Practicing and Future Secondary Teachers’ Challenges with Designing Mathematics for Social Justice Lesson Plans

Abstract

We build on previous studies that explore the challenges faced by current and future teachers as they learn to teach mathematics for social justice by focusing on a precursor to teaching lessons, that is, the process of lesson design. Specifically, in this study we investigate the challenges that current and future teachers identify in their design of lessons and how they navigate those challenges. Using deductive analysis, we examine the written reflections of 11 current and future teachers enrolled in a secondary mathematics methods course in the spring of 2021. Findings indicate that participants experienced challenges in the cognitive, affective, social, and structural domains and resolved those challenges utilizing social, affective, and cognitive resolutions. These findings inform the field of mathematics teacher education by identifying areas where current and future teachers may need support in their design of social justice mathematics lessons.

1. Introduction

Integrating social justice into mathematics teacher education has become a growing priority among professional organizations and scholars (Males et al., 2020). Organizations such as the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM) & TODOS: Mathematics for ALL (2016), along with the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE, 2017), have called for more deliberate efforts to prepare teachers to engage students in mathematics that attends to issues of equity and justice. In response, mathematics teacher educators (MTEs) have integrated social justice issues into their teaching by using various instructional strategies and tools to prepare teacher candidates (TCs) and practicing teachers (PTs) to integrate social justice into mathematics education. For example, MTEs have used vignettes (Bartell, 2012), critical conversations (Alexander et al., 2019), graph talks (Marzocchi et al., 2021), census data (Leonard et al., 2010), articles (e.g., Aguirre & del Rosario Zavala, 2013; Buhl & Kelly, 2019; Cullinan & Hsiao, 2019) and books (e.g., Berry et al., 2020) to enhance TC and PT learning. MTEs have also introduced TCs and PTs to pedagogical frameworks such as Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice (TMSJ) (e.g., Sears & Kudaisi, 2021). TMSJ combines mathematical and social justice learning goals that aim to help students use mathematics to understand and challenge social inequities while building positive cultural identities and mathematical agency.

Research suggests that TMSJ promotes student engagement and achievement (Mitescu et al., 2011; Voss & Rickards, 2016), fosters socio-political consciousness (Kokka, 2019), and can empower both students and teachers to enact change in their communities (Stocker, 2006; E. Gutstein, 2006; Harper, 2019). By connecting mathematical content to issues of fairness, equity, and real-world injustice, students are better positioned to engage meaningfully with their social realities and develop the tools needed to challenge oppressive systems (E. Gutstein, 2006; E. R. Gutstein, 2016).

Building on a growing body of research, this study contributes to ongoing efforts to understand how TCs and PTs grapple with the complexities of integrating social justice into mathematics education (Gul Aga, 2024; Cahill & Bostic, 2024). Prior studies have identified lesson planning as a promising space for supporting this work, showing that it provides teachers with a structured opportunity to intentionally embed social justice into mathematics instruction (Chávez, 2025; Lolkus et al., 2025; Register et al., 2022). This study, however, shifts the focus to the specific challenges teachers face during the planning process and the strategies they enact in response to these challenges. By examining these challenges and how secondary TCs and PTs navigate them, we stand to gain a nuanced understanding of these challenges and the type of support TCs and PTs need to further their justice-oriented mathematics teaching.

TCs at the secondary level may face unique and complex challenges when designing lessons that incorporate social justice. Although students are increasingly engaging with social justice content across all grade levels (e.g., E. R. Gutstein, 2016; Harper & Kudaisi, 2023; Ward, 2020), the issues addressed at the secondary level often become more charged (e.g., Bartell, 2013). For instance, while elementary students might explore topics like access to playgrounds (Ward, 2020), middle and secondary students may confront more contentious issues such as race, policing, or economic inequality (e.g., Bartell, 2013; Register et al., 2022), noting the need for affective pedagogical goals put forth by Kokka (2022).

Yet, most existing research on challenges PTs and TCs face has centered on elementary settings (e.g., Chávez, 2025; Jong & Jackson, 2016; Myers, 2017, 2019), with relatively few studies exclusively examining the particular challenges secondary TCs and PTs encounter (e.g., Bartell, 2013; Lolkus et al., 2025). For example, Bartell (2013) found that secondary PTs struggled to balance mathematical rigor with meaningful social justice content and documented how they navigated such challenges in their lesson planning. Building on that work, this study further explores the nature of the challenges secondary TCs and PTs face and the strategies they use to resolve them during the lesson design process. Understanding these challenges can help mathematics teacher educators to more effectively support secondary teachers in developing critical and justice-oriented instructional practices. To this end, the study is guided by the following research questions: (1) What challenges do secondary teacher candidates and practicing teachers experience when developing social justice mathematics lessons, and what is the nature of those challenges? (2) How do secondary teacher candidates and practicing teachers resolve the challenges they face when developing social justice mathematics lessons, and what is the nature of those resolutions?

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, we introduce the conceptual framework that guides this study. Next, we review relevant literature on challenges that TCs and PTs face when integrating social justice into mathematics lesson plans. We then outline the methodology guiding this study. We then present our findings regarding the challenges faced by TCs and PTs and their approaches to resolving them. Finally, we discuss implications for practice and offer directions for future research.

1.1. Conceptual Framework

For this study, we adapt Vomvoridi-Ivanovic and Mcleman’s (2015) conceptual framework for understanding the nature of challenges and resolutions of a particular practice. They investigated the challenges encountered and resolutions enacted by MTEs when integrating equity into mathematics methods courses. While our study is not about equitable practices broadly, it does focus on an aspect of equitable teaching that involves incorporating and utilizing mathematics to explore and respond to social justice issues. Key to the framework is an emphasis on the locus and nature of a challenge or resolution. The locus refers to the source of the challenge or resolution, and the nature of the challenge or resolution refers to the “characteristics that are necessary for the challenges and resolutions to hold meaning” (Vomvoridi-Ivanovic & Mcleman, 2015, p. 86). Both can be either internal or external. Similarly to Vomvoridi-Ivanovic and McLeman (2015), we use this framework to understand if the challenges and resolutions identified by PTs and TCs are either in the cognitive learning domain, the affective learning domain, or the social learning domain. The cognitive domain of learning involves knowledge acquisition and may be enacted by learning facts, concepts, and procedures. The affective domain comprises experiences related to emotional processes involved in learning such as “beliefs, values, motivations, attitudes, dispositions, and a willingness to participate” (Vomvoridi-Ivanovic & Mcleman, 2015, p. 86). The social domain of learning involves experiences related to interactions between and among individuals, such as “communicating, participating, negotiating, and collaborating” (Vomvoridi-Ivanovic & Mcleman, 2015, p. 86). Challenges and resolutions might also be structural. That is, challenges may arise from structural barriers such as limited access to resources, unclear institutional support, or time constraints. Structural barriers do not necessarily relate directly to student learning, but rather to factors that are outside of students’ immediate control such as the availability of materials, guidance, or institutional infrastructure. In the section that follows, we review relevant research literature on secondary TCs and PTs lesson planning challenges and resolutions.

