Empowering Latine Adolescents Through Culturally Responsive Practices in an After-School Math Enrichment Activity

Abstract

Organized after-school activities can play a vital role in supporting historically marginalized youth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), yet less is known about how culturally responsive practices—which are practices that integrate youths’ cultural backgrounds and lived experiences into learning—are enacted in math-focused learning spaces. Drawing on empowerment theory and critical youth empowerment frameworks, this qualitative study examines how culturally responsive practices foster empowerment among middle school students participating in a university-based after-school math enrichment program. Ninety-two students (M_age = 12.26 years; 47% girls; 86% Latine) from three under-resourced schools in Southern California participated in semi-structured interviews about moments when they felt empowered and what contributed to those experiences. Thematic analysis revealed that all four domains of culturally responsive practices helped promote empowerment: structured opportunities for contribution and leadership, caring relationships, cultural affirmation, and efforts to make real-world connections. In particular, students most frequently described structured opportunities for contribution and leadership, practices that centered their knowledge and voices, and relational climates characterized by care and high expectations. The findings suggest that in after-school STEM contexts, empowerment does not arise as an isolated individual trait but is part of a relational and context-dependent process that is supported by culturally responsive practices. These findings highlight how intentional, culturally responsive program design can advance both youth empowerment and equity-oriented STEM education.

1. Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is critical to fostering innovation, economic opportunity, and social mobility, particularly in an increasingly technology-driven global economy (Hoskins & Barker, 2020). STEM occupations are projected to grow by over 10% by 2032, offering wages and greater job stability than non-STEM fields (Fayer et al., 2017; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). As STEM-related careers continue to expand, ensuring equitable access to high-quality STEM learning experiences is essential for developing a diverse workforce. However, Latine1 students in the United States face persistent barriers to STEM in formal educational settings, including systemic inequities, underrepresentation, and cultural misalignment with educational curricula (Carnevale & Fasules, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). These challenges limit their participation in STEM fields and exacerbate educational opportunity gaps (Fayer et al., 2017). Math learning environments, in particular, are often characterized as technical, evaluative, and content-driven, rather than as spaces where youth voice, agency, and empowerment are likely to be cultivated (Burton, 2009; O’Hara et al., 2022). Given these disparities, Latine adolescents are an important population in the United States for understanding how learning environments can be intentionally designed to support equitable participation and development in STEM.

Organized after-school activities offer a promising avenue for addressing disparities in STEM by providing flexible learning environments that can be intentionally designed to expand access and support meaningful participation (Fredericks & Caroleo, 2026). However, expanding access is insufficient; for all students to fully engage and thrive in these spaces, after-school activities also need to provide equitable, identity-affirming experiences, as activities that overlook youths’ identities and lived experiences may limit belonging, sustained participation, and persistence (e.g., Ettekal et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2016). Scholars argue that culturally responsive practices—which emphasize the importance of integrating students’ cultural backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives into learning environments to enhance engagement and learning outcomes (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2017)—are central to realizing the potential of after-school STEM activities, as they make learning experiences more personally relevant and aligned with students’ cultural backgrounds (Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Thus, this study investigates how culturally responsive practices foster empowerment in a university-based after-school math enrichment activity serving largely Latine adolescents. Guided by culturally responsive pedagogical practices (Gay, 2018; Wycoff et al., in press), empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1995), and critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006), we examine what culturally responsive practices were the most salient in students’ experiences of empowerment in the program.

1.1. STEM Organized Activities and Culturally Responsive Practices

Organized after-school activities have been widely recognized as important contexts for supporting positive youth development, offering opportunities for academic enrichment, skill-building, and positive social relationships (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025). STEM organized after-school activities are often positioned as promising for engaging youth form historically marginalized backgrounds as they provide a more flexible, interest-driven, and collaborative learning environment compared to traditional classrooms (Allen et al., 2019; Krishnamurthi et al., 2014). Research suggests that participating in high-quality STEM after-school activities is associated with increased motivation, confidence, sense of belonging, and STEM-related identities (Durlak et al., 2010; Riggs et al., 2010; Soto-Lara et al., 2022). At the same time, youths’ experiences within these settings vary widely in terms of inclusivity, cultural relevance, and opportunities for meaningful participation (Ettekal et al., 2020; Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). More work needs to examine how to make STEM activities supportive learning environments for all youth. To this end, scholars have called for research on culturally responsive practices and how they shape youths’ opportunities to participate, contribute, and develop a sense of agency within after-school activities (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025).

Scholars first developed these ideas in classroom contexts. In 1995, Gloria Ladson-Billings’ proposed a framework of culturally relevant pedagogy that emphasized three core goals for student learning in classrooms: promoting academic success, developing cultural competence, and fostering critical consciousness. Building on this foundation, Gay (2018) articulated culturally responsive teaching, which focused more explicitly on teachers’ instructional practices (rather than student outcomes) that draw on students’ cultural knowledge, communication styles, and ways of knowing to make learning more meaningful and effective. Subsequent work has further elaborated how these principles can be enacted in practice. For example, Hammond (2015) provides concrete guidance on designing instruction that leverages students’ cultural and cognitive strengths to promote engagement and rigor in the classroom. Contemporary scholarship has also worked to clarify how these frameworks are conceptualized and operationalized in research and practice, noting both the theoretical similarities and their unique contributions to the field (e.g., Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Cruz et al., 2020). Together, this body of work reflects a shared commitment to equity and asset-based approaches to teaching while highlighting the need for continued attention to how these principles are enacted across learning contexts.

