Student-Faculty Partnerships in Mathematics Undergraduate Coursework

Abstract

This study examines how student–faculty partnerships are experienced within undergraduate mathematics coursework at a majority Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). Drawing on the Student as Partners (SaP) theoretical framework and using an interpretive phenomenological research design, we examined the lived experiences of student and faculty partners who participated in a series of professional development sessions on student-faculty partnerships and equitable teaching and learning practices in mathematics courses. Findings indicate that student partners’ lived experiences in the partnership program contributed to the development of sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and awareness of the need to link real-world and culturally responsive applications to mathematics learning. On the part of the faculty partners, findings indicate that their lived experiences in the student-faculty partnership program contributed to enhanced self-efficacy through professional growth, development of new perspectives on teaching, and awareness of fostering culturally responsive teaching and learning experiences. The study highlights the transformative potential of student-faculty partnerships in bridging traditional mathematics instruction with students’ lived learning experiences and perspectives on fostering real-world, reflective, and student-centered learning environments for all students. Specifically, the study showcases the promise of partnership models in mathematics settings and points to the need for future research on scalable approaches that support the success of culturally and linguistically diverse students in STEM.

1. Introduction

Student-faculty partnerships represent transformative approaches to course design, teaching practices, and student engagement in higher education (Cook-Sather, 2024). Building on a strong foundation of equitable educational practices, these partnerships are rooted in collaboration and reflection where students are positioned as co-creators and collaborators who may review teaching materials, conduct course observations, and offer overall feedback on teaching, fostering agency and confidence in students and faculty members (Cavazos et al., 2024; Cook-Sather et al., 2021). In mathematics courses, where traditional pedagogies often reinforce hierarchical structures and rigid assessment models (Bunnell et al., 2021; Wilson, 2022; Stains et al., 2018), student-faculty partnerships present an opportunity to reimagine learning environments responsive to students’ aspirations and needs. This is of utmost importance in the case of culturally and linguistically diverse college student populations who have long demonstrated their potential to thrive in STEM fields (Bunnell et al., 2021) but whose knowledge systems and identities are rarely represented in dominant mathematics instructional models and curricula (Chase, 2020; Gutierrez, 2012; Marshall, 2023) and in STEM education in general (E. O. McGee, 2020). By engaging STEM student majors as student partners, institutions can build on the linguistic, cultural, and experiential assets all students bring into STEM education.

Our work is guided by scholarship that foregrounds student voice in course design within STEM fields where power dynamics between faculty and students are often pronounced (Bardenova & Thomas, 2023; Chase, 2020; Cook-Sather et al., 2023). Research suggests that partnerships not only enhance students’ learning experiences but also prompt faculty members to critically reflect on teaching, fostering an iterative process of pedagogical refinement (Bell et al., 2020; Bunnell et al., 2021). Furthermore, partnerships promote social justice in education by centering the cultural wealth and lived experiences of diverse students in STEM disciplines (E. McGee & Bentley, 2017; Marshall, 2023; Yosso, 2005). Situated at a majority Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), with over 90% of the student population identifying as Hispanic, this study explores the impact of student-faculty partnerships in undergraduate mathematics coursework. Using a qualitative phenomenological design, we examine (a) what is the impact of an innovative student-faculty partnership program on faculty participants’ mindset beliefs about teaching and implementation of new approaches in the teaching of mathematics? (b) what are undergraduate STEM student partners’ perceptions of learning experiences in mathematics undergraduate courses, and how did they experience the student-faculty partnership program? This pilot program centers on co-developing mathematics courses through structured feedback and reflective dialogue that honors all students’ culturally and linguistically diverse strengths while promoting mutual learning and growth.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Students as Partners in Undergraduate Mathematics

Higher education scholarship has documented that culturally and linguistically diverse students bring rich funds of knowledge, including bilingual repertoires and community-based problem-solving practices, that can enhance learning experiences (González et al., 2001; Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2018; Moll et al., 2006; Xenofontos, 2019; Yosso, 2005). These strengths position students not only as capable learners but also as contributors to disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical improvement. In mathematics, equity-oriented scholarship has advocated practices that honor students’ lived experiences, language practices, and cultural resources as integral to disciplinary engagement (Aguirre et al., 2024; González et al., 2001; E. McGee & Bentley, 2017).

Despite these assets, traditional instructional norms in higher education have historically positioned faculty members as primary authorities and students as passive recipients of knowledge (Freire, 1970/2000), a dynamic especially visible in mathematics classrooms (Boaler, 1998). Conventional lecture-centered models, typical of many college-level mathematics courses (Laursen et al., 2014), often limit students’ opportunities to pose questions, share reasoning, or influence the trajectory of mathematical inquiry, reinforcing a one-way transmission of knowledge from instructor to student (Boaler, 1998; Freire, 1970/2000; Nortvedt & Buchholtz, 2018). Likewise, high-stakes assessment structures further reinforce this transmission-of-knowledge model by constraining student agency and positioning success as meeting inflexible performance expectations rather than engaging in iterative reasoning (Fernandez et al., 2025; Villalobos et al., 2024). These dynamics are particularly salient within HSI contexts where institutional structures that privilege dominant academic discourse may inadvertently marginalize culturally and linguistically diverse students’ knowledge and experiences (Kiyama & Rios-Aguilar, 2018). When students’ language practices or cultural ways of knowing are undervalued, their mathematical reasoning and contributions may be overlooked rather than leveraged as instructional resources (Aguirre et al., 2024; González et al., 2001; Moschkovich, 2010).

Student–faculty partnership models offer a promising avenue for re-envisioning roles and relationships in mathematics learning by redistributing epistemic authority and positioning students as collaborators in teaching and learning processes (Cavazos et al., 2024; Cook-Sather et al., 2021). This conceptualization of partnership is articulated in the Students as Partners (SaP) framework, which theorizes teaching and learning as a collaborative, reciprocal, and equity-oriented process where students and faculty work together as co-contributors to educational design, implementation, and reflection (Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). Within the SaP framework, partnership is understood as a sustained relational practice that intentionally redistributes power, recognizes students’ experiential and cultural expertise, and supports mutual learning between students and faculty.

Extensive research has shown that partnerships grounded in this orientation challenge assumptions of fixed faculty expertise and deficit-oriented views of students, build on students’ existing strengths, and align with calls to humanize classroom power structures (Cook-Sather et al., 2021; Peck, 2020; Bunnell et al., 2021). However, scholarship examining partnership approaches in undergraduate mathematics, and especially within HSI contexts, remains limited, with much of the empirical work situated outside mathematics or without sustained attention to linguistic and cultural diversity (Cavazos, 2024; Cavazos et al., 2024). Exploring partnership models in HSI mathematics settings, therefore, offers critical insight into how power may be negotiated, shared, and reimagined in ways that (re)shape student-faculty relationships. At the same time, understanding partnerships solely as structural interventions provides an incomplete picture. Redistributing power in the classroom is deeply connected to how students experience relationships, belonging, confidence, and identity in academic spaces (Cavazos et al., 2024; Cook-Sather et al., 2021; Millar et al., 2024). Student–faculty partnerships, therefore, operate not only as a mechanism for shifting authority but also as a relational practice that supports students’ social, emotional, and academic development (Millar et al., 2024).

Guided by the SaP framework as the overarching theoretical lens for this study, the following subsections examine how student–faculty partnerships are enacted and experienced across three interrelated components emphasized in SaP scholarship. Specifically, the sections conceptualize partnerships as (1) relational spaces that foreground student voice and foster a sense of belonging, (2) reflective spaces that support shared learning and the development of self-efficacy among both students and faculty, and (3) critical spaces that promote equity-oriented dialogue and the cultivation of critical consciousness. Together, these components operationalize core principles of SaP by illustrating how power-sharing, relationality, and agency are negotiated within student–faculty partnerships in undergraduate mathematics contexts.

2.2. Relational Dimensions of Students as Partners: Voice and Belonging

Student–faculty partnership scholarship emphasizes that meaningful educational change emerging from partnerships arises from human connection and relational trust, where learning is shaped through dialogue and shared agency rather than hierarchy (Bell et al., 2020). Within this framework, student voice functions as student feedback and reciprocal learning, positioning students as leaders and creators alongside instructors in educational practice (Cook-Sather, 2020). Thereby, both student and faculty member build interpersonal trust that redefines authority, as voice is exercised through sustained dialogue, negotiated goals, and shared decision-making (Cook-Sather, 2024).