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Secondary TCs’ and PTs’ Internal Lesson Planning Challenges and Resolutions

Secondary PTs and TCs face cognitive challenges when designing lesson plans that integrate social justice into mathematics. For example, TCs and PTs struggle to design lessons that integrate rigorous mathematics and social justice content (Bartell, 2013; Lolkus et al., 2025). For instance, Bartell (2013) taught a graduate level mathematics education course where eight secondary mathematics teachers were enrolled. In the course, the PTs were learning to create and revise lesson plans that incorporated social justice goals. Bartell (2013) found that, although students included both mathematics and social justice goals in their lessons, they tended to focus more on the social justice goals at the expense of the mathematics goals during the lesson design stage. Lolkus et al. (2025) also noted that the three secondary TCs in their study also faced challenges with prioritizing rigorous mathematics and social justice content. The challenge was that the TCs felt that TMSJ was both using mathematics to explore injustice (E. Gutstein, 2006) and providing access to high quality mathematics content (Moses & Cobb, 2001). The TCs felt that it was a struggle to do both. One TC explained this challenge writing, “I feel kind of worried about how we can create mathematically rich content that tackles social justice topics” (Lolkus et al., 2025, p. 12). Lolkus et al. (2025) indicated the TCs resolved this challenge by engaging students in “standards-aligned mathematical tasks” (Lolkus et al., 2025, p. 11). Another TC seemed to address this challenge in thinking by sharing that TMSJ is about “helping the students understand mathematics in context”, not taking away from the mathematics being taught” but adding to the mathematics being taught by keeping “students interested” (Lolkus et al., 2025, p. 11).

PTs and TCs at the secondary level also face challenges that are affective in nature when designing lesson plans that integrate social justice issues into mathematics. For example, Bartell (2013) found that PTs found it challenging to integrate issues that they deemed controversial. When the topic of racism “or other isms” was brought up among the lesson planning group, one PT explained that it might be nice to teach about the topic of credit cards because “it’s not as controversial” (Bartell, 2013, p. 143). Likewise, another PT indicated that they did not want to “do anything with racism” or anything “too controversial” (Bartell, 2013, p. 143). Another PT indicated that this fear may have stemmed from not knowing how to deal with issues of race with students of a different race (namely White teachers and Black students). The group as a whole seemed to have resolved the issue by deciding not to include issues of race in their initial lesson plan (Bartell, 2013). Lolkus et al. (2025) also noted the challenge of TCs’ discomfort with incorporating uncomfortable topics into mathematical investigations and that discomfort stemming from TCs being White (and cis White women from predominantly white backgrounds). They, along with their MTE (Lolkus), seemed to have resolved that challenge by deciding to “be comfortable with being uncomfortable”, even when it involves “racism or racialized policies” (Lolkus et al., 2025, p. 6). Furthermore, TCs indicated that they would need to first cultivate a classroom environment where their students felt safe to be able to discuss controversial topics with their peers.

Social challenges are also among the internal challenges that secondary PTs and TCs face in the lesson planning process. Another challenge faced by PTs when designing lesson plans, particularly with others, is negotiation of ideas. For example, in Bartell (2013), who examined group lesson planning, PTs faced challenges negotiating the topics that they wanted to include in the lesson design. One of the PTs in the group really wanted to discuss controversial topics in the lesson but other group members did not. This challenge was ultimately resolved through yielding to the ideas of others. That is, one of the PTs ultimately was not able to get their way in the initial design of the lesson.

1.2.2. Secondary TCs’ and PTs’ External Lesson Planning Challenges and Resolutions

The external challenges faced by secondary TCs and PTs are primarily structural. For instance, although the TCs in Lolkus et al. (2025) acknowledged existing resources, such as High School Mathematics Lessons to Explore, Understand, and Respond to Social Injustice (Berry et al., 2020) and Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers (E. Gutstein & Peterson, 2013), they still identified a need for additional lessons. Specifically, they sought lessons that integrated rigorous mathematical content with social justice issues to support both the social justice and mathematics goals throughout the course of their instruction. The TCs seemed to have resolved this challenge by “heavily” modifying preexisting resources or developing their own lessons (Lolkus et al., 2025).

1.2.3. The Contribution of the Current Study

The current literature provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by PTs and TCs when designing mathematics lessons that integrate social justice. Some studies, such as those by Gul Aga (2024), Pourdavood and Yan (2022), and Register et al. (2022), explore challenges in both middle and high school contexts. However, these studies involve a broader range of grade levels and thus may not fully capture the specific dynamics of high school classrooms. This study, in contrast, focuses exclusively on PTs and TCs at the secondary level enrolled in a high school mathematics methods course. By honing in on this context, it provides a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and resolutions specific to high school mathematics educators when integrating social justice issues into their mathematics lessons. This focus adds to the existing literature by offering insights that are particularly relevant to high school TCs and PTs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a qualitative case study design (Yin, 2014) to examine the challenges that secondary TCs and PTs faced when designing mathematics lessons that integrate social justice. The case was bounded by a specific context: a secondary mathematics methods course at a U.S. university, where TCs and PTs were asked to develop and reflect on TMSJ lessons. While the broader project involved multiple data sources, including lesson plans, written conceptions of social justice, and post-teaching reflections, this paper focuses specifically on participants’ written reflections, which captured their self-identified challenges during the lesson design process. The study’s purpose was to understand the nature of those challenges within the institutional and instructional context in which they occurred. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), guided by a deductive coding framework developed from prior literature on challenges related to TMSJ lesson design (e.g., Vomvoridi-Ivanovic & McLeman, 2015), which identified categories such as cognitive, affective, social, and structural challenges. This approach aligns with case study methodology, which allows for in-depth, contextually situated analysis of a clearly bounded educational phenomenon.

