所谓教材，从字面意义来说，就是教学的材料，我们也可以称其为课本，它是依据课程标准所编制的、考虑到学生心理发展规律的、系统而全面呈现学科内容的教学用书。教材是课程标准由抽象化到具体化的过程，体现了教育研究者的智慧，但是它又不同于一般的书籍，它通常根据学段的不同，分为多个分册，不同的单元、章节和课时。教材的内容主要是由目录、正文、习题、例题、图形、表格等组成。教材是教师教学和学生学习的重要工具，也是教师教书育人，传授知识的重要媒介，包含了优质的教育理念，不同国家、不同地区或不同版本的教材之间的比较，对于改革现有的教材具有重要的借鉴意义。 因此，本文选取了香港MAC版和人教版初中教材几何部分的比较研究，在研究方法上，主要采用了定性和定量两者相结合的方法、比较法和内容分析法，而研究工具则是概念图、表格、史宁中先生的课程难度模型和鲍建生先生的数学题综合难度模型等。通过对两地的课程标准、课程目标、教材的整体内容设置、以及例题和习题的难度这几个方面进行了比较研究。本文得出如下结论： 相似之处： 1.两地的课程标准中的几何部分都强调对学生空间想象能力的培养，都重视知识的生成过程；注重数学知识与实际生活的联系，教学的引入多以实际生活入手，使得学生已有知识与新知识建立起联系，帮助学生理解新的教学内容。 2.两地的教材中插图、动手操作、例习题等的设置都十分丰富，考虑到了学生的身心发展规律以及年龄特征，利于激发学生的学习兴趣，并且加深他们对新知识的理解。 不同之处： 1.人教版初中数学教材在其内容编排上主要呈现出“螺旋式”上升的过程，更加体现知识的系统性和各学科之间的联系性以及同一学科的不同阶段的联系性，而香港MAC版初中教材则主要采用“直线式”，更加重视学生的动手能力的培养，发展学生的数学应用意识。 2.在深度与广度上，人教版教材内容编排更加严谨和系统化，注重知识的深度，利于培养学生的逻辑思维能力；而香MAC版的教材则偏重于知识的广度，甚至涉及到了高中的微积分内容，能够为高中的几何学习打下很好的基础。

Textbooks, as its name implies, are teaching materials, or textbooks. They are teaching books which are compiled according to curriculum standards. They take into account the law of students’ psychological development, and present the subject contents systematically and comprehensively. Textbooks are the process from abstraction to concretization of curriculum standards, which embodies the wisdom of educational researchers. But they are different from ordinary books. They usually have many sub-volumes, even units, chapters and class hours according to the semester. Its content is mainly composed of the catalogue of textbooks, texts, exercises, examples, graphics, tables and so on. Textbooks are not only important tools for teachers’ teaching and students’ learning, but also an important medium for teachers’ teaching and educators to impart knowledge. They contain high-quality educational concepts. The comparison between textbooks of different countries, regions or versions is of great significance for the reform of existing textbooks. Therefore, this paper chooses the comparative study of graphics and geometry in the junior high school textbooks of Hong Kong MAC and People’s Education Press. As for research methods, it mainly adopts the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, comparative method and content analysis methods and the research tools include concept maps, tables, Professor Shi Ningzhong’s curriculum difficulty model and Bao Jiansheng’s comprehensive difficulty model of mathematical problems. This paper makes a comparative study of the curriculum standards, curriculum objectives, the overall content of textbooks, and the difficulty of examples and exercises between the two places. This paper draws the following conclusions: Similarity: 1. The graphics and geometry parts of the curriculum standards in both places emphasize the cultivation of students’ spatial imagination and the process of knowledge generation; They emphasize the connection between mathematical knowledge and real life, and the introduction of teaching mostly starts with real life, so that students’ meta-cognition and new knowledge can be established to help students understand new teaching contents. 2. Illustrations, hands-on operations, examples and exercises are abundant in the textbooks of the two places. Considering the students’ physical and mental development law and age characteristics, they are conducive to arousing students’ interest in learning and deepening their understanding of new knowledge. Differences: 1. Mathematics textbooks of People’s Education Press in junior high schools mainly presents a “spiral” upward process, more reflects the systematicness of knowledge and the linkages between disciplines and different stages of the same subject in its content arrangement , while textbooks in Hong Kong MAC junior high school mainly adopt the “straight line” mode, paying more attention to the cultivation of students’ practical ability, and developing students’ mathematical application consciousness. 2. In terms of depth and breadth, the edition of the textbooks of People’s Education Press is more rigorous and systematic, focusing on the depth of knowledge, which is conducive to cultivating students’ logical thinking ability; while the Hong Kong edition of the textbooks focuses on the breadth of knowledge, and even involves calculus content in high school, which can lay a good foundation for high school geometry learning.