This article relates the experience of using a poem A Love Letter by Nanao Sakaki to engage university students (in a mathematics teaching course) with mathematics and poetry. This entryway was chosen because the writers believed it was a safe way to engage the students with mathematics. Even though there were some challenges and uneasiness felt by the students (some even not doing the assignment), 10 students created a similar poem as A Love Letter. To the authors’ surprise, they did not use accurate representations and scales, but they did engage with mathematics and use mathematics to create meaning in a poem.
“Our opening of teaching mathematics to the inclusion of poetry also required an opening of our thinking about mathematics, of what it was and what it could be. (3)”
This quote made me stop because it tied in well with what we were exploring last week. First, it reminded me of Katelyn’s manifesto. In her manifesto, she is really thinking about how to move from the ‘traditional view of mathematics’ brought by Western philosophical tradition toward a broader definition that can include more activities/behaviours in the field of mathematics. Secondly, it ties into Nicholas B. Torretta’s (2025) idea of how to reorient practices under a decolonial perspective by asking ourselves what needs to be respectfully challenged in the field of mathematics, what needs to be undone, to what should we come back, and what should we continue?
I am often wondering how I could convince a skeptical colleague that mathematics can be found in arts because to include those practices in our classrooms, we need to be convinced that they are useful and work. A possible answer to my questions is to discuss with skeptical colleagues about their idea of math, what is good, what should be rejected, what we want students to be able to do with mathematics, and thus, write our own manifesto.
Have you ever tried to convince a skeptical colleague/any other person that the ‘innovative’ activities you are doing with your students are mathematics? Were you able to convince them mathematics is broader than what we normally see?
“According to Derrida, meanings are not stable but are instead caught up in the endless play of relations and difference between signifiers (words) and signifieds (concepts). And this play is dependent on the reader and the reader’s prior uses and understandings of and experiences with those signifiers and signifieds” (4)
I had to re-read this a couple of times to understand the idea. It was applied to reading poetry, but I think it can also be applied to mathematics. Now, I understand that meaning can be different depending on the learner’s previous experiences. I also understand that there could be more than one meaning. Both elements make meaning making a dynamic process that is dependent on the learner. During this course, we learned that using different perspectives to teach mathematics concepts can help students build meaning because everyone is different and has different ways of seeing/understanding the world. Thus, meaning making in mathematics is just as dynamic and dependent on learners’ prior experiences than reading and analyzing a poem. Is it why people started making connections between mathematics and poetry? Do you understand something else or different from this passage?
“In this way, we see mathematics and poetry aligned with Davis and Renert’s (2014) view of mathematics as collective, connected, and context-dependent enterprise in which the focus is on knowing (something dynamic) rather than knowledge (something static).” (6)
I believe that this definition of mathematics is a good summary of what we learned in this program about mathematics and thinking mathematically. For example, Sfard (1991) explains that even if seeing mathematical concepts as static objects is prevailing in the mathematics field, mathematicians also use processes, algorithms, and actions associated with the concepts, they manipulate concepts (thus making mathematics also dynamic). We can also think about Cuoco’s et al. (2010) mathematical habits of mind that defines doing mathematics. Lastly, Dan May’s poem Division by Zero represents well this idea of mathematics being dynamic by looking into someone’s mind while investigating a concept. We can see the actions happening in someone’s mind while doing mathematics.
Remembering that mathematics focuses on knowing (how you use the mathematical concepts that you know) is essential to understand how poetry can be used to teach mathematics. I am thinking about using the poem with my grade 10 class. I expect my students to know and have an accurate idea of what we can find in an area with a radius of a meter, 10 meters, 100 meters, etc. I am also expecting them to be able to continue the exponential pattern. But what I want them to learn is how they are going to use this knowledge to create meaning in a poem, thus changing the focus to a dynamic use of the concepts.
Questions:
Have you ever tried to convince a skeptical colleague/any other person that the ‘innovative’ activities you are doing with your students are mathematics? Were you able to convince them mathematics is broader than what we normally see?
Do you understand something else or different from this passage?