Indeed, research illustrates that when faculty meaningfully engage student voice, the affective climate of the classroom shifts. Studies by Bardenova and Thomas (2023), Cavazos and Chapa (2022), Cavazos et al. (2024), and Cook-Sather (2024) show that student input encourages faculty members to restructure their classrooms, such as implementing alternative forms of grading and creating feedback surveys for students to complete during the semester. These student-informed practices exemplify partnerships as relational spaces that foster empathy, respect, and authentic collaboration, demonstrating the value of student advocacy. As a result, student partners gain valuable academic and professional experiences while developing stronger connections with instructors in higher education (Millar et al., 2024).

Belonging is also central to the relational foundations of partnership work. Tinto (2017) notes that sense of belonging is “shaped by a complex array of forces not the least of which are the person’s own perceptual frame that is a product of past experience and their perception of how others in the environment perceive them” (p. 8). Furthermore, he highlights that students’ sense of belonging is “shaped by the broader campus climate and the perceptions of belonging students derive from their daily interactions with other students, faculty, staff, and administrators on campus and the messages those interactions convey about their belonging (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Stebleton et al., 2014).” (Tinto, 2017, p. 5). Tinto (2017) exemplifies how these daily interactions contribute to students’ belonging in the context of both academic and social belonging. Partnerships impact these relational conditions by creating sustained, structured interactions between students and faculty members that affirm students’ presence and contributions in academic spaces (Cook-Sather, 2024). Similarly, Bell et al. (2020) emphasize that collaborative relationships in partnership initiatives foster confidence and relational trust, while Millar et al. (2024) find that partnership participation builds students’ academic belonging by supporting their engagement as co-researchers and co-designers. However, empirical work remains limited on how mathematics-specific partnerships foster belonging among culturally and linguistically diverse students at HSIs, signaling a need for further contextualized inquiry.

2.3. Reflective Dimensions of Students as Partners: Shared Learning and Self-Efficacy

While relational partnerships emphasize building a sense of belonging via student voice, reflective partnerships emphasize how students and faculty make sense of their learning through ongoing dialogue, feedback, and analysis of practice. In these spaces, participants engage in cycles of reflection that deepen awareness of how teaching and learning occur and how each partner contributes to improvement. Central to this process is the development of self-efficacy, which refers to belief in one’s capacity to influence outcomes through purposeful action (Bandura, 1997). That is, self-efficacy is not one’s awareness about existing skills or capabilities, but rather the belief of what one is able to accomplish with those skills and capabilities (Escobar et al., 2022, p. 388). Within student–faculty partnerships, self-efficacy is cultivated through reciprocal reflection; that is, students gain confidence as they see their insights shape instructional decisions, while faculty strengthen their sense of pedagogical agency as they witness evidence of student learning resulting from collaborative refinement (Escobar et al., 2022; Barni et al., 2019). Scholars have examined how student–faculty collaborations serve as contexts for shared reflection, feedback, and dialogic engagement where students draw upon prior knowledge, contribute feedback, and participate in reflective dialogue that informs teaching and learning practices (Millar et al., 2024; Cavazos & Chapa, 2022). For instance, Cavazos et al. (2023) demonstrate that reflective partnerships strengthen academic confidence and agency as students learn to articulate pedagogical insights and faculty refine instruction through student-generated evidence. Cook-Sather et al. (2021) and Cavazos and Chapa (2022) further note that building and sustaining trust between student and faculty partners supports open communication and reflective dialogue, which can, in turn, inform broader cultures of responsiveness and collaboration in instructional practice.

Similarly, faculty-focused research has explored how student–faculty partnerships enhance instructional awareness and pedagogical self-efficacy. Pedagogical self-efficacy can be conceptualized as “teachers’ beliefs in their ability to effectively handle the tasks, obligations, and challenges related to their professional activity, which plays a key role in influencing important academic outcomes (e.g., students’ achievement and motivation) and well-being in the working environment” (Barni et al., 2019, p. 1). Indeed, Cook-Sather et al. (2017, 2023) discovered that partnerships provide instructors with real-time feedback and affirmations of what strategies worked for students enrolled in their courses. Instructor self-efficacy can transform how students experience the learning environment and achieve outcomes. Through these iterative cycles of reflection, both students and instructors refine their self-perceptions of competence: students as emerging contributors to disciplinary knowledge and instructors as adaptive, responsive practitioners committed to continuous improvement. Despite this, evidence remains mixed on how these insights are operationalized in practice, particularly in disciplines like mathematics that historically emphasize procedural rigor over reflective dialogue.

2.4. Critical Dimensions of Students as Partners: Equity and Critical Consciousness

Where reflective partnerships focus on growth within existing structures, critical partnerships interrogate and transform those structures. They position students and faculty as co-investigators of systemic inequities in teaching and learning, fostering critical consciousness, or an awareness of the social and mathematical structures that perpetuate or challenge oppression (Shibli, 2011; Stephan et al., 2021). For instance, Cook-Sather (2020) emphasizes that integrating student voice and agency in the classroom setting empowers students to speak up on insights and perspectives that may negatively impact underrepresented students’ success, which ultimately will lead to deeper engagement. In related work, Yosso (2005) encourages educators to recognize the strengths and cultural wealth that marginalized students bring to the educational environment, including linguistic repertoires, community knowledge, and resilient problem-solving practices. By centering on the strengths of underrepresented students, educators can challenge and resist deficit thinking, which Peck (2020) refers to the belief that underrepresented groups of students lack knowledge that may contribute to an achievement gap when compared with students in overrepresented groups. Together, these perspectives underscore the transformative effects of leveraging student voice and cultural wealth to promote equity and engagement in education (Cavazos & Chapa, 2022; Cavazos, 2024).

Faculty engagement within partnerships has also been explored as a space for reciprocal reflection on equity and inclusion. Through structured dialogue and feedback, faculty members are invited to engage in open and sometimes vulnerable conversations that surface assumptions, interrogate bias, and reexamine classroom language and norms (Cook-Sather, 2024; Cavazos & Chapa, 2022). Ultimately, student-faculty partnerships foster a greater understanding of the importance of open communication, reflection, and the recognition of marginalized students’ strengths in creating a more equitable learning environment (Bunnell et al., 2021).

Unlike relational or reflective partnerships, critical partnerships operate at the structural and ideological level, using collaboration to examine power, culture, and justice in mathematics education. For instance, Bell et al. (2020) found that conversations among faculty members and students from across different disciplinary backgrounds enhance cultural competence and empower students to address diverse cultural considerations. For instance, faculty partners found various strategies to engage the topic of cultural competence with their students, such as completing community projects in a history class, cultural connection with geographical concepts in a geography class, and in-class cultural trivia in a project management class. When instructors listen to voices that differ from their own academic, linguistic, and cultural background, they are introduced to new perspectives they did not previously consider. Similarly, Cavazos and Chapa (2022) emphasize that partnerships foster students’ reflection on cultural competence by engaging in meaningful, respectful, and equity-driven collaboration that validates and centers diverse voices. Cook-Sather (2024) and Cavazos et al. (2023) also highlight that consistent and empathetic feedback from student partners supports faculty partners’ ability to identify areas for continuous growth that align with students’ diverse needs and backgrounds.

Nonetheless, the mechanisms through which partnerships cultivate critical consciousness in mathematics, whether through curriculum revision, feedback cycles, or professional reflection, remain insufficiently theorized, especially within HSIs. While some researchers highlight the benefits of student–faculty partnerships for both student and faculty partners, few researchers explore how these partnerships unfold within the context of mathematics coursework, which are spaces often dominated by rigid pedagogies, traditional assessment practices, and hierarchical norms (Chase, 2020; Gutierrez, 2012; Marshall, 2023). A study by Bolick et al. (2025) studied networked improvement communities (NICs) comprising faculty-student partnerships in introductory mathematics courses at a university designated as an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI) and HSI. The scholars discuss four positions that students adopted in the partnership to bring about change within inequities represented in mathematics instruction. In another article, Lee (2021) describes her experience and contributions as a non-STEM college student partner with a mathematics faculty partner, often noting assets related to pedagogical expertise. While these scholars highlight the impact of student-faculty partnerships in mathematics, few researchers have examined how culturally and linguistically diverse populations in HSI mathematics settings navigate or reshape those hierarchical structures, leaving a critical gap in understanding both the processes and conditions under which partnerships lead to transformative change. Our study, therefore, aims to build on the student-faculty partnership scholarship by focusing on undergraduate mathematics courses at an HSI, thereby highlighting students’ unique learning experiences. We aim to examine the impact of student-faculty partnerships on both student and faculty partners’ lived experiences in creating student-centered and equity-driven reform in STEM education.