2.2. The Case

This study is contextually situated within a high school mathematics methods course in a mathematics teacher preparation program at a large state university in the southeastern United States. The challenges explored in this study are interpreted instructional and institutional, as well as the unique constraints and affordances of the online learning environment shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic. This bounded context provides a rich framework for understanding how PTs and TCs navigate the complexities of designing mathematics lessons that address social justice issues.

The course took place during the Spring 2021 semester, spanning sixteen weeks and meeting weekly for two hours and forty-five minutes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the course was delivered entirely online. The course prepared TCs and PTs in essential mathematical content, including algebra, geometry, data analysis, mathematical modeling, trigonometry, and financial literacy, as well as pedagogical and technological knowledge for teaching these topics at the secondary level. A key component of the course was attending to equity and social justice in mathematics education. Participants were introduced to equity through Gutiérrez’s (2012) framework, emphasizing access, achievement, identity, and power as core dimensions of equitable teaching.

More specifically, social justice in mathematics education was introduced through E. Gutstein’s (2006) TMSJ framework, Berry et al.’s (2020) High School Mathematics Lessons to Explore, Understand, and Respond to Social Injustice, and several exemplary articles. These included Aguirre et al.’s (2019) exploration of environmental and institutional racism through mathematical modeling of the Flint water crisis, Johnson’s (2011) work on social justice mathematics lessons in a geometry course for non-majors, and McCoy’s (2008) lesson raising awareness about poverty and its intersection with demographic factors.

During one dedicated class session on TMSJ, participants engaged in a series of activities: an introduction to TMSJ and prominent scholars in the field; discussions on safe spaces for co-constructing knowledge, distinctions between critical mathematics and culturally relevant pedagogy, ethics, and approaches to integrating mathematics and social justice; the instructor’s personal experiences with social justice issues in education; collaborative activities to integrate mathematics and social justice; and reflection prompts to capture participants’ experiences. Participants were required to design a mathematics lesson integrating social justice content and submit a reflection on the challenges and resolutions encountered during the lesson design process.

2.3. Participants

Purposive sampling (Miles et al., 2014) was used to recruit participants from the secondary mathematics methods course. There were both TCs and PTs Enrolled in the course. The TCs and PTs were either bachelor degree seeking students pursuing initial certification in mathematics teaching or master degree seeking students who were career changers and pursuing initial teacher certification. There were also PTs who were pursuing a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction. While all of the 16 enrolled PTs and TCs (hereafter referred to as “students”) agreed and consented to participate, only 11 completed reflections of their experiences learning to teach mathematics for social justice. Responses to a preliminary survey revealed that participants had limited understanding of TMSJ. Not all participants provided their demographic data; however, the available information is summarized in

Table 1. Participant Data.

Pseudonym	Race	Gender	Class Standing	Degree Program	TC or PT	Years of Experience
Alisha	White	Female	Undergraduate	BS in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Bailey	Not provided	Not provided	Undergraduate	BS in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Marisol	Hispanic	Female	Undergraduate	BS in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Brooke	Not provided	Not provided	Undergraduate	BS in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Stanley	White	Male	Undergraduate	BS in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Arnold	Not provided	Not provided	Graduate	Master of Arts in Teaching in Mathematics Education	TC	0
Phillip	Not provided	Not provided	Graduate	Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction	TC	0
Jackie	Not provided	Not provided	Graduate	Master of Arts in Teaching in Mathematics Education	PT	1
Terry	Mixed- Race	Female	Graduate	Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction	PT	3
Kristina	Not provided	Not provided	Graduate	Master of Arts in Teaching in Mathematics Education	PT	7
Serenity	Not provided	Not provided	Graduate	Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction	PT	18

, along with participants’ pseudonyms, race, gender, class standing, degree program, designation as either TC or PT, and years of teaching experience.

2.4. Data Collection

Data sources for this study are student reflections following three key learning activities in the course: (1) participation in a lesson about teaching mathematics for social justice, (2) development of the lesson plan incorporating mathematics and social justice, and (3) development of a group portfolio. The first set of student reflections were collected after the students engaged in the class session on TMSJ where students co-created a lesson plan on teaching mathematics for social justice in groups. At the end of the class session, students completed an exit ticket in the Padlet platform (https://padlet.com/) (Padlet, n.d.) where they wrote their reflection about their experience with the session. The reflection question asked students: What are your takeaways for teaching mathematics for social justice?

The second set of reflections focused more specifically on the students’ experience independently developing a lesson plan on teaching mathematics for social justice after engaging in the learning experiences described above. Students had several weeks to complete this plan outside of class. As part of the lesson plan submission, students were asked to provide one written reflection describing their experience developing the lesson plan. Two of the reflection questions asked students to reflect on their challenges: (1) What, if any, challenges did you encounter when planning and enacting your social justice mathematics lesson? (2) If you faced any challenges, how did you work toward resolving those challenges? The third reflection occurred at the end of the course where students were asked to reflect about TMSJ as part of their submission of a portfolio, which was the culminating assignment of the course. The reflection asked students to provide a written reflection of how teachers can teach mathematics for social justice.

2.5. Data Analysis

We followed a three-phase approach to analyze student reflections. In the first phase, we used deductive coding (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Guided by our conceptual framework (e.g., Vomvoridi-Ivanovic & McLeman, 2015), we developed four a priori codes to categorize the challenges participants described: cognitive, affective, social, and structural (Appendix A). Within this framework, cognitive, affective, and social challenges are considered internal, while structural challenges are classified as external. These internal and external categories represent the locus of the challenge, meaning the perceived source of the difficulty, whether it originates from within the individual (such as knowledge gaps, emotions, or social dynamics) or from external factors (such as institutional constraints or curriculum mandates). We read through each participant’s reflection and coded the challenges and resolutions using these four categories. Multiple rounds of coding were conducted during this phase to ensure consistency and refinement in how categories were applied.

In the second phase, we reviewed the coded data segments within each category and identified patterns and similarities across participants’ experiences. This phase also involved multiple rounds of review and discussion to refine the emergent patterns. This process led to the development of inductive codes that grouped similar data segments together (Miles et al., 2014).

In the final phase, these inductively derived groupings became the basis for our thematic findings. This allowed us to move beyond the initial deductive codes to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges participants faced. Themes were refined through iterative discussions and repeated engagement with the data to ensure they accurately represented the complexity of participants’ experiences.

3. Findings

3.1. Challenges

A total of 29 challenges were identified among eight out of eleven participants (see Table 2). Two out of the eleven participants (i.e., Phillip and Jackie) did not report having any challenges related to learning to teach mathematics for social justice. Instead, Phillip focused on how to improve the lesson and Jackie reflected on an unrelated challenge (i.e., the impact of COVID-19 on teaching).

