Kirby quotes: >We must clarify that both our and students' use of GC is embedded in all that we do. We use it every day to create animations and to share examples for class discussion.
Good to emphasize that - it seems to put them in a very poor position to even realize that their claim that its impossible to do what they do *without* said technology, is either trivially true as i suggested, or is a testable claim that they haven't bothered to test before they proclaim it.
I'm not just axe grinding here - I really believe their claims should be tested, knowing full well that studies such as implied here are very difficult and often flawed, and rarely prove anything.
More from article, quoted by Kirby: >What is unique in the present course is that GC's transformation into an instrument for students' mathematics happens hand in hand with students' construction of the mathematics for which GC becomes instrumental.
I was "instrumented" with my mind. I'm certain is wasn't as fast, or foolproof (in rendering equations as graphs,) and didn't offer immediate feedback on mistakes I might make.
I may be inordinately fond of my own mind. One might even accuse me of being attracted to mathematics in the first place, just because it seemed to require so little of me other than the willingness to use my own mind and a bit of paper and ink, but still ... I think a skeptical stance is warranted here.