3. Methodology

Situated at a majority HSI, where culturally and linguistically diverse ways of knowing shape the dominant learning environment, this study examined partnerships as sites for reconfiguring disciplinary power relations and affirming students’ experiential resources as legitimate contributors to mathematical knowledge. Given the relational and context-dependent nature of these partnerships, Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Smith & Nizza, 2022) was used to ascertain themes represented in the student and faculty participants’ respective personal interviews about their lived experiences in the student-faculty partnership program. Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis recognizes that participants make sense of their experiences while researchers also interpret the meaning of that sense-making (Smith & Nizza, 2022). A phenomenological analysis together with culturally relevant methodological practices helps us place “the voices and needs of people who have been historically minoritized and the environments that we inhabit, at the center of [our] scholarly inquiry” (Pasque & Alexander, 2023, p. 2) as well as ontological and epistemological positions that highlight the reality of any phenomenon within individuals lived experiences (Hays & Singh, 2012; Hannon et al., 2019; Young, 2017). Accordingly, the research design foregrounds the lived experiences of both student and faculty partners, centering historically minoritized voices to examine how student–faculty partnerships are experienced and made meaningful within a majority-HSI mathematics context.

3.1. Participants and Context of Professional Development Activities

After Institutional Review Board approval, we recruited participants from a group of instructors and students who participated in a National Science Foundation grant-funded pilot program on student-faculty partnerships in mathematics coursework. The participants in this study consist of four faculty partners and four student partners. The faculty partners teach mathematics coursework, such as College Algebra, Elementary Statistical Methods, Pre-Calculus, or Calculus I and II. The student partners who participated in the study were majoring in mathematics, statistics, or chemistry. All participants were provided with the option to choose their pseudonyms or use their real names. We used the participants’ choice when referring to their experiences. Please see

Table 1. Student and Faculty Partnerships.

Student Partners	Faculty Partners
Rosalinda (Mathematics major)	RS (Mathematics)
Alice (Chemistry major)	Jacob (Mathematics)
Javi (Mathematics major)	Andres (Mathematics)
Amaris (Statistics major)	Michael (Mathematics)

: Student-Faculty Partnerships for details on each student and faculty partner.

The program consisted of a two-semester commitment to professional development sessions on student-faculty partnerships for both student and faculty partners, which were facilitated by the director of a center for teaching and learning. Students were hired as student partners for both the fall 2023 and spring 2024 semesters, and they participated in weekly professional development sessions centered on how to engage in meaningful student-faculty partnerships as well as explorations of evidence-based scholarly research on teaching and learning in higher education. During the fall 2023 semester, student and faculty partners attended three professional development sessions together on: (a) exploring cultural, linguistic, and social assets as learning opportunities for all students, (b) challenging implicit biases and reconsidering representation, and (c) implementing student-centered feedback and assessment strategies. The sessions supported student and faculty partners in getting to know each other and reflecting on their values and beliefs toward teaching and learning. Additionally, the faculty partners submitted their course syllabi and an assignment to receive feedback from student partners. Subsequently, student partners were paired to review the teaching documents as they conducted a primary and secondary feedback review. Informed by student partners’ training and evidence-based research on best teaching and learning practices in mathematics coursework, they reviewed and provided feedback to the instructors on their teaching documents, which was reviewed and discussed collectively with the director and fellow student partners. Once the feedback review was completed, student partners met with their assigned faculty partner to engage in a reciprocal dialogue about the teaching materials and explore additional insights as faculty partners prepared to teach the course the following semester.

In the spring 2024 semester, the student and faculty partners attended three additional professional development sessions together on: (a) eliciting and reflecting on course observation feedback from student partners, (b) exploring accessibility and student engagement, and (c) sharing student partner feedback impact and teaching revisions through a collaborative showcase. During the spring 2024 semester, student partners conducted weekly course observations by using a Weekly Student Observation sheet, which was co-designed with student partners informed by scholarship in teaching and learning. In the sheet, the faculty partners had a space to specify a focus of the week, which included values, goals, and intentions for the course; learning objectives; and their “so what” and noted specific questions they had regarding their teaching and student learning. Informed by Wilson’s (2022) framework for developing a peer observation of teaching rubric, faculty members identified an area for feedback: explicitly stating assignment expectations, supporting connections and engagement between student context and the mathematics learning environment, attending to language for learning (e.g., cultural and mathematical), scaffolding learning and supporting a nurturing environment, feedback to students on learning and assessment materials, and faculty-student and student-student interactions among others. Student partners wrote observation notes, reflected on their observations, and asked questions. During their weekly professional development meetings they discussed their observations and reflections during scaffolded activities with the director and fellow student partners. Subsequently, during their weekly meetings with faculty partners, they discussed the observations to explore the next steps and potential revisions for the next week. Student partners also conducted a start-of-semester and end-of-semester teaching observation protocol adapted from the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) created by the Evaluation Facilitation Group (EFG) of the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT) with revisions informed by Wilson (2022).

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted personal interviews with all participants as a qualitative approach to explore their lived experiences with the student-faculty partnership (Crockett et al., 2018; Moustakas, 1994; Young, 2017). The lead author conducted the interviews at the conclusion of the two-semester program, drawing on prior conversations to build rapport. Each interview lasted 45–60 min and included open-ended questions to encourage participants to share experiences aligned with their learning moments. Using an interview question protocol ensured consistency across participants while allowing follow-up questions. This protocol also helped us explore participants’ most meaningful lived experiences with student-faculty partnerships in mathematics courses (Pasque & Alexander, 2023; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Interviews began with collecting relevant background information. Student partners were asked: What impact do you think participating in this student-faculty partnership program as a student partner had on you, your educational experiences at the institution, how you plan to approach your education, and/or your future professional aspirations? Faculty partners were asked: How would you describe your experience in the professional development series and in collaborating with a student teaching partner?

Like other researchers (e.g., Cavazos et al., 2024), we draw on Moustakas’s (1994) procedures for qualitative data collection, analysis, and trustworthiness by engaging the following practices: (a) bracketing our assumptions, beliefs, and values about student-faculty partnerships and teaching and learning practices in mathematics coursework; (b) collecting data from participants’ lived experiences; (c) analyzing those experiences in core curriculum mathematics coursework; and (d) describing participants’ lived experiences in their partnerships (Crockett et al., 2018; Pasque & Alexander, 2023; Vela et al., 2022, 2024). After transcribing the interviews, we analyzed the participants’ lived experiences through these steps (Hannon et al., 2019; Kocaman, 2024): (a) conducted an initial open-coding for content analysis to organize data into three main categories aligned with our research questions: what the participants learned, how they applied or intended to apply what they learned, and future learning intentions; (b) performed thematic coding within each category to identify emerging themes and reviewed the coding process and theme identification, engaged in feedback, and conducted a second level of open coding to identify subthemes across interview transcripts; (c) reviewed all codes and reached agreement among authors on emergent themes to ensure dependability and reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985); (d) explored confirmability and neutrality through consultations and reflections with co-authors (Creswell, 2014) to minimize bias and collectively agreed on the themes; and (e) combined textual and structural descriptions into a narrative capturing the essence of participants’ lived experiences to address transferability (Creswell, 2014; Smith & Osborn, 2015).

3.3. Bracketing Assumptions and Researchers’ Positionality

We aimed to reduce potential researcher bias (Creswell, 2014) by engaging an interdisciplinary team with diverse professional, educational, and life experiences relevant to the study. We discussed expectations of research outcomes and beliefs about effective mathematics teaching practices. The lead author, a bilingual professor of writing and language studies and director of a teaching and learning center at a large HSI, coordinated faculty workshops and mentored student partners in professional development activities on student-faculty partnerships and feedback processes. The second author, a bilingual mathematics educator and researcher, brings extensive experience in culturally sustaining mathematics instruction and an insider’s perspective on systemic challenges in mathematics education. The third author, an undergraduate mathematics major, served as a math partnership leader, student partner, and research assistant. The fourth author, a graduate student in Applied Statistics and Data Science, previously served as a student partner as an undergraduate student who co-led professional development sessions and assisted with research. The fifth author has contributed to STEM education projects, focused on improving mathematics coursework and alternative grading systems and participated in the pilot program’s professional development workshops.

