Publication | Closed Access
3Ms for Instruction, Part 2: Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab
14
Citations
0
References
2005
Year
EngineeringComputational LiteracyMatlab WorkEducationSoftware EngineeringComputer-supported Collaborative LearningStem EducationMathematics EducationComputing SystemsParallel ComputingInstruction-level ParallelismProgramming LanguagesComputational ThinkingDesignComputer EngineeringComputer ScienceProgram OptimizationCritical ComparisonTechnology ReviewPart 2Computer AlgebraParallel ProgrammingComputer-based EducationLearning Design
Our intent with this Technology Review is to present a framework that helps educators make their own critical comparison of Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab as candidate computational productivity tools for use in their instructional programs. This is an alternative to our providing a critical comparison of our own, as would be conventional in a review. In the first installment, we provided a common set of talking points—concrete, understandable, existing applications as well as an idealized "paradigmatic" example—around which to build this framework. We also defined a particular subset of issues that undergraduate science and engineering educators face regarding computational technology. In this issue, we conclude this framework-building strategy by defining a compact, common feature set in which we can finally describe in some comparable detail how Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab work.