Though after-school contexts are well positioned to intentionally design learning environments that center youth and enact culturally responsive practices in ways that are responsive to their identities and experiences (Simpkins et al., 2017), much less is known about how culturally responsive practices are enacted within STEM after-school activities. Drawing on Ladson-Billings’ (1995) and Gay’s (2018) foundational work, culturally responsive practices in after-school activities can be conceptualized across four key domains, as shown in Figure 1: (1) caring and inclusive relationships (e.g., demonstrating an ethic of care), (2) cultural and linguistic affirmation (e.g., affirming diverse communication preferences and promoting cultural appreciations), (3) empowerment and engagement (e.g., empowering youth, having high expectations, and centering youths’ knowledge and ways of doing things), and (4) relevance and real-world connections (e.g., making the activity content relevant to youths’ lives and addressing real-world problems; Wycoff et al., in press).

Within STEM learning environments, these four domains offer a promising pathway for creating more inclusive and meaningful opportunities for participation, particularly for youth from historically marginalized backgrounds. These domains emphasize that culturally responsive practices operate not only through curricular relevance but through relationships, opportunities for active contribution, and power-sharing—features that are particularly consequential in math learning environments. Prior research has documented that the enactment of culturally responsive practices in after-school STEM programs is associated with positive youth outcomes, including increased motivation, confidence, engagement, and sense of belonging, and that such practices are particularly salient for youth from historically marginalized backgrounds, who report feeling seen, valued, and more likely to persist in STEM pathways when these features are present (Atkins et al., 2020; Casler-Failing et al., 2021; Soto-Lara et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2021). Thus, culturally responsive practices shape the conditions of participation within learning environments—positioning youth as capable contributors, expanding opportunities for meaningful engagement, and redistributing authority in ways that support the development of confidence, agency, and empowerment (Boaler & Staples, 2008; Nasir & Hand, 2008).

In this study, we use the term culturally responsive practices to refer to the concrete ways these commitments are enacted within learning environments. This framing reflects both the applied nature of after-school contexts and a focus on how educators and program structures actively position youth as capable contributors. It also aligns with recent work conceptualizing culturally responsive teaching as encompassing both dispositions and practices, including teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy, and instructional decision-making (Comstock et al., 2023), as well as with our prior work synthesizing culturally responsive practices specifically in organized after-school activities and identifying key domains through which these practices support youth development and engagement (Wycoff et al., in press).

1.2. Promoting Youth Empowerment Through Culturally Responsive STEM After-School Activities

To better understand how culturally responsive practices may promote youth empowerment in STEM after-school activities, this study draws on empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1995, 2000) and critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006). These perspectives help explain how features of learning environments—such as relationships, participation structures, and opportunities for voice—shape youths’ experiences of confidence, agency, and engagement. Rather than serving as the primary organizing framework, empowerment theories are used here to clarify how culturally responsive practices create the conditions under which empowerment processes can unfold, particularly within STEM after-school contexts.

Empowerment theory conceptualizes youth empowerment as a process through which individuals gain confidence, perceived control, and opportunities to act on their social environment (Zimmerman, 1995). At the individual level, empowerment processes and their associated outcomes are commonly described across three interrelated components: intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral. The intrapersonal component refers to youths’ self-perceptions, such as confidence and self-efficacy. The interactional component involves understanding and navigating social contexts and available resources. Lastly, the behavioral component reflects opportunities to participate, contribute and take action. In educational settings, these processes are shaped not only by individual characteristics but by how learning environments are structured and facilitated (Kirk et al., 2015).

Critical youth empowerment extends this perspective by foregrounding the role of context, power, and youth–adult partnerships in shaping empowerment processes (Jennings et al., 2006). This framework emphasizes the importance of creating safe and inclusive spaces, fostering meaningful participation, promoting equitable power-sharing between youth and adults, and facilitating critical reflection, particularly in settings shaped by structural inequities. In STEM education, these dimensions are expected to be important for Latine adolescents in the United States whose educational opportunities are often shaped by cultural marginalization and underrepresentation (Carnevale & Fasules, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

These theories suggest that empowerment is not simply an individual outcome but a relational and contextual process that is enacted through how learning environments are structured and facilitated. From this perspective, culturally responsive practices can be understood not only as equity-oriented pedagogical commitments but also as mechanisms that promote youth empowerment. Empowerment theory emphasizes that empowerment is produced through participation in settings that provide opportunities for agency, access to supportive relationships, and experiences that foster perceived control and competence, which parallel several culturally responsive practices (Zimmerman, 1995, 2000). Similarly, critical youth empowerment highlights the importance of context, youth–adult partnerships, and inclusive environments that recognize and respond to systemic inequities shaping young people’s lives (Jennings et al., 2006).

Culturally responsive practices may play a critical role in activating these empowerment processes by shaping youths’ opportunities to participate, contribute, and be recognized as capable and valued members of learning communities. For example, practices that emphasize caring and inclusive relationships can foster interactional empowerment by strengthening youth–adult partnerships and social support (Keller et al., 2020). Practices that center students’ knowledge and ways of doing things may promote intrapersonal empowerment by validating youths’ existing competencies and reducing barriers to engagement (Levine & Viano, 2025). Similarly, maintaining high expectations while providing relational support may foster behavioral empowerment by encouraging persistence and agency through meaningful challenge (Hargrave, 2015). In this way, culturally responsive practices function as mechanisms through which empowerment processes are enacted within STEM after-school activities. In the present study, we use the culturally responsive framework as a conceptual lens for interpreting how empowerment processes are enacted within a university-based math-focused after-school activity. This interpretive stance aligns with calls to move beyond documenting the presence of culturally responsive practices toward understanding how such practices shape youths’ developmental experiences in context (Williams & Deutsch, 2016).