Before beginning data analysis, we engaged in reflexive conversations to identify potential biases, values, and expectations related to the student-faculty partnerships in mathematics coursework (Pope et al., 2022), mindful of our own histories and experiences with student-faculty partnerships and STEM disciplines. Key biases included: (a) the lead author had a prior negative and dismissive experience with student-faculty partnerships in STEM discipline and expressed her concerns; (b) the third and fourth author felt discouraged when instructors omitted a focus of the week for feedback in their weekly observations or appeared disengaged during weekly conversations; (c) the first, third, fourth, and fifth authors also felt dismissed at times when faculty members disagreed about recommendations against testing students on untaught concepts; (d) the second author identified as both a member of the community and a researcher, which posed challenges during analysis due to the author’s personal connection to the community being studied; and (e) the fifth author also identified as a member of the community, a researcher in this study, and as a colleague to the faculty participants, which presented a challenge in discussions to determine if and when to provide feedback in professional development sessions. Our aim was to ensure coding and analysis reflected the lived experiences of the student and faculty partners and centered on the voices of minoritized students and faculty members often silenced in STEM disciplines.

4. Results

After the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of student and faculty partner interviews, we identified three themes for each group. The themes are organized to reflect how participants described their lived experiences across relational, epistemic, and instructional dimensions of the student–faculty partnership program, with each theme capturing a distinct yet interconnected aspect of meaning-making. Student partners described: S.I Belonging through epistemic contribution, S.II Efficacy through explicit feedback uptake, and S.III Awareness through contextualized mathematics. Faculty partners described: F.I Instructional confidence through dialogic evidence, F.II Perspective shifts through reflection and discourse, and F.III Equity enactment through curriculum revision. Within each subsection, we first clarify the analytic focus of the theme and then illustrate how it manifested through participants’ narratives, using interview excerpts to ground interpretations.

Table 2. Summary of Student and Faculty Partners Thematic Labels.

Participant Group	Theme Label	Description
Student partners	S.I. Belonging through epistemic contribution	Students felt belonging through academic contribution, not just social membership
	S.II. Efficacy through explicit feedback uptake	Students’ confidence grew when they saw faculty implement their feedback
	S.III. Awareness through contextualized mathematics	Students developed awareness by connecting mathematics to fairness and culturally responsive applications beyond the classroom context.
Faculty partners	F.I. Instructional confidence through dialogic evidence	Confidence increased through iterative reflection cycles informed by student-generated evidence
	F.II. Perspective shifts through reflection and discourse	Perspective change followed engagement with readings and direct confrontation of assumptions
	F.III. Equity enactment through curriculum revision	Awareness translated into curricular redesign and more equitable assessment practices

summarizes the themes and concise descriptors that organize the narrative that follows.

4.1. Student Partners

4.1.1. S.I Belonging Through Epistemic Contribution

Student partners described belonging as epistemic, emerging when their intellectual contributions were recognized as consequential to teaching and learning rather than incidental to social participation (see Table 2, Theme S.I). For instance, student partners alluded to feeling a sense of belonging in higher education through distinct experiences in the program, such as solidarity with fellow student partners, ability to empathize with their instructors through conversations with faculty partners, and seeing themselves as contributors in creating meaningful educational environments. Their sense of belonging manifested through solidarity when student partners engaged in conversations with each other during professional development activities. Javi, a mathematics senior, reflected, “I had opportunities to engage in collaborative learning experiences, work on projects with peers and faculty, and participate in experiential learning activities. These experiences enriched my understanding of course material and provided practical insights into real-world applications.” Similarly, Amaris’s comments emphasized that her identification with the university emerged from becoming familiar with faculty and resources, consistent with S.I’s descriptor:

This program has made me feel like I am part of the [name of University] community. Through the math group meetings, I’ve realized how many resources are available to help us students that we don’t hear about in class or through the advising center. It has given me greater confidence to reach out to whatever resources are available around the school to help with pursu[ing] my academic and career goals. This program encourages me to not be afraid to speak to my instructors. Becoming familiar with the faculty floors in the math building and hearing their experiences helped me see that they are people, too. I reached out to the math society group chat for help with a code I needed to figure out for my internship. [Andres] reached out to me, and we scheduled a time to meet so he could see my code. Seeing him having to refer to older codes he did in the past and even getting errors on different attempts made me realize that realistically, we don’t have all information memorized; what matters is that we know how to search for help and build resilience when faced with challenges.

Javi’s and Amaris’s reflections illustrate that the partnership activities served as a mechanism for institutional integration, helping students see themselves as contributors to the university’s intellectual community rather than as passive learners. Their growing confidence, empathy, and recognition of shared learning processes with faculty members reflect epistemic belonging rooted in contribution and collaboration.

Student partners also noted gaining a sense of belonging in higher education by understanding instructors’ teaching and learning journey, developing insight into the human side of teaching. For example, Alice, a chemistry junior, shared that she appreciated “getting to know the faculty’s perspective.” She continued, “I never expected to have the faculty agree with me instantly […] my faculty partners [is] managing three classes. They’re trying to distribute the time [which] just really opened my eyes.” Alice further shared that through her dialogue with her faculty partner, she gained a better sense of her own instructor’s experiences related to the amount of grading: “I was just thinking that I mean it was a lot to grade and it was a big class and the professor probably has more classes.” While her classmates became anxious about getting their grades back, she suggested to them, “let’s just wait for him if it takes too long.” Alice was grateful to have the opportunity to share insights and engage in dialogue with her faculty partner despite their busy schedule and developed an empathetic stance toward all her professors, evidence of belonging within the academic community.

Finally, student partners reflected on how they experienced belonging at the institution through their student-faculty partnerships as they developed empathy toward fellow peers who may struggle with math. Rosalinda, a mathematics senior, shared,

Participating in the SaLT HSI program had a positive impact. Advocating for undergraduate students who struggle with math was meaningful, as I’ve often tutored individuals in high school with similar challenges, using various learning styles to help them understand mathematical concepts. This experience emphasized the importance of advocating for diverse learning needs, a value I’ll carry into my future as an educator.

Alice’s and Rosalinda’s reflections showcase how they moved from viewing instructors as distant authorities to understanding them as collaborators and advocates. Such empathy and advocacy signify the deeper form of belonging highlighted in S.I (Table 2), where students saw themselves as integral participants in shaping equitable learning environments.

4.1.2. S.II Efficacy Through Explicit Feedback Uptake

Building on this sense of epistemic belonging, students’ efficacy developed when their contributions were visibly taken up in instructional decisions, making their influence on teaching concrete and observable (see Table 2, Theme S.II). Witnessing tangible change validated students’ influence and deepened their belief in their professional and academic capacities. As Rosalinda reflected,

I noticed that [RS] was not allowing students enough time to work on problems independently. In our meeting, I praised her for establishing a timeframe for problem-solving, then asked her to reflect on extending that time for students. I shared I would feel less rushed as a student if this practice were implemented. She had not previously considered this approach but decided to apply it in class. As a result, she observed that her students began to open up to each other and to her, leading to a more positive environment.

By experiencing the application of her feedback in real-time, Rosalinda gained immediate affirmation of her potential as a future educator, which built belief in her ability to make a difference in higher education by creating more positive teaching and learning environments.

Alice shared a similar experience, and while she was hesitant about whether her feedback was meaningful, she noted that she provided feedback to her faculty partner about his concern related to student attendance and engagement: “I suggested he have exit tickets to make sure that students are attending to make a participation from.” Alice’s faculty partner was concerned about the amount of papers he would need for the exit tickets, so Alice suggested for “[Students] to take pictures of the work they do in-class [and post] on blackboard.” Alice demonstrated confidence in her ability to identify practical solutions and connect her suggestions to existing best practices in teaching and learning. Like Alice, Javi also felt hesitant in his ability to provide meaningful feedback through the partnership; he reflected,

I initially felt overwhelmed by the responsibilities and challenges involved in the possible outcomes and overthinking every step. However, as I immersed myself in the partnership and collaborated with my faculty partner, I discovered that I excel in areas that I didn’t know I did like asking meaningful questions, providing alternatives, and giving examples.

Javi’s belief in his hidden potential and growth mindset throughout the program is further illustrated in a group activity he co-designed with his faculty partner. He shared,

We designed interactive problem-solving sessions where students worked together in small groups to tackle challenging math problems. What worked well was the dynamic and collaborative nature of the activity, which encouraged active participation and peer-to-peer learning. Students were able to leverage each other’s strengths, share different problem-solving strategies, and provide support and encouragement to one another. This approach not only fostered a sense of camaraderie among students but also deepened their understanding of mathematical concepts through active engagement and dialogue. The success of this initiative was evident in the increased enthusiasm and motivation observed among students, as well as their improved performance on subsequent assessments.

