地理课程标准是国家课程的基本纲领性文件，是地理教学和评价的依据。2016年颁布的《地理教育国际宪章》中指出“应鼓励对不同国家的地理课程标准和课程进行比较，鼓励创造机会进行国际教师交流，以传播所有地理教育中的基础知识、技能和价值观”。本研究以《普通高中地理课程标准（2017年版2020年修订）》和俄罗斯《中等普通教育联邦教育标准》和《中等（完全）普通教育国家标准》中关于对“地理的课程的标准”的规定为研究对象，采用文献法、比较研究法、内容分析法等方法对中国与俄罗斯高中地理课程标准的课程目标、课程内容、课程评价等方面进行比较研究，分析两国课标的异同点，以期剖析中俄高中地理课程标准基础上，为中俄高中地理教师交流打下基础，为高中地理教师教学扩宽视野，为我国高中地理课程标准的进一步完善提供参考。通过比较分析得出如下结论：

相同点主要表现在：

1.课程目标方面：(1)两国高中地理课程目标都具有相应的体系与层次，我国的高中地理课程目标体系为总目标-核心素养-内容要求三个层级，俄罗斯的高中地理课程目标体系为社会-科学总目标和地理学科的具体目标两个层级。(2)两国高中地理课程目标的表述大多都运用了马杰行为目标描述法，来表述学生所达到的学习表现或学习结果的程度。(3)两国高中地理课程目标都具有知识、能力、学科思路与学科价值。

2.课程内容方面：(1)中俄高中地理课程内容都存在两种学业等级水平的内容，一种为作为公民所必备的地理知识内容，一种为地理学业发展的地理知识内容；(2)中俄高中地理课程内容都有区域地理与地球科学内容，中俄高中地理课程内容都体现了现代地理学的最新进展。

课程评价方面：(1)中俄高中地理课程评价都以学生发展为核心的；(2)中俄高中地理课程评价都是由低到高4级水平划分的；(3)中俄高中地理课程评价都重视很重视学生能力的发展。

不相同点主要表现在：

1.课程目标方面：(1)我国高中地理课程目标是通过地理学科核心素养来体现来实现立德树人的根本任务的。俄罗斯高中地理课程目标以地理科学思维的角度培养学生能力，实现自我价值与社会价值的统一。(2)两国高中地理课程目标表述中，俄罗斯的高中地理课程目标行为动词不够具体、明晰，可操作性差；(3)俄罗斯的高中地理课程目标更侧重知识与技能，我国的高中地理课程目标更注重问题解决能力，突出地理实践能力。

2.课程内容方面：(1)中国的高中地理课程内容结构为必修+选择性必修+选修，地理选修课程更能满足学生多样地理课程内容的学习需要，俄罗斯高中地理课程结构为基本水平+专业水平，无选修内容；(2)中国的高中地理课程内容包含自然地理、人文地理、区域地理及其资源、环境与国家安全，以系统地理为主，是以模块方式来体现不同水平程度的学习。俄罗斯的高中地理包含世界地理和地球科学，其内容丰富，系统性较强，是以主题方式加以区分不同水平程度的学习；

(3)中国的高中地理课程内容选取体现的较笼统，俄罗斯高中地理内容选取体现的较具体；(4)中国高中地理课程内容选取上有地理信息技术的应用相关内容的体现，而俄罗斯却没有其体现。

3.课程评价方面：(1)我国高中地理课程评价各等级水平比较笼统，俄罗斯高中地理课程评价各等级水平较具体；(2)我国高中地理课程评价以核心素养来体现的，重视现实中问题的解决能力；俄罗斯高中地理课程评价是以具体的知识和技能来体现的，注重地理学科的专业能力。

综上所述，我们可以看到，中俄两国的课程标准在课程目标、课程内容、课程评价等方面存在着共性与差异，究其成因主要表现为国情、社会需求、地理学科发展等因素的影响，其中俄罗斯的高中地理课程目标受到地理教学大纲的影响深刻，我国受国际地理课程改革的影响深刻。通过比较对两国高中地理课程标准有了深刻的理解基础上，可以增进两国高中地理教师的国际交流，可以互相学习与借鉴的过程中，共同促进两国课程改革的长远发展。