3.1.1. The Loci of the Challenges

The loci of the challenges identified by the TCs and PTs can be categorized as either internal (i.e., within a PT or TC) or external (i.e., outside of the PT or TC).

Internal Challenges

Twenty-four of the challenges identified by TCs and PTs were categorized as internal. The most prevalent internal challenges identified were related to the incorporation of social justice issues into math lessons and the general process of creating the lessons (13 out of 23). For instance, Stanley indicated that “my ignorance of the world of current events makes social justice almost feel distant to my in-depth knowledge”. As it relates to more general lesson designing considerations, Brooke reported, “One challenge I faced when creating this lesson plan was if the activity at the end would be sufficient enough in the amount of time left of the period. I say this because I still do not know if I could finish the whole Desmos activity, but I will get as far as I can with the students and maybe use it as a review to finish at the start of next class.” These quotes represent the types of challenges that PTs and TCs had that were internal to them as designers of the lesson. In the case of Stanley, the challenge was related to his lack of knowledge regarding what is going on in present day events that may spur the inclusion of a social justice issue that could be investigated in a math lesson. According to him, he had “in-depth knowledge” about other things but not in what constitutes a social justice issue. Brooke’s internal challenge, on the other hand, was more related to figuring out how best to design the lesson so that her students could complete all of the planned activities within the allotted time. This involved negotiating how best to engage her students in the activities while adequately attending to the social justice and math goals of the lesson.

External Challenges

Six of the identified challenges were categorized as external. Just about all of these external challenges were related to the inadequacy of the available resources to meet aspects of the lesson they were designing. For instance, several participants reported difficulty in finding resources that were applicable to the lesson they were trying to design. One such resource was relevant and updated data. According to Marisol, although there were many data sets available, “the data was either outdated or not as relevant as the data I decided to go with”. This statement indicates that Marisol was committed to designing the lesson, but that design was hindered by her inability to find data that were more updated.

3.1.2. The Nature of the Challenges

Below we present the nature of the identified internal and external challenges.

The Nature of the Internal Challenges

The internal challenges can be categorized as cognitive, affective, and social as guided by our conceptual framework. Of the internal challenges the majority (14 out of 29) were cognitive in nature. Several participants faced cognitive challenges related to identifying a social justice or math topic or how to merge the two into one lesson. Specific to identifying a social justice issue, Alisha indicated that designing the lesson around a social justice issue was difficult because she “did not know that included anything other than race”. Similarly, Stanley reported, “I was unsure if the issue of water shortages/droughts was relevant enough to be a social issue to touch on in a class”. Related to identifying a math topic, Serenity shared, “I have to say, at the beginning I found this task very difficult. I am not currently in the classroom, so I think the wide range of math topics had me overwhelmed.” These reflections indicate that PTs’ and TCs’ unfamiliarity with what counted as a social justice issue resulted in hesitation and lack of self-efficacy and made it difficult to plan relevant and meaningful lessons. Stanley’s statements represent similar sentiments by other participants that indicate feeling underinformed about social justice issues and about what even constitutes a social justice issue worth exploring with students in a math lesson. While Serenity did not report a challenge related to identifying a social justice issue, she also experienced difficulty in designing the lesson, but around a math topic. As a TC, she did not have the math teaching experience yet to easily and quickly be able to select a math topic for her lesson.

Similarly to other PTs and TCs, Marisol had challenges merging the social justice focus of her lesson with the math focus. She was designing a lesson intended to help students demonstrate understanding of the concept of a limit and estimate limits from graphs. To support this goal, she developed an activity in which students would use graph cards based on real-world data sets, including topics such as minimum wage, salary differences between women and men, and immigration numbers by decade. Students would then match these graphs with corresponding cards that displayed the estimated limits. She explains, “One of the challenges I encountered was finding data that was in a similar number range. There were a lot of data sets for many social problems, but they were each in very distinct ranges. The issue with this is that students can simply look at the range of each graph and find the limit value that makes sense with the range of the graph.” This suggests that she struggled to identify datasets or examples that both supported a strong social justice message and aligned well with the mathematical content. In essence, Marisol and other participants grappled with maintaining mathematical rigor while ensuring the lesson remained authentic and relevant to the social justice issue.

Participants also reported cognitive challenges related to planning to enact the lesson. For example, after reviewing some course videos related to implementing TMSJ, Stanley reported uncertainty about how to present the topics to children in an urgent and relevant way, writing, “With each one of these videos I have learned that I need to learn how to properly present these issues’ importance. I feel as though I give some information but not as urgent of a message as is needed”. Stanley recognized the importance of being conscientious when engaged in TMSJ and he wanted his lesson to reflect the importance of the social issue he was focusing on. Time management also proved to be a challenge, both in planning the lesson and ensuring it could be executed efficiently within a single class period. For example, Brooke reported, “One challenge I faced when creating this lesson plan was if the activity at the end would be sufficient enough in the amount of time left of the period. I say this because I still do not know if I could finish the whole Desmos activity, but I will get as far as I can with the students and maybe use it as a review to finish at the start of next class.” Brooke’s reflection illustrates a broader instructional enactment challenge. She grappled not only with designing a lesson within the constraints of class time but also with the uncertainty of how the lesson would unfold in real time, particularly when using interactive technology like Desmos.

In addition to cognitive challenges, participants also encountered affective challenges (6 out of 29). These affective challenges were primarily related to their level of comfort with including social justice issues in a math lesson. For example, Bailey noted “it was difficult for me to find a topic that I felt comfortable teaching” Similarly, Alisha reported, “I was also hesitant because I don’t want to spark a heated debate that results in me losing my job”. Bailey’s reflection indicates that she struggled to find a social justice topic that she deemed she could include in her lesson without being uncomfortable. Moreover, Alisha’s concerns indicate discomfort but also fear of potential pushback from stakeholders (e.g., students, parents, administrators) that could have negative results for her as a teacher including losing her job. These quotes also illustrate the participants’ awareness of the risks involved in addressing social justice issues in mathematics classrooms. They highlight the tension between their desire to create meaningful, socially relevant lessons and their need to navigate the professional and political realities of teaching.