Javi’s experience as a co-designer and his confidence while reflecting on the impact of the activity illustrate his self-efficacy in engaging students and building their confidence in understanding course material. Student partners’ lived experiences in the program illustrated not only their ability to improve through a growth mindset, but also the impact their insights can have in shaping the teaching and learning experiences of fellow peers, thereby also impacting their belief in their ability to make a difference in higher education.

Beyond classroom interactions, students linked these experiences to personal and professional growth. For Rosalinda, she shared that others perceive her as “having an ambitious spirit,” which to her reflects her “drive to continuously improve and achieve higher levels of personal and professional growth.” She elaborated:

I have demonstrated this ambition by organizing my tasks in a specific document just for work and enhancing my communication skills with everyone in [the program]. One significant example of my ambition is seen in my personal life, where I transitioned from a challenging environment to a more supportive one with my husband. I am dedicated to furthering my education with the goal of becoming an educator. Recognizing these qualities in myself has been enlightening, and I look forward to applying my ambitious nature to future challenges and opportunities.

Rosalinda’s reflection not only illustrates her strong sense of self-efficacy but also the impact she had on her peers, which subsequently also influences her desire to continue growing and embracing new challenges with an open mind. Similarly, from Amaris’s lived experiences, we learn:

This program has made me more open to the idea of teaching. To me, I find it so satisfying when there is specific knowledge I want to share with others and figuring out ways they can understand it without having prior experience. Trying to figure out different strategies to engage students in the classroom has made me curious about how I would implement these strategies for the sake of getting more students to build confidence in understanding the material. I still lean towards being a data analyst or biostatistician, but choosing to eventually be a professor and pass on my knowledge to others may also be an option.

While student partners already had a strong sense of self-efficacy before joining the program, especially in their commitment to pursue specific professions, their lived experiences in the program also revealed their strengths and potential in pursuing advanced degrees while inspiring others.

4.1.3. S.III Awareness Through Contextualized Mathematics

Lastly, as students’ belonging and efficacy strengthened, they described growing awareness of how mathematics instruction intersects with context, fairness, and lived experience, using these insights to evaluate and reshape classroom practices (see Table 2, Theme S.III). Their reflections revealed both cognitive understanding and moral commitment to more inclusive educational practices. For example, Javi reflected,

My feedback was influenced by conversations we had in the program on a weekly basis and monthly professional development sessions with faculty members. These discussions provided insights into best practices in teaching, including inclusive equity-minded practices, culturally relevant pedagogy, and social justice in mathematics. They equipped me with a deeper understanding of the importance of creating an inclusive learning environment where all students feel valued and supported. Additionally, they informed my approach to providing feedback to my faculty partner, as I sought to align my observations and suggestions with the strategies discussed during our professional development sessions.

Javi highlighted specific concepts explored in the program that influenced his observations, such as culturally relevant teaching and learning practices and social justice in mathematics. Javi not only aimed to align his feedback observation notes to what he was learning in the program, but he was also critically conscious of the need to advocate for this alignment. Like Javi, Rosalinda also referenced readings in the program that influenced her approaches to feedback and provided an example of how she supported her faculty partner in building awareness of cultural differences in the classroom to create an inclusive environment for all students:

The faculty partner I worked with had a different cultural background [i.e., non-Latinx] than [many of] her students. Sometimes, she would publicly point out and assign tasks to students that have been absent. In my feedback, I praised her for caring about the students’ attendance but suggested an alternative approach. I asked her to consider how she would feel if, instead of publicly singling out students, she approached them privately and expressed her concern in a quieter tone. I also shared how I, as a student, would feel embarrassed and less likely to participate in class activities if I were in that situation. She took note of this feedback and made changes accordingly.

Rosalinda’s perception of the faculty member’s cultural background potentially contributed to how she approached her students in the learning environment, which illustrates her awareness of the faculty member’s potential implicit biases in teaching as well as her own assumptions. By both praising the instructor’s care for her students’ success and suggesting an alternative approach where all her students feel welcomed, she not only acknowledges her faculty partner’s cultural strengths but also delicately navigates the cultural and learning needs of students in the course.

Student partners’ lived experiences highlighted their rhetorical agility in navigating different perspectives, whether stemming from differences in values, learning styles, or cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. For example, Alice reflects: “you need both […] the professor because it’s a different perspective [and] the same goes for the student point of view, joining these two perspectives and just seeing even if it’s small change, just getting on record because we don’t really use things sometimes unless there’s proof that it can change.” Alice’s reflections illustrate the importance of culturally relevant practices in collecting and reflecting on student feedback from different perspectives, especially in identifying evidence of the impact teaching practices have on students’ learning journey. While student partners’ lived experiences recognized the need for different perspectives, they also advocated learner-centered teaching and learning practices informed by feedback collected from students enrolled in the course. For example, Amaris reflected,

One change I’m really happy about was the amount of homework students were required to do. When I submitted the mid-semester feedback survey, just about every student brought up concerns over the amount of homework they needed to turn in every few weeks. I brought this issue up in our next meeting [with the faculty partner], and I had to advocate relentlessly since I was faced with initial pushback. I hope that this type of example can show students that math courses don’t have to be so intimidating or elitist; there are instructors who want to help their students and understand their needs.

One of the central tenets of critical consciousness is the need to advocate for actions to rectify any injustices that privilege some students while disempowering others. Based on survey feedback regarding homework load and insights gained from the program, Amaris advocated for practices that align with students’ needs. She elaborated further on the readings that informed her feedback:

There’s one document called “Initial Steps in Developing Classroom Observation Rubrics” that helps address how we should be making changes in the classroom, including what does and does not work in helping students. In this article, there is a table listing different practices of how to address making a culturally-relevant classroom, such as transparency in course expectations, not lowering students’ expectations in performance, and overall positioning students as competent in their own learning. I’ve figured out that we can’t just try and capture students’ attention by saying something interesting; it must be relatable, or something they can apply to the new content.

Amaris’s advocacy for reducing homework and her reference to readings on culturally relevant rubrics that prioritize teaching and learning practices connected to students’ lives illustrates how student partners transformed professional-development content into concrete actions that promote fairness and inclusivity in mathematics courses.

Together, these examples show that Theme S.III (Table 2) encompassed more than students recognizing cultural or contextual issues in mathematics classrooms. Across their narratives, student partners used program readings, professional-development discussions, and their own lived experiences to identify inequities, propose concrete alternatives, and advocate for more inclusive instructional practices. By doing so, they positioned themselves not only as observers within their courses but as emerging critical practitioners who used mathematics and feedback processes to promote fairness, belonging, and positive change for future learners.

4.2. Faculty Partners

4.2.1. F.I Instructional Confidence Through Dialogic Evidence

Faculty partners’ engagement in student–faculty dialogue initially strengthened their instructional confidence, as student feedback provided evidence for refining practice and validating instructional decisions (see Table 2, Theme F.I). Faculty described how reciprocal dialogue with student partners enabled them to recognize both strengths and growth areas in their teaching. Through these iterative exchanges, faculty reported developing self-efficacy grounded in evidence of improved student learning and engagement. For example, Andres, a Calculus Lecturer, shared, “I feel like I need to implement [culturally relevant teaching practices] more. I do it, but I don’t do it every lecture, and I sometimes just do it sporadically. So I feel like it’s important that I do it more often.” Andres’s reflection illustrates a key tenet of F.I, and that is self-efficacy emerging through metacognitive awareness of instructional habits and commitment to continuous improvement. Similarly, Jacob, a College Algebra Lecturer, further reflected on revisions to his teaching approaches informed by feedback his student partner provided:

I changed the welcome message so it would be more welcoming to students. I also changed a little bit of the descriptions of the assignments that we’re gonna do. In the syllabus, [I] had more [information] about the homework, the test, and the quiz, but it had nothing about the project. So now I added something about the project in the syllabus, too. And then for the assignment, we just changed- we just put in some color, and I made a checklist with the point skills so they could know what they should be doing and how many points each one should be worth, and that would determine their grade.”

By committing to revisions to his syllabus and assessments, Jacob not only recognizes his potential for growth, but he also validated the feedback he received from his student partners. Jacob acknowledges that he can be more transparent and intentional in how he approaches the assessment of learning in the course to ensure students have opportunities to demonstrate learning.

Faculty partners also recognized the time, effort, and labor they invested during conversations with their student partners, a process that, while demanding, fostered professional trust and learning. For instance, Michael, a Calculus Lecturer, reflected,

There was a lot [of] meetings, there’s a lot of feedback that we were supposed to be doing, it was a lot of… you know. [Amaris] was very well-read on everything, and then she always came with a lot of ideas and suggestions […] a lot of dialogue […] It felt appropriate because of the back-and-forth conversation. She always came prepared with a lot of things she thought about the notes that she was taking during class. During the discussions she was very good about always ask[ing] about equity and all these things we’re reading about […] she was always making sure we’re keeping an eye on everything.