2. Current Study

Given the persistent disparities in STEM education in the United States and the underrepresentation of Latine students in these fields (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), there is a critical need to explore innovative approaches that address the needs and challenges faced by this population. Despite growing interest in both culturally responsive education and youth empowerment, few studies have examined how empowerment processes are enacted within organized after-school STEM activities from adolescents’ perspectives. Existing research has often focused on program outcomes or relied on adult reports and observational data, with less attention to how youth themselves make sense of experiences that foster or hinder their feelings of empowerment.

Building on culturally responsive and empowerment frameworks (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995), this qualitative study examines how adolescents participating in a university-based after-school math enrichment activity described moments when they felt empowered and what contributed to those experiences. Specifically, we ask what aspects of program culture and mentor–student interactions reflect culturally responsive practices and how empowerment processes are experienced through those features. By centering adolescents’ voices, this study foregrounds youths’ interpretations of empowerment as it is experienced within a culturally responsive after-school math context and thereby offers insight into how inclusive, culturally responsive environments may support youth empowerment in after-school STEM contexts.

Importantly, this study moves beyond identifying discrete strategies or program features to offer a theoretically generative account of empowerment as a culturally enacted process. By interpreting adolescents’ perspectives on empowerment experiences through a culturally responsive lens, this study illuminates how relational, instructional, and environmental practices shape the conditions under which empowerment processes emerge. In doing so, this work extends empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1995) and critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006) into STEM after-school activities and contributes to a growing body of scholarship that positions culturally responsive practices as central to understanding how equity-oriented learning environments support youth agency, confidence, and engagement.

3. Methods

Using an interpretivist lens (Creswell & Poth, 2018), this study employs reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) to examine how adolescents interpret and describe their experiences of empowerment within a culturally responsive after-school math context.

3.1. Study Context

The study context was Math Community Educational Outreach (Math CEO), an after-school math enrichment activity grounded in a university-based research—practice partnership that serves students from three lower-performing, under-resourced middle schools in Southern California. The program was designed to create opportunities for middle school students to engage in rich, collaborative, and non-remedial mathematics while also building relationships with undergraduate mentors and developing familiarity with a university campus. More than 90% of students across the three participating schools were Latine and came from low-income backgrounds, as indicated by their eligibility for free/reduced school lunch. Math teachers at these schools invited all interested students to join in the activity, resulting in a diverse group ranging from those performing below grade level to those seeking additional challenges in math.

Each week, the middle school students were bused from their school to the university campus where the program took place. During the weekly 90 min sessions, the middle school students worked in groups of six to ten peers and two to three undergraduate students, referred to as mentors in the program. The math activities were designed to promote collaborative problem-solving, math discussions, and the exploration of concepts that extended beyond routine school-based practice. Rather than focusing on remediation or test preparation, the activities emphasized sense-making, multiple solution strategies, teamwork, and connections between mathematics, students’ lived experiences, and broader social issues. Across sessions, students estimated quantities in familiar contexts, compared patterns in English and Spanish word lengths, analyzed symmetry in Ndebele art and Kente cloth, explored counting and combinatorics through food combinations and logic puzzles, and used mathematical models or simulations to reason about social systems such as cooperation, fairness, voting, wealth distribution, and public health dynamics. In doing so, students collaborated with peers and undergraduate mentors to make conjectures; organize their thinking with diagrams, tables, graphs, and other representations; justify their reasoning; and connect mathematics to everyday life, culture, and community.

The program also provided middle school students with a broader university-based learning experience. In addition to participating in math activities, students interacted regularly with undergraduate mentors, visited the university campus each week, and had opportunities to imagine themselves as future college students. These experiences were intended to support students’ mathematical engagement, sense of belonging, and access to informal conversations about college pathways.

The undergraduate mentors, most of whom were majoring in education sciences or mathematics, received training at weekly coaching sessions led by the third author in the context of a service-learning course on the learning and teaching of secondary mathematics. The math activities and the materials for the coaching sessions were designed by this author in collaboration with the program’s academic coordinator. The service-learning structure was intended to support mentors’ development as mathematics facilitators while also preparing them to work with youth in culturally responsive and relational ways. During these coaching sessions, mentors received training on the specific math activity for the week as well as training on best pedagogical practices (e.g., providing opportunities for students to reflect on their learning experiences) and culturally responsive practices (e.g., strategies for making meaningful connections with the middle school students).

The training was delivered via collaborative and interactive activities where mentors would play-out scenarios that may happen in the activity. For example, during the first coaching session, mentors learned about ice breakers and ways to introduce themselves to the middle school students. Mentors practiced their introductions in front of their table groups and practiced asking “getting to know you” questions to the youth. In the coaching sessions, mentors also reviewed the math concept that would be explored during the activity session and practiced delivering the lesson within their small groups.