Affective challenges also included participants’ realization of their own biases about some social justice issues. For instance, Arnold’s lesson focused on zero-based budgeting, and the learning goals were for students to analyze interest and credit scores, build a zero-based budget with a debt elimination plan, reflect on strategies for staying financially accountable, and research cost and salary information for career paths that interest them in college pathways, corporate pathways, trade pathways, or military pathways. In his reflection over designing the lesson, Arnold indicated that he held some bias for one track over the others. He states, “I think I also showed a little bias to the college track in my lesson too. I fully support going to college and think that your selection of major determines whether the degree is worth the cost.” This illustrates the struggle of managing personal bias when designing lessons that include social justice issues. Additionally, a few participants expressed hesitation about implementing TMSJ at all, with some explicitly questioning whether such lessons belonged in mathematics classrooms.

Internal challenges were also social in nature (3 out of 29) and specifically related to discourse and classroom dynamics. Participants expressed concerns about how discussions around social justice topics might unfold in the classroom. For instance, one TC was worried that students would not engage in discussion, while others anticipated that debates among students could become heated or difficult to manage. These concerns were compounded by a lack of confidence in their ability to guide such conversations constructively and with sensitivity. Some participants also feared they were not fully prepared to handle potential controversy that might arise, especially when introducing complex or emotionally charged issues. These social challenges highlight the importance of equipping future educators with both the pedagogical tools and institutional awareness necessary to facilitate meaningful, respectful, and critical discourse around social justice in math classrooms.

The Nature of the External Challenges

All of the external challenges reported were structural in nature and were related to difficulties participants faced accessing materials needed to develop the lesson. For instance, Marisol reported that she struggled with finding resources that maintained the rigor of mathematics content while engaging in a social justice topic. She wanted to ensure that students “get the practice they need, but they also get the social justice discussion they deserve”. She also reported that although there were many data sets available, they were outdated. Bailey also reported that finding resources was a challenge, particularly examples of mathematics lessons incorporating social justice issues. This, in turn, made it difficult for her to plan her lesson.

Table 2. Challenges.

Loci	Nature	Challenge	Count
Internal	Cognitive	Incorporation of social justice issues into math lessons (e.g., identifying a social justice issue, unsure of what qualifies as a social justice issue, aligning the social justice issue with the math) Time management issues (e.g., pacing of the lesson, time needed to develop the lesson) Enactment of the lesson (e.g., presenting the lesson to children; facilitating discussion)	14
	Affective	Managing personal influences (e.g., comfortability with certain topics, bias toward others, beliefs against TMSJ) Managing Fear (e.g., loss of job, pushback from students & the school, “heated” debates)	6
	Social	Anticipated classroom dynamics in response to social justice issues (e.g., “heated” debates and controversy)	3
External	Structural	Access to resources & support (e.g., rigorous lesson examples, outdated data, less relevant data, supportive school environment)	6
Total Challenges			29

Table 2. Challenges.

Loci	Nature	Challenge	Count
Internal	Cognitive	Incorporation of social justice issues into math lessons (e.g., identifying a social justice issue, unsure of what qualifies as a social justice issue, aligning the social justice issue with the math) Time management issues (e.g., pacing of the lesson, time needed to develop the lesson) Enactment of the lesson (e.g., presenting the lesson to children; facilitating discussion)	14
	Affective	Managing personal influences (e.g., comfortability with certain topics, bias toward others, beliefs against TMSJ) Managing Fear (e.g., loss of job, pushback from students & the school, “heated” debates)	6
	Social	Anticipated classroom dynamics in response to social justice issues (e.g., “heated” debates and controversy)	3
External	Structural	Access to resources & support (e.g., rigorous lesson examples, outdated data, less relevant data, supportive school environment)	6
Total Challenges			29

3.2. Resolutions

Of the 29 identified challenges, 18 resolutions were reported (see Table 3). The remaining challenges were either unresolved or participants did not indicate whether or how they addressed them.

3.2.1. The Loci of Resolutions

The loci of the resolutions identified by the TCs and PTs were only internal and as such there were no external resolutions. These internal resolutions primarily involved seeking out resources such as course material to address the challenges they encountered.

The Nature of the Resolutions

The nature of the resolutions were cognitive (9 out of 18), affective (2 of 18), and social (7 out of 18). There were no structural resolutions. Cognitive resolutions involved participants’ use of resources in and out of the course or their use of pedagogical (content) knowledge. The first of these resolutions was used mainly by students who expressed the challenge of limited experience and understanding of TMSJ. Specifically, some participants began the course with ideas about TMSJ that were limited or erroneous. For instance, some participants felt that TMSJ was synonymous with antiracist teaching and as such could be particularly hard to implement due to potential pushback from parents, students, and other stakeholders. However, engagement in the learning activities in the course helped participants to resolve these challenges. For example, Alisha wrote,

I understand there are a variety of topics that can be addressed in a more factual way so that I can let students draw their conclusion and avoid any angry students and/or parents. I am more open to the idea, especially because it is a way to incorporate the real world.

Here Alisha demonstrates an evolved understanding of what TMSJ involves and does not limit it just to issues involving race but to “real world” issues. Some participants also resolved their challenges by turning to external resources, including academic articles and lesson examples, for support in developing the social justice and mathematics components of their lessons. Bailey reflected about her use of such external resources and stated,

I found that there were some very beneficial resources that tied statistics into some social justice issues like climate change as well as birth control regarding misleading graphics. This fit very well into my lesson idea that I thought of a while ago.

Bailey’s reflection indicates that she was able to seek inspiration and examples from resources beyond what was provided in the course that could directly be used in her lesson in ways that she found to be especially beneficial.

The second of the cognitive resolutions involved participants utilizing their pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge when responding to a challenge related to negotiating the intersection of mathematics and social justice and planning for the enactment of the lessons. For example, Marisol encountered an issue with social justice content examples that did not fit the mathematical goal of the lesson, and she resolved it by making an intentional pedagogical move based on her knowledge about graphs. She stated, “A possible solution to this would be to have them practice with random graphs that had similar ranges and then apply that knowledge to one graph based on a social justice issue that the students want to discuss”. This indicates that Marisol was able to explore alternate avenues to have the students better engage with the lesson by expanding her original plan while also allowing room for her students to explore an issue that was of interest to them. Similarly, Brooke sought to resolve a challenge related to ensuring enough time was available to complete her lesson by simply creating a contingency plan if the lesson did not finish in the time allotted. She states, “I will get as far as I can with the students and maybe use it as a review to finish at the start of the next class.” Brooke’s reflection indicates that she was able to be flexible in her lesson development by being proactive about the possible time constraints and incorporating a plan to move part of the lesson into the next day’s lesson if she was unable to complete it within the original time frame.