The geography curriculum standard is the basic programmatic document of the national curriculum and the basis for geography teaching and evaluation. The International Charter on Geography Education issued in 2016 states that "we should encourage the comparison of geography curriculum standards and courses in different countries, and encourage the creation of opportunities for international teacher exchanges to disseminate basic knowledge, skills and values in all geography education". This research takes the provisions on "geography curriculum standards" in the General High School Geography Curriculum Standards (2017 version, revised in 2020), the Russian Federal Education Standards for Secondary General Education and the National Standards for Secondary (Full) General Education as the research object, and adopts the methods of literature, comparative research, content analysis and other methods to study the curriculum objectives, curriculum content The curriculum evaluation and other aspects are compared and studied to analyze the similarities and differences between the curriculum standards of the two countries, with a view to laying a foundation for the communication between Chinese and Russian senior high school geography teachers, broadening the vision of senior high school geography teachers' teaching, and providing reference for the further improvement of senior high school geography curriculum standards in China. The following conclusions are drawn through comparative analysis:

The similarities are mainly shown in:

1. In terms of curriculum objectives: (1) The geography curriculum objectives of senior high schools in both countries have corresponding systems and levels. The geography curriculum objective system of senior high schools in China has three levels of general objectives - core literacy - content requirements. The geography curriculum objective system of senior high schools in Russia has two levels of social science general objectives and specific objectives of the geography discipline. (2) The description of geography curriculum goals in senior high schools in both countries mostly uses Majie's behavioral goal description method to describe the degree of learning performance or learning results achieved by students. (3) The geography curriculum objectives of senior high schools in both countries have knowledge, ability, discipline ideas and discipline values.

2. In terms of curriculum content: (1) There are two levels of academic content in the geography curriculum of Chinese and Russian high schools, one is the geography knowledge content necessary for citizens, and the other is the geography knowledge content for the development of geography studies; (2) The content of geography curriculum in both Chinese and Russian high schools includes regional geography and earth science, and the content of geography curriculum in both Chinese and Russian high schools reflects the latest progress of modern geography.

3. In terms of curriculum evaluation: (1) The evaluation of geography curriculum in Chinese and Russian senior high schools focuses on students' development; (2) The geography curriculum evaluation of Chinese and Russian senior high schools is divided into four levels from low to high; (3) Both China and Russia attach great importance to the development of students' ability in geography curriculum evaluation of high schools.

The differences are mainly shown in:

1. Curriculum objectives: (1) The curriculum objectives of geography in senior high schools in China are embodied by the core quality of geography to achieve the fundamental task of establishing morality and cultivating people. The goal of Russian senior high school geography curriculum is to cultivate students' ability from the perspective of geographical scientific thinking and realize the unity of self value and social value. (2) In the expression of the goals of the geography curriculum in senior high schools of the two countries, the Russian high school geography curriculum goal verb is not specific, clear and operable; (3) Russia's high school geography curriculum objectives focus more on knowledge and skills, while China's high school geography curriculum objectives focus more on problem-solving ability and highlight geographical practical ability.

2. In terms of curriculum content: (1) The content structure of geography curriculum in senior high schools in China is compulsory+selective compulsory+elective, which can better meet the learning needs of students with diverse geography curriculum content. The structure of geography curriculum in Russian senior high schools is basic level+professional level, without optional content; (2) The geography curriculum of senior high school in China includes physical geography, human geography, regional geography and its resources, environment and national security. It focuses on system geography and reflects different levels of learning in a modular way. Russian senior high school geography includes world geography and earth science, which is rich in content and systematic. It is a study that distinguishes different levels by theme;

(3) The selection of geography curriculum content in senior high schools in China is more general, while that in Russia is more specific; (4) The content selection of geography curriculum in senior high schools in China is reflected in the application of geographic information technology, but not in Russia.