3.2. Participants and Procedures

All of the middle school students attending Math CEO were invited to participate in this study, with parents providing passive consent followed by youth providing active assent. As part of a larger research study conducted across the 2022–2023, 2023–2024, and 2024–2025 academic school years, a subset of 92 middle school students participated in qualitative interviews during the winter and spring quarters across the three years. The qualitative interview sample of 92 students was purposefully selected (a) based on their perceptions of culturally responsive practices and (b) to reflect the demographics of the broader participant group (e.g., gender, age). Most students identified as Latino/a/x/e or Hispanic (86%). Regarding gender identity, 47% identified as female (n = 43), 47% as male (n = 43), and 6% as another gender identity (n = 6). Participants ranged in age from 11 to 14 years old (M_age = 12.26; SD_age = 0.90). Students were given the option to be interviewed in English and/or Spanish, with one student choosing to be interviewed in Spanish by a bilingual member of the research team. Interviews were conducted in person during activity hours and lasted an average of 15–20 min, and all participants received $15 upon completion. The names in this study are pseudonyms which were selected by participants. All study procedures were approved by the authors’ institutional review board for the protection of human subjects.

3.3. In-Depth Qualitative Interviews

During in-depth semi-structured interviews, middle school students were asked to reflect on their experiences and interactions in the program. The interview protocol included four sections: general questions, their relationships with the mentors, things they do at Math CEO, and outcomes. For the current study, we focused on a section of the interview that focused on empowerment, which was part of the section on things they do at Math CEO. First, students were given a description of feeling empowered: “…which means they feel more confident and feel as though ‘they got this’ or that they can do anything.” Then students were asked whether they had ever felt that way at Math CEO. Depending on their response, interviewers followed up with probing questions, such as “How has Math CEO helped you feel empowered?” or, if they said no, “How can Math CEO help students feel empowered?” Interviewers were instructed to ask follow-up questions to encourage participants to elaborate on their responses and provide specific examples.

Interviews were conducted by the first author, five graduate students, two postdoctoral scholars, and thirteen undergraduate research assistants. Prior to data collection, all interviewers received extensive interview training. Interviewers were expected to read and become familiar with the project via the Interviewer Training Manual, developed by the first and fourth authors, which included sections about the interviewer role, guidelines to follow in their role, probing examples for during the interview, and debriefing prompts. Interviewers were also asked to read several articles regarding best practices when interviewing children and adolescents (e.g., Bassett et al., 2008; Faux et al., 1988). Interviewers were furthermore expected to review the interview protocol and have several discussion sessions on the protocol and procedures to address interviewers’ questions. Before conducting an interview on their own, interviewers listened to an interview while reading through the interview protocol, shadowed an interview and discussed with the interviewer questions/comments about the interview, and conducted a section of an interview with the first or second author present to observe and provide support if needed. Following the interview, feedback sessions were led by the first author. Select portions of the training process were repeated until the interview trainee felt comfortable interviewing on their own and were deemed ready by the first and second authors. The majority of the interviewers identified as female (71%) and as Latine (33%) or Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander (62%). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai’s online transcription service and then cleaned and checked by two different research assistants for accuracy. Interviews conducted in Spanish were transcribed, translated into English, and checked by two Latine bilingual research assistants.

3.4. Plan of Analysis

To explore our research regarding what aspects of program culture or mentor–student interactions foster empowerment among the activity participants, qualitative data were double-coded by the first author and two undergraduate research assistants. The interview coding process was conducted in multiple iterative stages, employing both inductive and deductive approaches to identify patterns and emergent themes in the data (Saldaña, 2021). To ensure consistency and rigor, the three coders held meetings to discuss preliminary coding results and align their findings, while additional discussions between the first and third authors focused on refining the codebook and identifying broader thematic patterns. The following paragraphs describe the three stages of coding in more detail.

3.4.1. Stage 1: Initial Open-Coding of Youth Empowerment Themes

In Stage 1, the first author developed a baseline familiarity with the data corpus by reading the entirety of each interview transcript while listening to the original audio/video recording. After each interview, she wrote memos to capture her initial thoughts and reactions, noting any emerging themes or unique elements from previous sessions. Next, she read through the youth empowerment sections of each interview transcript and developed first-cycle descriptive codes (e.g., safe space, encouragement, connect to personal experiences), in vivo codes (e.g., “like I could do anything,” “I want to change that,” “they believe in themselves”), and process codes (e.g., participating more, sharing experiences, providing challenges; Saldaña, 2021). This step yielded codes related to students’ experiences of empowerment, strategies used to empower the students, and outcomes students attributed to feelings and processes of empowerment. Based on these codes as well as the existing literature, the first author themed the data, a process of developing extended phrases or sentences that identify what a unit of data is about and/or what it means (Saldaña, 2021), and developed a preliminary codebook. For example, “safe space” and “freedom to express self” both reflect aspects of a welcoming, safe environment discussed by Jennings et al. (2006). Additionally, “they believe in themselves,” “feeling like a leader,” and “I knew I could do it” encompass similar ideas described by Zimmerman et al. (2018) as beliefs regarding control and confidence in one’s ability to make a difference. Throughout this process, the first and fourth authors met to review the coding framework, refine category definitions, and ensure alignment with theoretical constructs. These discussions informed iterative revisions to the codebook, enhancing clarity and consistency in their identification before proceeding to the next stage of analysis.