References:
Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., Mark, J., & Hirsch, C. (2010). Contemporary curriculum issues: Organizing a curriculum around mathematical habits of mind. The Mathematics Teacher, 103(9), 682-688. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.103.9.0682
May, D. Division by zero. Mathematical Poetry at Bridges 2026. Retrieved on https://www2.math.uconn.edu/%7Eglaz/Mathematical_Poetry_at_Bridges/Bridges_2026/The-program-and-the-poets-2026.html
Sfard, A. (11). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36.
Your two questions are very thought-provoking. I read them this morning and am now coming back to answer after some time to contemplate.
ReplyDelete1) It can be very intimidating to convince a skeptical colleague. My experience with many math teachers and departments has been a lot of traditional thinking and almost an elitism – as if there's a limit to how many people should be brought into the fold of mathematics. There are also those who are so focused on pacing to meet the curricular outcomes that it is difficult for them to pause and consider alternative approaches. Yet, I find that through discussion most of us can usually agree that we want more students to feel successful in mathematics and that is the foundation that I would build an argument for innovative activities or broader mathematics. I think our own passion is also convincing (or maybe contagious?). I have chatted with a lot of parents, friends or other adults about our program and what I am learning/trying. People have seemed genuinely interested and I think that is because of the passion and joy I exude when I share about our program! So that’s where I would start. And maybe even consider seeing if they’d like to observe or join your class for an activity or to collaborate to try one or two things in their classroom. A number of years ago, I pursued an outcome based assessment and grading process that was new and different to what everyone else in our school was doing. I invited two other teachers to attend a PD with me and we ended up all piloting these processes (to varying degrees) over the next year. We discussed how doing it together was helpful and encouraging. Sometimes a simple invitation might be enough to start them on their journey.
2) I agree with your understanding of the passage. I also read that and apply it to mathematics as focusing on the overall experience of the learner, their past and their engagement. That’s why we can’t know exactly how a lesson will go, even if we do not alter the lesson plan from year to year! Each class, and each individual in that class, has a unique background and relational dynamic among themselves that will affect the learning process.
Hi Katelyn,
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you’ve named both the challenge and the possibility in working with skeptical colleagues. That tension between tradition, pacing pressures, and innovation is so real in many math departments. Your point about starting from shared values, wanting students to feel successful, is such a powerful and necessary entry point. And I agree that passion is contagious; when someone speaks about their practice with genuine excitement, it naturally opens curiosity in others.
Hi Noemi, Your post really got me thinking about how much our understanding of mathematics has to stretch before we can genuinely invite poetry, art, or embodied experiences into the classroom. That line you highlighted, about needing to open our thinking before we can open our teaching, feels like the heart of this whole course. It’s striking how often the barrier isn’t the activity itself, but the assumptions we carry about what “counts” as mathematics.
ReplyDeleteYour connection to Katelyn’s manifesto and Torretta’s decolonial questions is so insightful. Both invite us to interrogate the inherited boundaries of the discipline, and your idea of writing a shared manifesto with skeptical colleagues is such a constructive way to begin that conversation. Instead of trying to “convince” someone, you’re inviting them into a dialogue about values, purpose, and what we want mathematics to do for students. That feels far more generative.
I’ve definitely had experiences trying to explain innovative or arts‑based math activities to colleagues. Sometimes people are open; sometimes they’re wary because it doesn’t look like the math they grew up with. What has helped most is grounding the conversation in student thinking, showing how these activities reveal patterns, structure, reasoning, and meaning‑making in ways that traditional tasks often don’t. When colleagues see students deeply engaged, the definition of mathematics starts to expand naturally.
Your interpretation of the Derrida passage also resonated with me. Meaning in mathematics *is* dynamic, shaped by prior experiences, metaphors, and ways of seeing. That’s exactly why poetry and mathematics pair so beautifully: both rely on pattern, interpretation, and the reader/learner bringing themselves to the work. I think you’re right that this shared dynamism is part of what makes the connection between the two fields feel so natural.
And your final point about focusing on knowing rather than knowledge is such an important shift. When students use mathematical ideas to create meaning, like extending an exponential pattern into a poem, they’re not just recalling content; they’re activating it, shaping it, and making it their own. That’s the kind of mathematical experience that stays with them.
I can just imagine students surprising themselves with how much mathematical thinking emerges when they’re freed from the pressure of “getting it right.”
Thank you very much for both of your insight on my questions. I love all the ideas you shared with me!
ReplyDelete