Michael’s lived experiences in the professional development sessions showcase the investment required to meaningfully engage in conversations about teaching and learning with student partners. The back-and-forth nature of the exchanges provided the “dialogic evidence” that underpinned his instructional confidence.

Similarly, RS, a College Algebra Lecturer, also reflected on the impact feedback from student partners had on her professional growth:

I am asking maybe one student most of the questions, one of the outspoken students you have in the class. You don’t realize it unless you know somebody’s telling you, ‘Oh, one student is [always] answering you’. The student partner shared this about asking questions. She put the idea, you know, unconsciously, but it proves that, yes, you can do little bit more, you can do better job.

Through feedback from her student partner, RS acknowledges her potential implicit biases when asking questions and receiving responses from the same student. Through her recognition of the student partner pointing out this trend, RS demonstrates a strong sense of self-efficacy and commitment to exploring new approaches to teaching where she can engage all students.

Collectively, faculty narratives illustrate how dialogic processes turned reflection into evidence-based confidence. Rather than abstract self-assurance, their efficacy was relationally constructed through visible feedback cycles with student partners.

4.2.2. F.II Perspective Shifts Through Reflection and Discourse

As confidence developed through dialogue, faculty partners described shifts in perspective prompted by reflection and discourse that surfaced assumptions and reframed how they interpreted students’ experiences (see Table 2, Theme F.II). Faculty described moments of cognitive dissonance and subsequent rethinking of long-held teaching beliefs. For example, Andres reflected,

Honestly, it was so weird to figure out how some of the other lecturers have just a completely different idea, even yours, about how they shouldn’t have to, you do a grade on… what did you say? You said that you don’t grade. Yeah, if you don’t teach it, you don’t grade it, but they’re supposed to know it, and you don’t grade it. That I was like, outrageous. So, yeah.

Andres was surprised to learn that scholarship on best teaching and learning practices suggests we assess what we teach. His reflection indicates there was a fundamental disconnect between his teaching values and the new perspectives he was learning about in the program. Nevertheless, he referenced this moment to be one of the most significant new perspectives he encountered, and while he was surprised, his reflection indicates that it was impactful enough for him to engage in further reflection and reconsideration.

While faculty partners noted they were surprised with the number of readings in the program, they also appreciated what they learned. Jacob shared that he gained a better understanding of identities and cultures after reading a piece on community cultural wealth: “when I would talk about my identity, I thought it was just about students’ ethnicities, like their race. But then, when we’re looking at identities, [we’re looking at] everything, their background, their language, where they came from.” Jacob’s view toward culture in the teaching of mathematics expanded as he realized that culture and identity do not only refer to one’s race. The new and shifting perspectives represented in the readings contributed to faculty partners’ deeper questioning and learning in relation to teaching math. Michael further reflected:

Doing that kind of [readings] penetrates your brain and; it can express itself in many different ways as you design and deliver your courses. [The] outside-the-box ideas that that [my student partner] was suggesting very specifically when were developing this activity; she had very useful things that [we] modified these activities throughout the semester in class and that was really interesting.

Michael’s reflections highlight his openness to consider new ideas informed by the readings. Additionally, he showcases how he is putting those readings into action through the collaborative conversations he had with his student partner as they modified activities. Similarly, RS reflected,

The time I was reading those articles, especially [about] underrepresented students. Oh, my God! This country! How is it possible? I didn’t think before I was reading those material, I didn’t have this idea. I thought about my class, and I started noticing. Yes, one student comes, sits down in the corner, doesn’t talk with anybody. Maybe wearing the same shirt one day- every day. Why that student is not talking with everybody, and why that student is not open up to talk even with me. So, this article helped me open my eyes during that time. I didn’t think that way.

Informed by the readings in the program, RS alludes to the potential assumptions she might have made about a student’s lack of engagement in the course. Her lived experiences in the program highlight her openness to consider new ideas, perspectives, and scholarly research on underrepresented students’ experiences in STEM coursework. RS’s reflections illustrate self-awareness, especially her ability to think deeper about factors contributing to students’ engagement or lack of engagement.

Faculty partners’ lived experiences also highlight that they were flexible as they considered new perspectives in their teaching practices informed by the readings as well as the written feedback they received from their student partners. Jacob reflected on the strategy his student partner recommended,

there’s the other one that [Alice] had told me to try to implement, and I had said it during our last meeting, the exit ticket. When I assign exit tickets, they’ll just be related to a problem that we did in class. But then [Alice] had told me how about if I do an exit ticket but don’t relate it to a math problem. Ask them a question, [such as] if they understood the class, what do they best, what do they learn and what they didn’t learn.

Informed by feedback from his student partner, Jacob was open to reconsidering his approach with exit tickets. By moving away from a traditional math problem in an exit ticket, he asked deeper questions about the students’ learning experiences, challenges, and successes, which could potentially provide insight into how he approaches the material. Similarly, Michael also reflected on the impact of feedback from student partners on his views toward new teaching practices:

You normally wouldn’t get this kind of open dialogue with any of the students. They’re too busy learning and struggling and stuff like that. Some of the things it was good to hear, and then some of the things, it did make you think like too much homework when I hadn’t even realized it was just the way I was doing it, purposefully, of course, but just the way I feel you should be doing it. Yeah, so that was really great.

Michael’s reflection indicates an openness to consider students’ perspectives, especially because the opportunity for specific feedback from students enrolled in the course can be challenging. His openness to exploring new perspectives, even when those seem to fundamentally challenge his belief on how one should teach, illustrates that his lived experiences in the program fostered a safe environment where ideas could be considered and explored openly from both the instructor’s and student partner’s perspectives.

Such moments show that faculty began to normalize feedback as a form of professional inquiry rather than critique. Across interviews, perspective shifts were catalyzed by structured reflection, readings, and sustained discourse, collectively advancing more responsive teaching practices consistent with F.II (Table 2).

4.2.3. F.III Equity Enactment Through Curriculum Revision

These evolving perspectives culminated in equity enactment, as faculty partners translated reflection and dialogue into curriculum and assessment revisions designed to better align instruction with students’ learning opportunities (see Table 2, Theme F.III). Their reflections highlighted their growing awareness of the need to meaningfully connect with their students through growth mindset practices that center voices of underrepresented individuals in STEM. RS reflected on the high expectations she has for all her students:

I tell all my students that coming from another country, you’re supposed to be aiming [to be a] rocket scientist, a doctor, engineer. Aim high all the time. I always encourage, especially the last day, I give one of the little talks to my students […] to motivate them, don’t let anything stop you. That’s what my father always used to tell me.

By sharing her experiences as an immigrant as well as the high expectations her father had of her and her potential, RS recognizes the hardships and challenges that minorities in STEM often encounter. Inspired by professional development activities and conversations with her student partner, RS positions her story as inspiration for her students and establishes a meaningful bond of shared experiences. Most importantly, she recognizes the need to share inspiring messages with her students considering the inequities of diverse voices in STEM fields, which is significant as her belief in her students’ potential can contribute to her students’ self-efficacy. Similarly, Michael also highlighted the importance of the topics explored in the program as central to continue advocating for these practices through his own research. He reflected,

I’m applying for an NSF Post Doc next year, and it’s geared towards underrepresented minorities and mathematics. I actually used a lot of the kind of papers that we were reading about in that proposal, the statistics about the underrepresented-ness in math and tech.

The readings that were a part of the professional development series inspired Michael to seek future learning and research opportunities. His experiences illustrate not only his awareness of inequitable practices in STEM fields but also his commitment to continue expanding this area of research and seeking support. Both his awareness and commitment to action are living examples of the ultimate goals related to building critical consciousness in mathematics education.

Considering the inequities in STEM fields for underrepresented minority students, faculty participants also highlighted inequities in STEM related to the assessment of learning. Jacob, for instance, reflected:

There has not been much change in the assessments in regard to inclusivity. Students are usually tested the same way, but little has been done to make sure that the assessments are inclusive or appropriate for all students. And I think this will just be through tests. Tools that should be made available, or students from various backgrounds should have a better opportunity to demonstrate their learning. I also learned that if their goal is to improve student learning, then the culturally responsive approach to the assessment should be the priority. We should have activated the students’ higher knowledge and keep students engaged in their learning processes. And that is one thing that some students, when they go through class, they don’t go with a growth mindset, they go with a fixed mindset. We should try to change their thinking from fixed to growth. We want them to grow their learning.