3.4.2. Stage 2: Thematic Analysis of Empowerment Processes and Outcomes

In Stage 2, the first author worked with the two research assistants to refine the preliminary codebook and apply it to the data corpus. The research assistants were first introduced to the codebook, and together they reviewed its structure, definitions, and coding procedures. To build a baseline familiarity with the data corpus, the research assistants began by following the same first-cycle coding procedures described in Stage 1, applied specifically to the empowerment sections of each interview. That is, they read through the empowerment sections of each interview and applied first-cycle descriptive codes, in vivo codes, and process codes. Following this, both research assistants transitioned to using the codebook to double-code each transcript within the data corpus. Although transcripts were double-coded, we approached analysis from a reflexive thematic perspective (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Our goal was not to achieve statistical agreement or coding replication but to engage in analytic dialog and collaborative meaning-making. Differences in interpretation were discussed through iterative team conversations, allowing themes to be refined and clarified rather than resolved through consensus alone. The first author closely reviewed their coding, providing feedback on their interpretations and assessing consistency in code application. Regular meetings were held to review and discuss coding decisions, clarify any ambiguities, and address instances where codes were difficult to apply or did not fully capture emerging themes. Additionally, these discussions allowed for the identification of new themes that were not fully encompassed by the existing codebook, prompting iterative refinements. A primary focus of this stage was ensuring alignment between the research assistants’ initial codes and the thematic structure of the codebook, fostering analytic coherence and the shared understanding of the evolving thematic framework before advancing to the final phase of analysis.

3.4.3. Stage 3: Interpretive Mapping of Empowerment Processes and Culturally Responsive Practices

In Stage 3, the first and second authors reviewed the empowerment processes identified in Stage 2 to assess their alignment with the four domains of culturally responsive practices as described in the literature (Gay, 2018; Wycoff et al., in press). This comparison aimed to examine the extent to which the strategies students identified as fostering empowerment corresponded with culturally responsive practices and whether all domains of culturally responsive practices were reflected in the strategies youth described.

3.5. Researchers’ Positionality and Reflexivity

In an effort to mitigate biases that could impact data analysis, researchers should discuss their experiences and perspectives and their potential influence on the research process (Hill et al., 2005; Morrow, 2005). The lead author is a Filipina-American Ph.D. student raised in California and Colorado, United States. Her experiences growing up as a racial minority in predominately White, middle-class neighborhoods and schools, as well as her childhood participation in numerous after-school activities, day camps, and summer camps, informed her interests in cultural processes in out-of-school-time learning contexts. The second author is a Mexican-American female raised in California, whose research focuses on Latine youth development during out-of-school time. The third author is a White female raised in Italy with expertise in pure mathematics and in the teaching of mathematics. The fourth author is a White female raised in California, whose family has been in the United States for more than three generations. Her research expertise is on organized after-school activities. In addition to the authors, the data collection and coding team consisted of monolingual and bilingual research assistants from different racial and ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Filipino/a-American; Vietnamese-American; Mexican- and U.S.-born Latinas; international students from China, Japan and Korea; and White, non-Hispanic) and different education levels (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students).

Consistent with intersectional perspectives on research (Boveda & Annamma, 2023), we recognize that our identities and scholarly commitments shaped both the design of this study and how we interpreted youths’ experiences. In particular, our shared focus on equity and culturally responsive practice informed an asset-based approach to analysis, through which students’ perspectives were interpreted as reflecting strengths, agency, and meaningful engagement. At the same time, we acknowledge that differences between researchers and participants—particularly in cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds—may have influenced how certain experiences were understood or emphasized. To address this, we engaged in collaborative coding and ongoing analytic discussions across a diverse research team, using these conversations to critically reflect on our assumptions and refine our interpretations throughout the research process.

4. Results

Across interviews, most students (84%) described moments when they felt empowered during Math CEO. Students’ responses captured a range of experiences, from immediate feelings of confidence and belonging to more sustained reflections on learning, persistence, and leadership. Some students who did not feel empowered (16%) were able to describe what would help make them feel that way, identifying strategies that mirrored those experienced by other youth or aligned conceptually with empowerment theory (Zimmerman, 1995) and the critical youth empowerment framework (Jennings et al., 2006).

The results are organized around four domains of culturally responsive practices: (a) caring and inclusive relationships, (b) empowerment and engagement, (c) cultural and linguistic affirmation, and (d) relevance and real-world connections. Although one culturally responsive domain is labeled “empowerment and engagement,” this label refers to how the mentors and program features shaped youths’ roles and opportunities to participate within the activity, rather than to empowerment as a psychological process or outcome. In contrast, empowerment theory conceptualizes empowerment as a multidimensional process involving intrapersonal, interactional, behavioral, environmental, shared power, and critical reflection components (Jennings et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 1995). Accordingly, we distinguish between culturally responsive practices that positioned youth in particular ways and empowerment processes youth described experiencing.

All four culturally responsive domains were reflected in students’ accounts (see

Table 1. Student-identified culturally responsive practices that fostered empowerment.

Culturally Responsive Domain	Culturally Responsive Subdimension (n)	Defining Practices	Illustrative Quote
Caring and inclusive relationships	Demonstrating an ethic of caring (n = 13)	Mentors cultivate relational climates characterized by patience, encouragement, respect, and psychological safety that position youth as valued members of the learning community.	“The mentors are really supportive… when you feel like giving up, they’ll help you and encourage you to keep trying.”
Cultural and linguistic affirmation	Promoting cultural knowledge and appreciation (n = 3)	Instruction integrates culturally situated examples and affirms youths’ racial, ethnic, and linguistic identities as legitimate and meaningful resources within mathematical learning.	“We were using Mexico like an example […] I explained about Mexico because I’m Mexican […and that made me] feel more confident.”
Empowerment and engagement	Empowering youth (n = 79)	Participation structures provide structured opportunities for contribution, leadership, and shared responsibility, positioning youth as active contributors rather than passive recipients of instruction.	“Sometimes I just jump in, if I know my friends and like, I’m really close with I’m like, ‘Oh, this is this,’ like, I explain to them how to do it. Then sometimes, like, the mentors, like, ‘Oh, this person really understands it. So, you can help them.’ Little by little, I’ll be like, okay, and then I help…”
	Having high expectations (n = 21)	Mentors communicate beliefs in youths’ capabilities by pairing meaningful challenge with relational support, scaffolding, and growth-oriented feedback.	“It provides me with hard problems I wouldn’t usually do in school. And when I finish and get it correct, I feel confident about myself.”
	Centering students’ knowledge and ways of doing things (n = 42)	Mentors recognize, validate, and incorporate youths’ existing knowledge, learning strategies, and perspectives into instructional practices and group problem-solving.	“Not every kid learns the same way… they explain things in a way that the kids know.”
Relevance and real-world connection	Making the activity content relevant (n = 3)	Mathematical concepts are connected to youths’ lived experiences and broader life purposes, reinforcing perceived utility and meaning.	“…by telling them how important math is.”