3. In terms of curriculum evaluation: (1) China's senior high school geography curriculum evaluation level is relatively general, while Russia's senior high school geography curriculum evaluation level is relatively specific; (2) The evaluation of geography curriculum in senior high schools in China is embodied by the core quality, which attaches importance to the ability to solve problems in reality; The evaluation of geography curriculum in Russian senior high school is embodied by specific knowledge and skills, focusing on the professional ability of geography.

To sum up, we can see that there are similarities and differences between the curriculum standards of China and Russia in terms of curriculum objectives, curriculum content, curriculum evaluation, etc. The causes are mainly reflected in the national conditions, social needs, geographical discipline development and other factors. Among them, Russia's high and middle geography curriculum objectives are deeply affected by the geography syllabus, and China is deeply affected by the international geography curriculum reform. Based on a deep understanding of the geography curriculum standards of senior high schools in the two countries through comparison, the international exchange of geography teachers in senior high schools in the two countries can be enhanced, and in the process of learning from each other, we can jointly promote the long-term development of curriculum reform in the two countries.

著作类
[1] 中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中地理课程标准2017年版2020年修订[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2020.
[2] 陈澄.新编地理教学论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2006.
[3] 段玉山.中小学理课教材难度国际比较研究(初中地理卷)[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2016.
[4] 李家清.地理课程与教学论[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2010.
[5] 孙进.定位与发展:比较教育的理论、方法与范式[M].济南:济南山东教育出版社.2015.
[6] 王民.中小学理课教材难度国际比较研究(高中地理卷)[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2016.
[7] Е.М. Домогацких. ФГОС Инновационная школа программа курса География 10-11 классы[M]. Москва:Русское слово,2019.

学位论文类
[1] 池美善. 中韩高中地理（社会）教科书比较研究[D].延边大学,2010.
[2] 吉成国. 基于课程标准（科学教育课程）中韩高中化学教育课程比较研究[D].延边大学,2009.
[3] 金春梅. 中韩高中地理（社会）课程标准比较[D].延边大学,2013.
[4] 朱哲. 中韩初中地理（社会）课程比较研究[D].延边大学,2007.
[5] 李曼. 世纪之交的中日地理课程比较研究[D].华东师范大学,2005.
[6] 李雪庆. 中国与新加坡高中地理课程标准比较研究[D].广西师范大学,2018.
[7] 刘玲利. 新世纪中俄地理课程标准比较研究[D].华中师范大学,2012.
[8] 卢宪青. 中加地理课程标准比较研究[D].华中师范大学,2011.
[9] 王小禹. 地理课程标准的国际比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2011.
[10] 王小禹. 中美地理课程标准比较研究[D].东北师范大学,2006.
[11] 吴晓燕. 中美初中地理课程标准的比较研究[D].福建师范大学,2002.
[12] 徐妍. 俄罗斯小学《周围世界》课程标准研究[D]. 东北师范大学, 2015.
[13] 杨代虎. 中美地理课程标准对比研究[D].南京师范大学,2005.
[14] 杨娟. 中美两国初中地理学科课程标准的比较研究[D].河北师范大学,2015.
[15] 张秋兰. 中澳高中国家地理课程标准比较研究[D].广西师范大学,2016.
[16] 张艳. 当代俄罗斯基础物理教育改革研究[D]. 华东师范大学, 2018.
[17] 赵乔. 中加高中地理课程标准比较研究[D].云南师范大学,2021.