The social resolution that participants reported was seeking support from others. One of the sources of support was their teachers. For example, when Bailey struggled to find the resources, she needed to develop her lesson, she sought guidance from the teacher she was observing, who provided her with useful materials. Participants also looked to their peers in the course, especially when they needed ideas or affirmation regarding the decisions they were making about their lesson plans. For instance, one participant consulted peers to determine whether the issue they had chosen qualified as a social justice issue. Similarly, Serenity described how a casual conversation with a classmate sparked the idea for her lesson. She states,

In a conversation with another student, Kristina, I asked her what she was going to do, hoping to get an idea. She mentioned she wasn’t sure but she was working with exponential growth and decay equations in class and was going to pick something around that topic. That was it. I immediately remembered an article I had read days earlier about a couple in China who had seven children and just paid the government fees of 155,000 in order to have the family they wanted. I had no idea that was an option and then I immediately thought, wow, only the wealthy can have more than one or two children. As they say, the rest is history.

These moments of peer dialogue served as both inspiration and validation, helping participants connect mathematical content with meaningful social issues. Participants also turned to family members for support. Alisha, for example, explained, “I decided to talk to my dad about my struggles, and he asked what issue I wanted to focus on.” When she shared that her social justice issue would be hunger, he suggested the idea of distance. These interactions with peers, teachers, and family members highlight how social support played a critical role in helping participants navigate challenges in lesson planning and deepen their engagement with social justice issues.

Participants often resolved affective challenges by negotiating lesson content in ways that reflected their emotional boundaries. Rather than selecting topics based purely on alignment with social justice goals, many made strategic decisions to choose topics that felt emotionally “safe”, both for themselves and their audiences. These decisions were shaped by personal comfort, fear of student or community backlash, and concern for job security. For instance, one participant shared, “It was difficult for me to find a topic that I felt comfortable teaching while also teaching mathematics for social justice” (Bailey). Another participant, initially hesitant to teach TMSJ because she assumed it only addressed race, ultimately designed a lesson on poverty after a personal conversation with her father. She explained, “I decided to talk to my dad about my struggles and he asked what issue I wanted to focus on… So, when I told my dad that I wanted to center my lesson on hunger, he suggested the idea of distance” (Alisha). In other cases, participants avoided certain topics out of fear of “heated debates” or angering students, parents, or administrators. These examples reflect affective resolution through what could be considered a form of anticipatory self-censorship. This emotional labor strategy allowed participants to engage in TMSJ work without exceeding their perceived emotional or professional boundaries.

Table 3. Resolutions.

Loci	Nature	Challenge	Count
Internal	Cognitive	Utilized resources in and out of the course (e.g., course content, articles, lesson examples, relevant data) Utilized pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., creating a contingency plan related to pacing, planning for pedagogical moves to attend to rigor)	9
	Social	Solicited support from others (e.g., teachers, peers, family)	7
	Affective	Affective Negotiation of Content (adjusted the lesson based on emotional comfort & anticipated emotional responses from others)	2
Total Resolutions			18

Table 3. Resolutions.

Loci	Nature	Challenge	Count
Internal	Cognitive	Utilized resources in and out of the course (e.g., course content, articles, lesson examples, relevant data) Utilized pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., creating a contingency plan related to pacing, planning for pedagogical moves to attend to rigor)	9
	Social	Solicited support from others (e.g., teachers, peers, family)	7
	Affective	Affective Negotiation of Content (adjusted the lesson based on emotional comfort & anticipated emotional responses from others)	2
Total Resolutions			18

4. Discussion

In this study, we sought to investigate the challenges and resolutions that secondary TCs and PTs identified when designing social justice math lessons. We found that participants faced internal challenges that were cognitive, affective, and social, and external challenges that were structural. Resolutions to these challenges were only internal to the participants. The primary cognitive challenges faced by participants were their lack of experience or knowledge related to social justice or mathematics content, and issues related to the enactment of the lesson. Affective challenges included discomfort with presenting particular topics to students and anxiety around the reception of others to those topics. Social challenges were related to how to facilitate discussions around social justice topics in the math class as well as how to navigate potential pushback from students and other stakeholders. Finally, the structural challenges involved finding appropriate resources to support the lesson. These challenges were resolved cognitively (9 of 18 resolutions), socially (7 of 18 resolutions), and affectively (2 of 18 resolutions). Cognitive resolutions mainly involved the use of resources in the form of course content (e.g., readings, activities) or external resources and the use of pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., incorporating contingency plans into the lesson due to time constraints). Social resolutions involved seeking support from others (e.g., teachers, peers, family members) to develop the lessons. Affective resolutions involved emotional filtering of content.

4.1. Interpretation of Findings

Our findings speak to the complexity of designing mathematics lessons that integrate social issues, revealing that the challenges participants faced were not solely rooted in content knowledge, but deeply intertwined with emotional and social concerns. Participants expressed fear about how students might respond to lessons on social justice, and even greater anxiety when those topics conflicted with their personal values or were perceived as controversial. In some cases, participants feared serious consequences such as professional backlash or job loss. These fears are similar to concerns expressed in Gul Aga (2024) where TCs questioned if the school and parents would support the social justice lesson that they were planning to teach. These fears reflect not only internal tensions but also the broader sociopolitical risks of engaging in justice-oriented teaching. As such, these concerns must be acknowledged as rational and valid. Teacher education programs should create spaces that embrace diverse values, foster open dialogue, and offer support for navigating the emotional and professional risks involved in teaching mathematics for social justice.

Regarding resolutions, our findings highlight the resolve of TCs and PTs to overcome the challenges associated with designing mathematics lessons that integrate social justice issues. For example, one participant initially expressed hesitation about teaching mathematics for social justice because she believed it focused exclusively on race, an area she felt uncertain about. This echoes findings from Bartell (2013), who also noted that some educators initially resist TMSJ due to perceived limitations or discomfort with race-related topics. While this participant ultimately chose not to center her lesson on race, she designed a lesson around poverty, a topic she felt personally connected to. Lacking a clear starting point, she reached out to her father, who shared stories about the poverty he experienced growing up. Drawing on this connection, she created a lesson that integrated mathematics and real-world issues in a way that was both meaningful and manageable for her. This example illustrates how even participants who were initially reluctant found ways to engage in TMSJ by connecting to issues aligned with their lived experiences.