Note. Students could have identified more than one strategy in their interview.

), though the experiences aligned with the empowerment and engagement domain were the most frequently described, particularly those involving opportunities for contribution, leadership, high expectations, and shared voice. References to cultural affirmation and real-world connections appeared less often but provided important insight into how identity recognition and perceived purpose may also shape empowerment in math-focused after-school contexts.

Within each domain, we examined how students’ depictions of mentor practices and program features were related to multiple empowerment processes. Although Table 1 presents findings at the subdimension level of culturally responsive practices,

Table 2. Empowerment processes activated across culturally responsive practices.

Culturally Responsive Domain	Empowerment Processes
	Intrapersonal	Interactional	Behavioral	Environmental	Shared Power	Critical Reflection
Caring and inclusive relationships	Confidence strengthened through encouragement and relational support	Trusting youth–mentor partnerships that normalize help-seeking	Greater willingness to attempt challenging problems	Psychological safety and sense of belonging	—	—
Cultural and linguistic affirmation	Identity-affirmed confidence when cultural knowledge is valued	Recognition of racial/ethnic identities within the learning space	Increased comfort contributing when personal background is legitimized	Inclusive climate across identities	—	Emerging awareness of identity as asset in learning
Empowerment and engagement	Self-belief developed through supported challenge and recognition of competence	Collaborative knowledge-building and peer learning	Leadership, contribution, and active participation structured into group work	—	Youth voice incorporated into instructional and activity decisions	—
Relevance and real-world connection	Purpose-driven confidence linked to perceived relevance of math	—	Engagement motivated by understanding math’s broader importance	—	—	Early forms of reflection on significance of mathematics beyond activity

synthesizes these patterns at the domain level to illustrate how culturally responsive practices aligned with different empowerment processes. As Table 2 shows, no single culturally responsive practice domain activated all dimensions of empowerment; rather, distinct domains were associated with particular processes. Thus, rather than operating as discrete categories, these empowerment processes were interwoven and relational, emerging through the combined influence of multiple culturally responsive practices that collectively structured participation, relationships, and the learning environment as a whole. In the results that follow, quotations illustrate both shared themes and the nuances of individual voices; we note when patterns were common across students and when a single account reflects a less frequent but illuminating perspective.

4.1. Caring and Inclusive Relationships

The first domain of culturally responsive practices, caring and inclusive relationships, centered on how mentors demonstrated an ethic of care and fostered a climate of psychological safety. In interviews (n = 10), students emphasized that the quality of mentor–student interactions played a central role in their feelings of empowerment. Mentors were described as patient, humorous, attentive, and encouraging. One student shared,

“the mentors are really supportive. Like, when you feel like giving up, they’ll help you, and they’ll like, encourage you to keep trying.” Similarly, another student talked about “the way they don’t judge us, and the way that they explain and help me figure out problems and use activities to get us motivated.”

In addition to specific relational interactions, students emphasized caring and inclusion at the broader level of the program (n = 3), characterizing Math CEO as a “safe space” where “they let us express ourselves” and in which youth felt welcomed and respected. Although discussed more fully within the domain of cultural and linguistic affirmation, some students explicitly referenced racial and ethnic inclusion as part of this welcoming climate. Together with the program’s structure (small group work, familiar mentors, and a culture of inclusion), this cultivated feelings of psychological safety—an environmental dimension of empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006).

Across these accounts, caring relationships and inclusive environments created conditions under which students felt confident asking questions, taking risks and attempting challenging problems, contributing to discussions, and participating more fully. Thus, as shown in Table 2, these culturally responsive commitments to demonstrating an ethic of care and fostering inclusive spaces appeared to activate multiple empowerment processes. These included intrapersonal empowerment processes such as increased confidence, interactional processes such as strengthened youth–adult partnerships, behavioral processes such as willingness to participate, and environmental processes via psychological safety (Jennings et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 1995).

4.2. Cultural and Linguistic Affirmation

The second domain, cultural and linguistic affirmation, captured moments when students’ cultural identities and ways of knowing were recognized within the activity. Although referenced less frequently (n = 3), several students described experiences when mathematical concepts were connected to cultural contexts or when racial and ethnic identities were explicitly welcomed within the program climate. These accounts reflect the culturally responsive subdimension of promoting cultural knowledge and appreciation, as well as broader commitments to affirming youths’ identities within the learning environment.

In one instance, a student described instructional activities that integrated cultural contexts into mathematical problem-solving, including one activity in particular that connected mathematical concepts to Hawaiian culture. After observing mentor-led examples and then practicing independently, the student explained the following:

“Yea, because it doesn’t seem that hard, because the ways that they showed us, like the Hawaiian culture, we did… we first did the example that the [mentors] did, and then we did it ourselves. And that made me feel like I can do it. And instead of just learning it and being scared of, ‘I can’t do it.’”