学术期刊类
[1] 金胜冬,董玉芝. 中韩初中地理课程标准比较[J]. 教育观察,2019,8(41):21-22.
[2] 窦方晨,张守志.生活化情境教学在高中地理课堂中的实践研究[J].中学地理教学参考,2020(18):6-7.
[3] 韩琳杉,张守志.地理教学与国情教育渗透探究[J].中学地理教学参考,2017(20):23-24.
[4] 王恩才,董玉芝.韩国高中地理(社会)课程标准的变迁对我国地理课程的启示[J].教育教学论坛,2014(25):129-130.
[5] 冯玉琴,梁保平. 中日高中地理课程标准的比较研究[J]. 中学地理教学参考,2020,(12):8-10.
[6] 胡超,刘伶俐. 俄罗斯初中地理课程标准的特点及启示[J]. 地理教学,2011,(04):49-51.
[7] 教飞. 中俄初中地理课程标准比较研究[J]. 边疆经济与文化,2012,(11):133-134.
[8] 刘美麟,魏本亚. 俄罗斯国家俄语课程标准(小学)研读[J]. 语文建设, 2018, (15): 4-8.
[9] 王艳婵,梁美盈,傅嘉琪. 中日最新高中地理课程标准“课程内容”比较-基于内容分析法[J]. 中学地理教学参考,2019,(19):72-75.
[10] Diana Misbakhova,钱荃. 俄罗斯高中文学课程标准评介[J]. 中学语文教学, 2017, (9): 83-85.
[11] 单永新. 俄罗斯小学信息技术课程标准评介[J]. 中小学信息技术教育, 2005, (11): 62-64.
[12] 蒋梅鑫,胡文静,宋婷. 俄罗斯地理课程标准(征集意见稿)述评[J]. 地理教育, 2020, (S1): 151-153.
[13] 李琳,周泽鸿,季浏. 俄罗斯普通教育体育课程标准解读及其启示[J]. 成都体育学院学报, 2015, 41(1): 42-47.
[14] 李艳辉. 俄罗斯基础教育创新发展动向及启示[J]. 中国教育学刊, 2013, (2): 89-92.
[15] 王韶峰,孙庆祝. 俄罗斯普通教育体育课程标准的文化背景分析[J]. 黑龙江高教研究, 2008, (10): 57-59.
[16] 张丹华,缴润凯. 俄罗斯小学人文社会课程教育标准介评[J]. 外国教育研究, 1998, (5): 32-35.
[17] 张敏. 俄罗斯小学体育课程标准对我国的启示 [J]. 武术研究, 2017, 2(7): 126-128.
[18] А.А.Кузнецов. о стандарте второго поколения[J]. физика в школе,2009(02): 3-7.
[19] А.А.Кузнецов. о стандарте второго поколения[J].физика в школе, 2009 (02):3-7.
[20] В.В.Дегтярев. Диагностика образовательных результатов,формируемых в обучении физике по требо-ваниям ФГОС[J]. физика в школе,2016(02):31-41.
[21] В.В.Разумовский. проблемы ФГОС и научной грамотности школьников или новый стандарт образования в действии: обучение и воспитание творчески мыслящей личности на уроках физики. физика в школе,2012(05):3-10.
[22] В.Г.Разумовский ,В.В.Майер ,Е.И.Вараксина. ФГОС в дествии: исследования учащихся средство овладения методами научного познания явлений природы и техники[J]. физика в школе ,2013(03):13-27.
[23] В.Г.Разумовский. ФГОС и стандартизация оценки достижений школьников[J].физика в школе,2014(08):22-39.
[24] Г.Л.Абдулгалимов. Проблемы и решения внедрения ФГОС[J].Педагогика,2013(12):57-61.
[25] Л.М.Перминова.взамосвязь станрдартов первого и второго поколений[J].народное образование,2010(07):209-216.
[26] Н.И.Колоколова. вариант проектирования рабочей программы по учебному предмету в условиях в ведения ФГОС[J]. физика в школе,2014(02): 54-56.
[27] С.В.Третьякова. работаем по новым станратам[J]. физика в школе,2011(08): 3.
[28] Э.М.Браверман, Ю.И.Дик. проект временного государственного образовательного стандарта по физике[J].физика в школе,1994(02) :23-27.

政策文件类
[1] Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт среднего общего образования, 2012.5
[2] Примерная основная образовательная программа среднего общего образования, 2016.6