Althoen, S. (2009). Investigating Bricard’s proof of Morley’s theorem with the Geometer’s sketchpad. Mathematics Teacher, 9, 706–709.
Google Scholar

Astafieva, M., Bodnenko, D., & Proshkin, V. (2019). Cloud-oriented training technologies as a means of forming the XXI century skills of future mathematics teachers. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2387, 507–512.
Google Scholar

Botana, F., Hohenwarter, M., Yanichich, P., Recio, T., & Weitzhofer, S. (2015). Automated theorem proving in GeoGebra: Current achievements. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 55(1), 39–59.
Google Scholar

Dziabenko, O., Morze, N., Vasylenko, S., Varchenko-Trotsenko, L., Vember, V., Boiko, M., Vorotnykova, I., & Smyrnova-Trybulska, E. (2020). Innovative pedagogical methods in the digital age. Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University.
Google Scholar

Dubrovskyi V. N. (2016). “1С: Mathematical constructor” and mathematical practicum in MSY. Informatics and Education, 7(276), 22–26.
Google Scholar

Heba, A., Kapounová, J., & Smyrnova-Trybulska, E. (2014). Theoretical conception and some practical results of the development of mathematical competences with the use of e-learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 24(3–4), 252–268.
Google Scholar

Henseruk, H. (2019). Some advanced experience of the development of teachers’ digital competence. International Journal of Research in E-Learning, 5(1), 61–79.
Google Scholar

Hohenwarter, M., & Preiner, J. (2007). Dynamic mathematics with GeoGebra. Journal of Online Mathematics and its Applications, 7, 1448.
Google Scholar

Hohenwarter, M. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to secondary school teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28, 135–146.
Google Scholar

Mathematics. State standard of basic and complete secondary education. Educational branch “Mathematics” (2002). Retrieved from http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0546290-02#Text.
Google Scholar

Morozova E. V., & Miroshkina O. S. (2013). Training toolkit “Living Mathematics” as a virtual mathematical laboratory. Computer mathematics systems and their applications, 14, 236–240.
Google Scholar

Saha, R. A., Ayub, A. F. M., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). The effects of GeoGebra on mathematics achievement: Enlightening coordinate geometry learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 686–693.
Google Scholar

Semenikhina, E., Drushlyak, M., Shishenko, I., & Zigunov, V. (2018). Using a praxeology approach to the rational choice of specialized software in the preparation of the computer science teacher. TEM Journal, 7(1), 164–170.
Google Scholar

Semenikhina, O., & Drushlyak, M. (2015). On the results of a study of the willingness and the readiness to use dynamic mathematics software by future math teachers. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1356, 21–34.
Google Scholar

Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why don’t all maths teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137–151.
Google Scholar

Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra on student achievement in the teaching of trigonometry. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 183–187.
Google Scholar