本研究在参考大量文献的基础上，根据大学物理学科的特点，自主构建了教 材知识点广度和深度的比较指标体系，提出了教材知识点广度的微观比较方法， 分析了不同深度水平知识点的教材表征方式，并对中美两套大学物理教材进行全 方位的比较与分析。具体包括：教材知识结构和章节栏目设置的对比研究、教材 知识点广度的对比研究、教材核心知识点深度的对比研究、教材习题广度的对比 研究等。该研究属于微观层面上的教材比较，其结论更具体和富有针对性。 本研究属于静态文本研究，研究对象是美国哈里德主持编写的《物理学基础》 中文翻译本和中国马文蔚改编的《物理学》（第五版）。主要研究结论如下： 一、美国哈里德教材的特征是“知识起点低，内容全面”，中国马文蔚教材 的特征是“知识起点高，内容逻辑性强”； 二、“力学” 、“电磁学”作为经典物理的主要模块，在中美两套教材中的 比重都很大。比较而言，哈里德教材中涉及的知识点更多； 三、哈里德教材对“光学”部分要求较高，马文蔚教材对“热学”部分要求 较高； 四、哈里德教材更重视近代物理内容，其包含的知识点广度和深度值都明显 大于马文蔚教材； 五、从知识点在三个深度水平区间的广度分布来看，两国教材的重点都在构 建知识结构的基础，突出科学领域中最基本的概念和原理，扩大学生的知识面， 使学生掌握最基本的科学方法、事实、假说、理论和定律； 六、中美两国教材的例题、思考题（问题）和习题的数量都很多，总难度都 较大，美国教材中习题的研究对象和情境设置更贴近生活。 根据比较结果，对大学物理教材编写提出如下建议： 一、增加教材知识点的覆盖面 二、适当增加光学内容的广度和深度 三、适当减少热学内容的广度和深度 四、适当增加近代物理的广度和深度 五、尝试在讲述物理问题时，降低对高等数学公式的依赖 六、增加例题中解题分析过程 七、增加贴近生活实际的习题数量

In reference on the basis of a large number of literatures, the thesis based on the characteristics of university physics, independently built textbooks knowledge breadth and depth of comparative index system, puts forward the textbook knowledge breadth of microcosmic comparison method, analyzes the different depth levels teaching material representation of knowledge points, and comprehensive comparison and analysis the two sets of college physics teaching material.Specific include: compare the knowledge structure and chapters , compare the breadth of knowledge, compare the depth of the core knowledge, compare the breadth and depth of the exercises,etc. The study belongs to the micro level of the teaching material, the conclusion is more specific and targeted. This study belongs to the static text study, the research object is the Halldiay's 《Fundamentals of physics》Chinese edition and the textbook 《physics》(the fifth edition) in China written by Ma Wenwei. The main conclusions are as follows: 1. The character of the Halldiay's book is” The beginning of knowledge is low, the content comprehensive”, the character of the Ma’s book is” Knowledge of high starting point, content is logical”; 2. "Mechanical" and "electromagnetism" as the main module of classical physics, are of great weight in the two sets of teaching materials. In comparison, the Halldiay's book have more knowledges. 3. For the "optical" part,the Halldiay's textbook ‘s demand is higher,and for the “thermal”part ,the MaWenwei’s textbook ‘s demand is higher; 4. Halldiay's textbook pay more attention to modern physics, the breadth and depth of the knowledge are significantly greater than MaWenwei’s textbook; 5. From the breadth of the distribution of the three levels range for the knowledge depth, the two textbooks are focus on the basis of constructing knowledge structure, highlight the fundamental concepts and principles of science, enlarge the knowledge of students, make the students master the basic scientific method, facts, hypothesis, theory and physical law. 6. Both books have a lot of examples, problems, and exercises, the total difficulty is high, but the research object and the Situational setting of the exercises of Halldiay's book is more close to the real life situation. According to the comparison above , We can puts forward the following Suggestions as follows: 1. Increase the coverage of textbook knowledge; 2. Increase the breadth and depth of the chapter of optical appropriately; 3. Reduce the breadth and depth of the chapter of thermal appropriately; 4. Appropriate increase the breadth and depth of the modern physics; 5. Pay more attention to the physical aspect , reduce the difficulty of mathematics expression; 6. Add analysis process of sample problems solving; 7. Increasing the number of exercice problems that connect to real life.