Here, cultural context appeared to make mathematical content feel more accessible and less intimidating. Rather than positioning math as abstract and unapproachable, culturally situated examples supported understanding and reduced anxiety. In doing so, these practices activated intrapersonal empowerment processes, as the student described shifts in confidence and perceived competence—moving from “I can’t do it” toward “I can do it” (Zimmerman, 1995). By situating mathematical learning within cultural contexts, mentors repositioned math as accessible rather than exclusionary, enabling students to see themselves as capable participants in the activity.

In another instance, a student confided that they “just get too shy when it comes to, like, in front of everyone” but then went on to describe an activity that connected mathematical ideas to Mexico, creating space for them to draw on their own background:“ We were using Mexico like an example to connect all our things… So, I explained about Mexico because I’m Mexican, my dad’s Mexican… [and activities like that make me] feel more confident.” Although the student acknowledged ongoing shyness, they noted that connecting mathematical content to their own cultural background contributed to increased confidence. This moment suggests that legitimizing students’ cultural backgrounds as assets within mathematical learning and inviting them to draw upon their cultural knowledge during academic discussions may activate intrapersonal empowerment in the form of increasing confidence, as well as behavioral empowerment reflected in greater willingness to participate (Zimmerman, 1995).

Cultural affirmation also operated at the level of program climate. One student emphasized that “no matter what race [or] ethnicity you are, it just feels nice to be here.” Though feelings of safety and belonging are discussed within the domain of caring and inclusive relationships, this statement highlights how racial and ethnic inclusion was explicitly recognized as part of the program’s welcoming environment. For this student, empowerment was tied not only to instructional practices but to the sense that diverse cultural identities were acknowledged and respected.

Although relatively few students explicitly referenced cultural affirmation, these accounts illustrate how integrating and affirming diverse cultural contexts into instruction and cultivating identity-affirming climates can activate multiple empowerment processes (see Table 2). In addition to fostering intrapersonal empowerment through increased confidence, interactional empowerment via the relational recognition of racial and ethnic identities within the activity, and behavioral empowerment through greater willingness to participate, these practices reflect environmental empowerment processes described in critical youth empowerment theory (Jennings et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 1995). By creating inclusive climates in which youths’ racial and cultural identities were recognized as legitimate resources, the program established psychologically safe social conditions that enabled youth voice, risk taking, and active participation. Moreover, when students described drawing upon their cultural background in academic discussions, these moments signaled emerging forms of critical reflection, as youth began to understand their identities as assets within mathematical learning rather than as peripheral to it (Jennings et al., 2006).

4.3. Empowerment and Engagement

The third domain, empowerment and engagement, captured how mentors and program features invited youth contributions, centered youth knowledge, and maintained meaningful expectations. Because this centered on how youth were positioned within the learning environment, it aligned closely with multiple empowerment processes. Among the practices students experienced as empowering, the most frequently mentioned practices involved creating opportunities for youth voice, leadership, persistence, and shared responsibility within the activity. Still, as shown in Table 2, the culturally responsive domain of empowerment and engagement did not appear to activate all empowerment processes under investigation. Although presented separately for analytic clarity, the subdimensions within this domain often overlapped in practice; opportunities for contribution, shared voice, and high expectations were frequently enacted simultaneously within Math CEO. Across interviews, students described empowerment not as an isolated feeling but as something experienced through opportunities to contribute, collaborate, and take on responsibility within the math learning environment.

4.3.1. Empowering Youth: Providing Opportunities for Contribution and Leadership

Many students (n = 79) described feeling empowered when given opportunities to actively contribute, collaborate, or lead during group work. Rather than remaining passive recipients of instruction, students were encouraged to explain their thinking, help peers, and demonstrate their understanding. One student shared, “they’ve been making us [work] in groups and working together. So, I think, like, I could work with other people and show them what I do.” Moments of teaching or supporting peers allowed students to see themselves as knowledgeable and capable, with several noting that these experiences made them “feel like the leader.”

These accounts illustrate how participation structures within Math CEO redistributed authority and created visible opportunities for agency. By positioning youth as active contributors, mentors fostered intrapersonal empowerment as students began to identify not as passive recipients of knowledge but as leaders, as well as behavioral expressions of empowerment embedded within collaborative problem-solving (Zimmerman, 1995). Leadership and contribution were not framed as exceptional acts but as normalized aspects of mathematical engagement.

4.3.2. Having High Expectations: Supporting Persistence and Self-Confidence

Students also described empowerment emerging through encouragement, challenge, and persistence (n = 21). Importantly, these intrapersonal shifts were not described as isolated traits but as responses to an environment that maintained expectations for growth while providing relational support. One student emphasized the importance of both mentor encouragement and self-affirmation:

“and, also, expect them to say it to themselves too. So, they think they’re good, they’re gonna do good. And when they… you’re gonna have a bad grade, [and when] that bad grade goes up, you’re like, really proud of yourself for giving yourself those compliments.”

These reflections suggest that high expectations, when paired with encouragement and scaffolding, cultivated a sense of competence and perseverance. Students described coming to view effort as meaningful and improvement as attainable, reinforcing intrapersonal and behavioral empowerment through structured challenge rather than pressure (Zimmerman, 1995). In this way, empowerment was experienced not as the absence of difficulty but as confidence built through supported struggle.

