平为2的问题，JEP则提供更多水平为1的问题；在检验评估环节，两版教科书中真正进行检验评估的问题数量并不多，存在重视程度低、要求单一化的缺点。

（5）两版教科书对数学化情境、数学求解和阐释结果的组合较为关注，PEP教科书侧重提升数学求解和阐释结果的水平，两版教科书对设置一些具有高水平数学建模特点的情境问题重视度不高。

依据研究结果，对教科书情境问题设置提出如下建议：完善情境类型问题的分布比例，重视文化情境的创设；增强情境的真实性，依据时代发展及时更新情境内容；发展数学建模能力，增设具有高水平数学建模环节的情境问题。对教科书使用提出如下建议：综合选择、适度改编教科书中的情境问题，满足不同阶段教学的需要；丰富数学化情境和阐释结果环节的教学内容，助力现实世界与数学世界的沟通。

Drawing on relevant literature from both domestic and international sources, a comprehensive comparison and modification of existing contextual problems assessment methods is conducted to construct an analysis framework suitable for the research object of this paper. This framework takes the contextual content and mathematical content as the macro analysis dimension and the mathematical problem-solving process as the micro research dimension, and forms a text analysis framework suitable for the setting level of contextual problems in this study. The contextual content is divided into five categories: personal, professional, cultural, social and scientific; the mathematical content is divided into three knowledge topics: function, geometry and algebra, probability and statistics; the contextual problem-solving process is divided into understanding context, mathematical context, mathematical solution, interpretation of results and inspection and evaluation; each process is subdivided into three levels. According to the framework, the context problems in PEP and JEP, which present complete problem-solving process in the two editions of Chinese high school mathematics textbooks, are coded. Based on the coding results, statistical and content analyses were conducted. Finally, in combination with the research findings, recommendations are proposed regarding the creation and utilization of contextual problems in high school mathematics textbooks.

After a comparative analysis of the two editions of textbooks, this study found that:

(1) Different types of contextual problems are set up in both textbooks according to the requirements of the course content, but the number of cultural situational questions is small. PEP performs better than JEP in terms of quantity distribution and content quality.

(2) PEP pays attention to provide a greater number of contextual problems in the section of function knowledge, whereas in JEP are evenly distributed in the three knowledge domains.

(3) Context contents set by JEP and PEP in different knowledge topics have their own characteristics. Cultural context types in PEP are all distributed in the function field, while the number of context types set by JEP in the function part is evenly distributed. There are also many similarities in the setting styles of the two textbooks. For example, the contextual problems set under the topics of geometry and algebra are mainly based on the type of occupational context. In PEP and JEP, the proportion of personal context type problems and occupational context type problems in the three knowledge fields has similar distribution rules.

(4) In the five problem solving processes, except that the average level of PEP textbook is lower than that of JEP in interpreting results, other processes are higher than JEP to varying degrees. In terms of understanding the context, PEP is obviously higher than JEP, and after enriching and improving the context of the same content type, it sets questions with different levels of requirements. However, the two textbooks do not set big difficulties in understanding the problems, and there is space for improvement in the authenticity level of the context. In terms of mathematical context, the content setting styles of the two textbooks are similar, with M0 and M1 accounting for the largest proportion respectively. In the mathematical solution, PEP pays more attention to the comprehensive application of knowledge than JEP and requires higher level. In the interpretation of results, the level of the two textbooks is similar. PEP provides more questions at level 2, while JEP provides more questions at level 1. In the link of inspection and evaluation, the number of real inspection and evaluation problems in the two editions of textbooks is not much, and they both have the disadvantages of low degree of attention and single requirement

(5) The two textbooks pay more attention to the combination of mathematical context, mathematical solution and interpretation results; PEP textbooks focus on improving the level of mathematical solution and interpretation results; the two textbooks do not pay much attention to setting up some contextual problems with high-level mathematical modeling characteristics.

According to the research results, the subsequent recommendations are proposed for the development of contextual problems in textbook: Improve the distribution proportion of contextual type problems, and emphasize the creation of cultural contexts; Enhance the authenticity of contextual problems, and update them in a timely manner according to era development; Develop mathematical modeling ability and add contextual problems with high-level mathematical modeling links.

Here are some recommendations regarding the utilization of textbooks: Comprehensive selection and appropriate adaptation of the textbook contextual problems to meet the needs of different stages of teaching; Enrich the mathematical teaching materials of the mathematical context and interpretation of results ，in order to foster the connection between the mathematical and real worlds.