Through both his participation in the professional development series and his student partnership, Jacob’s lived experiences exemplify his growing awareness of the inequities and discrepancies in the assessment of learning in STEM coursework. First, Jacob’s awareness that students often demonstrate learning through traditional practices, such as exams, is representative of his growing critical consciousness in the teaching of mathematics. While he might not have identified specific actions that challenge traditional assessment methods, his reflection indicates his commitment to drawing on culturally responsive approaches to assessment as an action to rectify injustices in the teaching of STEM. Furthermore, faculty partners also alluded to practices they hope to continue enacting to engage in student-centered assessments. For example, Michael reflected, “a mid- midterm survey, like the one that you did, would be kind of an easy way to do [collect student feedback].” Faculty participants’ lived experiences exemplified their commitment to take action to center students’ voices and experiences to inform teaching and learning practices, as well as assessment approaches.

Finally, through their lived experiences in the program, faculty partners expanded the central tenets of critical consciousness by reflecting on the need to contextualize learning experiences within real-world contexts, by highlighting inequities, and exploring how to rectify them through concepts explored in the course. Michael reflected,

I forget which paper, but it was this idea of Hispanics and their community being community-giving and giving-back-driven. I very much identified with that. I feel like that’s kind of why I’m here. I’m from here. I came back. I connected with [the reading] well. I’m interested in a lot of things. In math, it’s just tough, especially with mid-level- high-level courses. I just think it’s tough because it’s just always this point about [how] you can’t lower your standards. It was interesting that that one was the one that had any sort of kind of cognizant effect on me, a deep kind of cognitive effect.

Michael’s reflections illustrate how he is grappling with his perceived disconnect between advocating for practices that the Hispanic community values, such as giving back to the communities one belongs to and lowering academic standards of learning in the classroom. Because the reading had a deep impact on him, his reflection illustrates his awareness of the implications of such practices in creating educational spaces that encourage students to also build their own critical consciousness. His words indicate that he has the desire to push back on deficit beliefs and assumptions related to community-building in the Hispanic community and learning in mathematics coursework.

Some of the faculty partners illustrate examples of how they aim to bridge the technical-social disconnect in STEM coursework. For example, Andres reflected, “[Javi] brought to light some things I couldn’t even think about. He mentioned I should explain the real-world application of the topic that I’m talking about. That’s more interesting than sometimes covering, like, an extra problem; it’s more engaging.” Andres’s reflection illustrates his commitment to aligning course concepts and learning to real-world contexts and applications beyond the classroom. As Andres’ student partner illustrates, by enacting critical consciousness frameworks in teaching and learning, not only will students be engaged with the topic, but they will also reflect on their own motivations for learning, such as giving back to their communities, as Michael alludes to in his reflection. Furthermore, Andres shared:

I’m doing examples of finding volume in Calculus 2. Some of the scenarios use lakes from different countries. Instead, I started using [resacas] as examples [in our community] instead of some far-off place, which required me to go get measurements. I had to Google it, and then finding the volume of how much water it possibly holds, where a rough estimate was some of the changes I made.

The lived experiences faculty partners shared represent their commitment to understanding their students’ needs to design innovative teaching practices that help students understand the relevance of math beyond the classroom. They all reflected on their interest in investing time in future research, participating in, and leading professional development workshops informed by the readings, especially those that advocated for critical consciousness in the teaching of math.

Across all faculty narratives, F.III represents an awareness informed by critical readings, reflection reinforced through dialogue, and action realized through curriculum change. Together, these outcomes reveal faculty growth from participants in a program to active agents of equity-driven reform in mathematics instruction.

5. Limitations

Although this study offers promising insights, there are important limitations to consider. All of the research took place at a single institution, a majority HSI, which raises the question of how student-faculty partnerships unfold at other institutions, especially those with different student demographics. Research suggests that Hispanic students, in some cases, are less likely than White students to express concerns directly to instructors. Hispanic cultural values, such as respeto (i.e., respect for authority figures) and personalismo (i.e., emphasis on personal relationships), can lead to hesitation when questioning instructors (Gloria & Castellanos, 2012). This dynamic might shape the nature of partnerships in settings beyond this study. Another limitation relates to the variability across student-faculty pairings. While we took steps to create consistency across the program, there were still differences in how partnerships unfolded, which likely influenced how faculty partners implemented feedback. Further data is needed to fully understand the extent of this impact, especially the impact of student partner feedback on the learning experiences of the students enrolled in the courses. Our findings rely on self-reported data from both student and faculty partners. While this approach allowed participants to share their perspectives in depth, self-reporting carries the potential for bias or selective recall (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, an important limitation to note is the sample size of the study with only four student-faculty pairings. A larger sample size can help enhance our understanding of the impact of the partnership for both student and faculty partners. Lastly, it became clear that time constraints, particularly on the faculty’s part, occasionally limited their ability to fully engage with student feedback, which may have restricted the influence of partnerships on teaching practices. These limitations remind us that the outcomes of student-faculty partnerships are deeply intertwined with various dispositions, contexts, and conditions.

6. Discussion

Student-faculty partnerships enrich learning environments, cultivate meaningful student-faculty relationships, and address challenges, such as power dynamics and time commitments through transparent expectations, critical feedback, and professional development. As highlighted by Millar et al. (2024), students gain valuable academic and professional experiences through mutual respect and collaboration with faculty members. Our study findings corroborate this research as student partners described how their sense of belonging deepened through peer collaboration, mentorship with faculty, and contributions to real classroom change. These experiences echo the literature on relational partnerships presented in our review, where belonging emerges through shared authority and recognition of students as epistemic contributors rather than passive learners (Cook-Sather et al., 2021). Student partners noted that they developed a sense of belonging through solidarity with fellow student partners as they became aware of the knowledge and skills they gained in the program through conversations with peers, which is similar to other findings where student partners noted solidarity with fellow student partners as coping strategies to navigate challenges in the partnerships (Cavazos et al., 2023).

Student partners also expressed increased self-efficacy as they provided feedback to their faculty partners. Cook-Sather (2020) underscores that authentic student voice initiatives empower students to identify and address critical issues in teaching, leading to meaningful educational change and student confidence as advocates of inclusive education for all students. The present study extends this strand of scholarship by showing how self-efficacy grew not only through giving feedback, but through explicit uptake of that feedback, an outcome uniquely consistent with the reflective partnerships’ literature synthesized earlier (Cook-Sather, 2024). This was evident in our study when student partners advocated for inclusive classroom practices, such as modifying homework loads or suggesting private rather than public instructor-student communication, which was implemented and positively received by faculty partners. Such dynamics align with the reflective cycles described in the literature review, wherein students’ sense of pedagogical agency increases when their insights demonstrably influence instructional decisions (Cavazos et al., 2023). Student partners’ reflections in the current study demonstrated that they developed an increased belief in the power of their voice, experiences, and knowledge as the foundation for providing meaningful feedback on teaching. Our introduction of a teaching observation feedback sheet that modeled for students’ critical reflective questions to guide their observations and reflections, informed by Wilson (2022), further exemplifies this approach, fostering student and faculty partners’ active and reflective engagement in improving educational practices in mathematics coursework.

Furthermore, both student and faculty partners noted an increased awareness of the role of critical consciousness in mathematics education through interdisciplinary meetings, as advocated by Bell et al. (2020), which promote collaboration among diverse students and educators, fostering a richer understanding of critical consciousness. This form of awareness resonates strongly with the critical partnership strand outlined in our literature review, which positions partnerships as spaces where inequities, cultural assumptions, and disciplinary norms are jointly interrogated. In our study, these collaborative efforts during professional development sessions strengthened the connection between cultural awareness and academic learning, especially in the context of mathematics education, fostering awareness and curricular revisions that centered on equitable and relevant practices in mathematics education. In our case, structured professional development workshops fostered not only cross-role dialogue but also cultural awareness, as student partners reflected on the need for instructors to understand and humanize students’ lived realities, such as when Rosalinda encouraged her faculty partner to reconsider how public call-outs might impact students from collectivist or high-respect cultures. Yosso (2005) argues for the need to recognize and amplify marginalized students’ strengths, which is a shift often facilitated and guided through professional development activities such as those that faculty partners in our study participated in as part of the student-faculty partnership program.