Another common challenge participants faced when designing their lessons was navigating time constraints, particularly concerns about whether they could adequately address social justice issues while still meeting required mathematics standards. This mirrors findings from Gul Aga (2024), who found that both middle and secondary TCs expressed similar anxieties. One TC in their study asked, “How do I include social justice into basic fundamentals of math, and will I have enough time to cover all of the learning standards if I do this?” (Gul Aga, 2024, p. 220). Another TC wondered whether spending time unpacking social justice topics would leave enough time to address core mathematics content. Pourdavood and Yan (2022) identified similar concerns related to state-mandated tests. These concerns reflect broader tensions in the field about the purpose of school mathematics: Is it primarily to build procedural fluency and cover standards, or is it to equip students with tools for critical thinking and real-world problem solving? Or can it be both? Regardless of stance, these questions are valid and must be taken seriously. As mathematics teacher educators, we must recognize that time-related concerns are not simply logistical; they are also ideological, as they reflect underlying questions about what counts as mathematics and what purposes it should serve in students’ lives.

Although not coded as a primary theme, this finding warrants further discussion due to its conceptual significance. We found that while some PTs and TCs, Stanley and Alisha, explicitly acknowledged their cognitive challenges identifying social justice issues to include in their lesson design, others held fundamental misconceptions about TMSJ. For example, Terry did not recognize her misunderstanding yet still demonstrated a fundamental misconception. She consistently described TMSJ as teaching about social justice or teaching in a socially just way, rather than as a pedagogical approach that uses mathematics to explore and interrogate social justice issues (e.g., Garii & Appova, 2013). Although Terry expressed strong support for TMSJ in her reflections, this misconception persisted throughout the course and remained unresolved. This finding suggests that teacher education programs should explicitly define and unpack the meaning of social justice in mathematics education to help TCs and PTs develop a nuanced understanding and avoid common misconceptions. Providing clear conceptual frameworks and examples can support more authentic and meaningful integration of social justice in math lessons. We provide specific guidance and recommendation regarding such frameworks and tools in the implications section.

4.2. Comparisons with Other Studies

This study also builds on prior research by offering a more granular view of the specific challenges that TCs and PTs encounter when designing TMSJ lessons. Rather than treating these as broad “planning challenges,” our findings surface distinct concerns, including how participants generated topics, managed instructional time, selected and evaluated data, and determined how to present lessons to students.

Many of the challenges identified in this study echo concerns raised in prior research. For example, consistent with Bartell (2013), participants reported fear of backlash and discomfort when addressing topics such as racism. Similarly, participants’ difficulty balancing social justice goals with rigorous mathematics reflects ongoing tensions described by both Bartell (2013) and Lolkus et al. (2025). The lack of quality resources that blend rich mathematics with justice-oriented content also aligns with findings from Lolkus et al. (2025), underscoring a persistent need for curricular support. Additionally, while affective responses to social justice content have been well documented among K–12 students (e.g., Kokka, 2022), this study contributes new insight by highlighting how educators themselves experience emotional challenges. These included discomfort with certain topics, fear of student or stakeholder reactions, and in some cases, anxiety about job security. These fears were deeply personal and shaped their decisions about lesson content.

In this way, our findings suggest the presence of a third kind of negotiation in TMSJ lesson design. Bartell (2013) described how teachers must navigate tensions between mathematical content goals and social justice aims. However, our participants also engaged in what we describe as affective negotiation, making instructional decisions based on their own emotional comfort and the anticipated emotional responses of others. For example, several participants chose topics they felt were “safer” or more emotionally neutral, not because they were the most relevant or impactful, but because they believed these topics were less likely to provoke controversy. This adds to existing literature by illustrating how emotions and perceived risks shape what teachers feel able or willing to teach. These findings suggest that teacher education must attend not only to cognitive and pedagogical preparation but also to the affective dimensions of TMSJ. Providing structured spaces for TCs and PTs to discuss emotional discomfort, fear of backlash, and values-based decision-making could help them navigate this third layer of negotiation.

Finally, this study extends prior work by identifying conceptual confusion about what qualifies as a social justice topic. While Bartell (2013) found that some educators avoided race-based content, our findings suggest that some participants disengaged entirely from TMSJ due to unclear or overly narrow definitions (e.g., Lolkus et al., 2025) of what counts as social justice. This signals a need for more explicit support in helping teachers understand the breadth and nuance of social justice in mathematics education.

4.3. Implications for Supporting Lesson Design

4.3.1. Addressing Structural Challenges: Improve Access to Quality Resources

Based on our findings, we know that secondary TCs and PTs need particular support to design mathematics lessons that integrate social justice issues. One of the challenges they encountered was structural in nature, including limited access to lesson resources, relevant data sets, and examples of mathematics lessons with social justice components. TCs in Lolkus et al. (2025) also reported wanting more resources that would support their development and use of mathematics that integrates social justice issues. These structural barriers are within the realm of influence and control of MTEs. Therefore, we recommend that MTEs ensure such resources are readily available to TCs and PTs both before and during the lesson planning process. Such resources could include access to news stories, newspapers, databases, and US census data (e.g., Bartell, 2013). This could address some of the structural challenges faced by TCs and PTs.

4.3.2. Modeling TMSJ Lessons: Learn from and Teach Pre-Designed Examples

One key recommendation is to provide TCs and PTs with the opportunity to internalize pre-designed lessons before creating their own. Lessons such as those developed by Berry et al. (2020) and Childs and Staley (2024) can serve as strong models. Furthermore, TCs and PTs should have opportunities to teach these lessons, either in their field placements (e.g., Lolkus et al., 2025) or in peer settings. Teaching the lesson, receiving feedback, and revising it offers meaningful opportunities to refine both the content and the pedagogy. Bartell (2013), for example, highlighted the importance of this iterative process in developing more effective instruction. Moreover, engaging with students, particularly K–12 learners, allows PTs and TCs to witness firsthand the impact of socially just mathematics instruction. In Wright’s (2017) study, one PT who initially expressed concern about the amount of “concrete” mathematics students would learn later realized “the value of providing real life contexts that were convincing and genuine, rather than over-simplistic and contrived” (p. 522). Similarly, teaching their own lessons enabled PTs to engage with unanticipated student responses and reflect on areas where their lessons fell short, as Bartell (2013) also observed. This could address some of the cognitive challenges faced by TCs and PTs.

