This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
July/August 2005 (vol. 7 no. 4)
pp. 14-23
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.
Index Terms:
Maple, Matlab, Mathematica, productivity
Citation:
Norman Chonacky, David Winch, "3Ms for Instruction, Part 2: Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab," Computing in Science and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 14-23, July-Aug. 2005, doi:10.1109/MCSE.2005.62
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.