Indeed, all faculty partners’ lived experiences in the program revealed new sensitivity to issues like engagement, equitable practice, student voice in assessments, and culturally situated real-world mathematics instruction, thereby illustrating their growing recognition of students’ community cultural wealth and the need to validate their prior knowledge and cultural assets in mathematics education. This shift mirrors arguments from our review that mathematics classrooms, often constrained by hierarchical norms, require intentional structures for redistributing epistemic authority and legitimizing diverse ways of knowing (Chase, 2020; E. O. McGee, 2020; Nortvedt & Buchholtz, 2018). E. McGee and Bentley (2017) emphasize fairness and social justice as key to students’ STEM engagement and career aspirations, which was echoed by student partners through their feedback on creating inclusive and purposeful assessments of learning. For instance, Amaris advocated for less intimidating learning spaces and emphasized transparent course expectations, explicitly linking equitable pedagogy to student retention and success in STEM. Furthermore, Stephan et al. (2021) argue for the need to create instructional practices that build students’ critical mathematics consciousness, and faculty partners’ reflections revealed this consciousness emerging in practice as they engaged with student feedback and readings emphasizing cultural relevance and social responsibility in mathematics instruction. Wilson’s (2022) insights on bridging mathematical and everyday language highlight the importance of contextualizing learning to enhance comprehension and application of mathematical concepts in real-life contexts through critical mathematics consciousness. For instance, faculty partners in our study, informed by feedback from student partners and professional development readings, began implementing community-based examples in calculus problems and adopting observation-informed revisions to language use in their assessments, actions that directly responded to their student partners’ feedback and aligned with equity-based instructional reform that centers culturally situated educational practices in mathematics education.

Turning to the faculty experience, Cook-Sather et al. (2023) and Bunnell et al. (2021) emphasize how student-faculty partnerships encourage educators to reflect on areas for further growth. Our findings reinforce the reflective partnership model by demonstrating how mathematics faculty benefitted from structured opportunities to interrogate entrenched teaching norms through conversation, feedback, and shared inquiry (Cavazos et al., 2023). Faculty members’ belief in their ability to navigate challenges through feedback and identify areas of growth to impact student engagement in the course is also emphasized throughout our own study, demonstrated in faculty partners’ reflections on how their partnerships supported them in identifying areas for further growth and professional development. To support this reflection process, we hosted a series of professional development sessions for the faculty partners to congregate and engage in reflection as a whole group, giving structure to encourage faculty partners to engage in reflective practices and strategies to assess their current teaching methods and reflect on how they may adapt new learning strategies for future semesters, as previously done by Cook-Sather et al. (2017, 2021, 2023).

As faculty members deepened their engagement, they also described how working with student partners helped them become more open to feedback and build trust, even when receiving constructive feedback about their classroom practices, which mirrors findings from Cavazos et al. (2023), Cook-Sather et al. (2021, 2023). This openness reflects a relational trust, demonstrating how partnership models can humanize faculty-student interactions and dismantle hierarchical assumptions that often characterize mathematics learning spaces (Cook-Sather et al., 2023). The lived experience was especially apparent in Michael’s account of his evolving classroom practices, shaped by both his student partner’s equity-minded suggestions and his emotional resonance with program readings, reflecting how trust and openness underpinned meaningful change. Through receiving consistent and empathetic feedback from their student partners, faculty partners effectively identified their impact on the learning environment and areas for further development (Cook-Sather, 2024).

Notably, faculty partners shared various reflections on the value they found in gaining insight from the student perspective, which they have expressed is not a perspective they often hear, as emphasized by Cook-Sather et al. (2021) and Chittle et al. (2023). This aligns with our earlier assertion that redistributing epistemic authority is essential to disrupting the traditional hierarchy of mathematics classrooms, and that is that the partnerships provided concrete mechanisms through which faculty encountered, and acted upon, student epistemic expertise (Cook-Sather et al., 2023). This insight was captured in comments like Jacob’s realization that identity encompasses more than race, a shift in understanding prompted by both his student partner’s feedback and readings on community cultural wealth. Furthermore, our results support previous studies (Bunnell et al., 2021; Cavazos et al., 2023; Cook-Sather et al., 2023) showing that faculty partners who embrace these new perspectives often go on to revise their teaching in meaningful ways. In our study, faculty partners described strategies they intended to prioritize going forward, such as integrating transparent assignment expectations, developing inclusive assessments, fostering classroom dialogue, and contextualizing mathematics instructions within a culturally situated and critical consciousness framework, which they saw as foundational to building student engagement and voice. Collectively, results from our study highlight the transformative impact of student-faculty partnerships in connecting traditional math instruction with students’ lived experiences, fostering inclusive, reflective, and effective culturally conscious educational environments.

Taken together, the six themes (Table 2) identified in this study illuminate a structured developmental trajectory that extends existing models of student–faculty partnership. Although prior scholarship has examined relational, reflective, and critical dimensions of partnership separately (Cavazos et al., 2023; Cook-Sather et al., 2017, 2021), our findings demonstrate how these dimensions unfolded sequentially and coherently within a single mathematics partnership program at an HSI. Relational shifts emerged first, as students developed epistemic belonging (S.I) alongside faculty members who gained instructional confidence through dialogic evidence (F.I). Reflective dimensions followed, marked by students’ increased efficacy through explicit feedback uptake (S.II) and faculty members’ perspective shifts through iterative guided reflection and discourse (F.II). Finally, both groups moved toward critical engagement, with students cultivating awareness through contextualized mathematics (S.III) and faculty partners enacting equity-oriented curriculum revisions (F.III). By mapping these relational, reflective, and critical dimensions across both student and faculty roles, and by linking each to discipline-specific practices in mathematics, we offer a theoretically integrated account of partnership development that highlights how such partnerships can evolve into equity-driven pedagogical transformation.

7. Implications for Research and Practice

Our findings point to the considerable impact that student-faculty partnerships can have on undergraduate mathematics education. Students who participated in these partnerships described feeling more connected to their academic and institutional environment as mathematics or STEM education majors, developed stronger relationships with peers and faculty, and began to see themselves as active contributors in shaping learning spaces. These experiences also supported their growth in self-efficacy, which extended beyond academic settings and into other aspects of their lives. For faculty partners, working alongside student partners encouraged reflection on their own teaching practices and inspired new approaches to fostering culturally relevant and inclusive classrooms.

These findings suggest the need to reimagine how educators, particularly those teaching mathematics, are supported in developing inclusive, student-centered pedagogies. A central takeaway is the importance of integrating student perspectives into the process of instructional mathematics course design. Faculty development efforts should move beyond faculty-only spaces and create structured opportunities for dialogue with students, especially with those majoring in the field where the partnership takes place. While formal partnerships are ideal, other approaches, such as mid-semester feedback, structured student panels, anonymous comment systems, or ongoing student-faculty check-ins, can all contribute to this goal. Furthermore, additional professional development is needed to identify teaching and learning practices and assessment models that align with critical mathematics consciousness and culturally relevant practices in mathematics education.

Future research should examine how the benefits observed through these partnerships endure over time. As Desimone (2009) argues, immediate changes in knowledge or attitudes do not fully capture the impact of interventions like these unless accompanied by sustained changes in instructional practices and, ultimately, improvements in student outcomes. Do educators continue to adapt their instructional practices once the formal structure of the partnership concludes? Do these changes positively affect the experiences of all students enrolled in the course, not only those who served as partners? Additionally, given the distinct cultures and demands across STEM fields, further research should explore how such partnership models might be tailored to disciplines beyond mathematics. Each context will require thoughtful adaptation, but the core principles of collaboration, student voice, and equity are widely applicable. Finally, future research should investigate scalable models of such partnerships to better support underrepresented students in STEM fields.

8. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the transformative potential of student-faculty partnerships in undergraduate mathematics education. By engaging student partners as collaborators in course design and instructional reflection through feedback to faculty partners on course syllabi and assignment design, as well as weekly course observations, these partnerships fostered a stronger sense of belonging, enhanced self-efficacy, and deepened critical consciousness among student partners. At the same time, faculty partners reported meaningful professional growth, gained new insights into culturally responsive pedagogy, and reimagined aspects of their teaching through ongoing reflective dialogue with their student partners. Through this reciprocal process, both groups enacted a relational, reflective, and ultimately critical progression that mirrors and extends the developmental framework outlined in the partnership literature. As institutions continue seeking ways to support underrepresented students in STEM, student-faculty partnerships offer an empowering, humanizing model for rethinking teaching and learning in mathematics and beyond through culturally relevant and critical conscious practices that center student voice and advocacy. By illustrating how mathematics partnerships at an HSI can redistribute epistemic authority, strengthen reflective inquiry, and catalyze equity-oriented curricular change, this study contributes a theoretically integrated account of partnership development and highlights the promise of such programs for advancing equity-driven reform in STEM education.