4.3.3. Supporting Lesson Design: Use Frameworks and Tools

In addition to lesson examples, we recommend that MTEs provide lesson development tools and frameworks to guide TCs and PTs in creating socially just mathematics lessons. Tools such as those offered by Aguirre et al. (2019), E. Gutstein (2006), Kokka (2022), Lolkus et al. (2025), and Register et al. (2022) offer structured guidance for lesson development. In our study, participants were given a general lesson plan template, but not one specifically designed for integrating social justice into mathematics. One example of a more targeted tool is the CRMT (Culturally Responsive Mathematics Teaching) lesson tool. This tool serves three purposes: (1) to assist PTs in developing mathematics lessons that are culturally responsive (including social justice components), (2) to analyze existing lesson plans and enactments, and (3) to explicitly identify and emphasize key elements of culturally responsive teaching. Register et al. (2022) found the CRMT tool to be particularly useful with PTs and later proposed a modified version that may be more appropriate for TCs and more broadly applicable for lessons integrating both mathematics and social justice goals. We also recommend the use of the GAISE Framework for Statistical Problem Solving (Lolkus et al., 2025; Franklin et al., 2017) to support TCs and PTs in designing investigations that connect data analysis with social justice contexts. The GAISE model (i.e., formulate statistical questions, collect data, analyze data, and interpret results) provides a clear structure for developing lessons that help students engage with meaningful, real-world issues through statistical reasoning. This could address some of the cognitive challenges faced by TCs and PTs.

4.3.4. Preparing for Social Challenges

Social challenges also emerged in our findings, particularly around navigating peer, mentor, and institutional expectations. Providing space for TCs and PTs to reflect collaboratively and role-play potential classroom or school-based interactions may support their preparation in this area. Additionally, opportunities to engage with documented enactments of social justice mathematics lessons can help preservice teachers develop a deeper understanding of how these lessons unfold in practice. While TCs and PTs may not yet be ready to fully enact such lessons themselves, reading about and analyzing real classroom implementations, such as those presented by E. R. Gutstein (2016), Rubel et al. (2016), and Voss and Rickards (2016), can offer valuable insight into the challenges and strategies involved. These examples provide concrete models of how teachers navigate social justice issues within mathematics instruction at the secondary level, supporting TCs and PTs in envisioning effective approaches and anticipating social dynamics they may face. This may support TCs and PTs with some of the social and cognitive challenges they faced.

4.3.5. Attending to Affective Dimensions of TMSJ

We also recommend that MTEs provide TCs and PTs with the updated version of the Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice (TMSJ) framework. While E. Gutstein’s (2006) original model identified mathematical and social justice goals, Kokka (2022) introduced a third pedagogical goal: the affective domain. This addition encourages TCs and PTs to consider not only the content and context of their lessons but also how to support students emotionally as they engage with complex social justice issues through mathematics. Attending to the affective domain challenges educators to respond thoughtfully to students’ emotional reactions, questions, and potential resistance. This is particularly important given our findings, which show that participants faced affective challenges when anticipating how students might respond to lessons focused on social justice. Including the affective domain in the lesson design process offers a pathway to proactively address these concerns and to foster a more responsive approach to teaching mathematics for social justice. This could address some of the cognitive and affective challenges faced by TCs and PTs.

4.3.6. Preparing for Integrating Issues Related to Race and Racism

One notable affective challenge that emerged in our study was TCs’ and PTs’ reluctance or discomfort in addressing controversial issues, particularly those related to race and racism, within mathematics lessons. This hesitancy can inhibit the full integration of social justice topics in the classroom. The literature offers several promising strategies to address this challenge. For example, Lolkus et al. (2025) emphasize the importance of building community within classrooms as a foundational step toward creating a safe space where difficult conversations can take place. Harper (2019) recommends normalizing discussions about race, encouraging intersectional analyses of social justice topics, constructing counter-narratives, and creating space for student-led action. Larnell et al. (2016) also offer guidance on intersectional analysis, particularly through the application of selected tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). They argue that racism, racialization, and systemic inequality are often overlooked in TMSJ lessons and propose that teachers intentionally consider how race and racism may shape the social justice issues being explored in the mathematics classroom. For example, in Bartell’s (2013) study, a group of PTs designed a lesson around prison populations but initially avoided including any component that addressed racism. When prompted, they acknowledged the potential relevance of race but ultimately struggled to integrate it meaningfully into the lesson. The use of a CRT lens might have supported them in critically examining the racial dynamics embedded in the issue, and more broadly, may support TCs and PTs in addressing race-related topics with greater clarity and confidence. Incorporating these strategies may help TCs and PTs overcome affective barriers and engage more authentically and courageously with controversial, yet critical, social justice issues in mathematics classrooms.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

The current study is subject to several limitations. First, the data were collected from assignments completed as part of a required mathematics methods course. While participation in the research was voluntary, the course context likely influenced participants’ willingness to engage, as well as the nature of their responses. It is possible that some individuals may not have participated in the study had it not been embedded in a course they were already enrolled in. Nevertheless, steps were taken to ensure ethical standards, and participants were made aware that their participation in the study was optional and separate from course grading. We chose to situate this study within a methods course because this is one avenue where mathematics teacher preparation takes place. However, future research might examine similar questions in contexts where participation is not tied to course assignments, such as professional development settings (e.g., Cahill & Bostic, 2024), to explore how voluntary engagement shapes participants’ responses and learning.

Second, this study involved a relatively small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research could build on this work by employing larger samples to examine whether the patterns observed here are consistent across larger sample sizes. Additionally, future studies could also explore whether the challenges encountered by TCs differ from those experienced by PTs. Such a study could help mathematics teacher educators and those who conduct professional development to better prepare TCs and experienced teachers to teach mathematics for social justice.

5. Conclusions

This study revealed the complex challenges that TCs and PTs face when attempting to design mathematics lessons that integrate social justice (e.g., Lolkus et al., 2025). Yet, despite these challenges, most of the participants demonstrated resolve in finding ways to engage with the work, often leaning on personal connections, course content, and peer collaboration (e.g., Bartell, 2013). These findings underscore the need for teacher education programs to provide not only conceptual tools as outlined by Register et al. (2022), but also emotional and communal support for educators navigating this work. By documenting both the types of challenges and the resolutions participants enacted, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on teaching mathematics for social justice, especially by foregrounding the affective and social dimensions of this pedagogical approach. Future research might explore how these challenges and resolutionss play out across different contexts, including in-service professional development (e.g., Bartell, 2013; Harper et al., 2021) and school-based practice (e.g., Wright, 2017). Supporting educators in this work remains critical if we are to foster mathematics classrooms that are not only mathematically rich but also socially meaningful.