4.3.3. Centering Youths’ Knowledge and Ways of Doing Things: Sharing Voice and Authority

Students further described empowerment when mentors recognized diverse ways of understanding and incorporated youth input into instructional and program decisions (n = 42). Several youth noted that mentors adapted explanations to meet varied learning needs. As one student reflected, mentors would

“explain things in a way that the kids know, because not every kid learns the same way… some people understand by getting explained little by little, while others understand it by getting those things like, ‘you know this, and then you know that, and then you add it all together.’”

Such instructional flexibility positioned students’ ways of thinking as legitimate and worthy of accommodation.

In addition, some students described feeling empowered when mentors invited input and incorporated youth ideas into future activities. One student explained the following: “listen to like, different ideas that we could do…’Oh okay, so like, students said that we could do this…why don’t we try it?’ You know? So, then that’s like, a really cool… they really listen.” Another student emphasized that everyone “has a right to their say… they can say they think that a problem will be better solved this way.” These moments of recognizing and even inviting youth voice within the learning environment reflect shared power empowerment processes as described in critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006). When students were invited to shape discussions, suggest activities, or articulate alternative problem-solving approaches, empowerment extended beyond personal confidence toward collective participation and shared decision-making.

4.4. Relevance and Real-World Connections

The fourth domain, relevance and real-world connections, captured how mathematical learning was connected to students’ lived experiences and their understanding of the broader importance of mathematics. A small number of students (n = 3) explicitly referenced empowerment in relation to this domain, particularly when describing how math felt meaningful beyond the classroom or connected to future goals. For example, when asked what could help students feel more empowered, one student responded, “by telling them how important math is.” Although brief, this comment suggests that empowerment may be linked not only to participation or success within Math CEO but also to recognizing the broader significance of mathematical learning. Though such reflections were infrequent across interviews, these students’ experiences highlight the potential role of perceived relevance and real-world connection in shaping intrapersonal, behavioral, and critical reflection empowerment processes within after-school STEM contexts (Jennings et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 1995; see Table 2). When youth understand why mathematics matters beyond the immediate activity, their confidence may extend toward a more sustained sense of agency.

5. Discussion

This study examined how culturally responsive practices within a university-based after-school math enrichment activity largely serving Latine populations were related to adolescents’ experiences of empowerment. Students’ accounts illustrate that empowerment in Math CEO was experienced not as a singular internal disposition or outcome but as a relational and context-dependent process embedded in everyday interactions, participation structures, and affirming learning environments. When interpreted through a culturally responsive lens, these processes were activated through specific practices that shaped how youth participated and learned within the activity.

Across interviews, students most often described empowerment through interactional and behavioral pathways, supported by environmental conditions and intrapersonal growth. These findings suggest that empowerment in Math CEO was produced through multiple, interrelated processes rather than through isolated program features. In particular, culturally responsive practices—especially encouragement, instructional scaffolding, and relational support—functioned as key mechanisms through which these empowerment processes were enacted.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

By centering adolescents’ perspectives, this study advances scholarship on both empowerment and culturally responsive practices in three ways. First, it reframes empowerment processes as culturally enacted rather than internally generated. Our findings demonstrate how intrapersonal empowerment processes like confidence, agency, and perceived control emerged through culturally responsive interactions that structured participation, validated youth knowledge, and redistributed authority within the learning environment. Second, this study extends critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006) into STEM-focused after-school activities. Though relational belonging and meaningful participation were frequently articulated by youth as factors that supported their empowerment, shared power and critical reflection emerged more selectively, suggesting that empowerment processes emerge in developmentally and contextually specific ways within math-centered after-school settings. Finally, this study conceptualizes culturally responsive practices not as static pedagogical orientations but as mechanisms that activate empowerment processes. By illustrating how participation structures, high expectations, and identity affirmation dynamically shape youth engagement, this work clarifies how equity-oriented learning environments cultivate agency, confidence, and belonging in organized after-school STEM environments.

Culturally Responsive Practices as Mechanisms of Empowerment

Students frequently mentioned three culturally responsive practices as supporting their empowerment at Math CEO: (1) positioning youth as active contributors and collaborators, (2) centering youth’s knowledge and ways of thinking, and (3) maintaining high expectations. Students most consistently described feeling empowered when they were positioned as active contributors to the learning process. Opportunities to collaborate with peers, explain ideas, explore multiple solution pathways, and engage in shared problem-solving allowed youth to exercise agency. By treating students’ ways of thinking as assets rather than deficits, mentors reduced barriers to participation and fostered confidence in students’ ability to learn and improve. Importantly, these practices did not operate as discrete strategies that could be mapped one-to-one onto empowerment dimensions. Rather, these practices worked in concert to shape the conditions of participation, structuring how youth engaged with mathematical content, interpreted feedback and perceived challenges, and positioned themselves as learners and contributors within the after-school math activity (Simpkins et al., 2017). In this way, culturally responsive practices functioned as organizing features of the learning environment, not isolated instructional moves.

Together, these culturally responsive practices created learning experiences characterized by both challenge and support, in which rigorous mathematical engagement was paired with scaffolding, relational care, and the recognition of students’ existing knowledge. These conditions appeared to create the relational safety and structured challenge necessary for youth to interpret difficulty not as evidence of their inability to succeed but as a normalized and productive part of the learning process. This combination of challenge and relational support aligns with empowerment theory’s emphasis on developing perceived control and efficacy through meaningful engagement (Zimmerman, 2000), as well as research highlighting the importance of positioning youth as capable participants in learning experiences (Nasir & Vakil, 2017). These findings suggest that intrapersonal empowerment—such as confidence and perceived control—may develop through participation in culturally responsive, relationally supportive interactions. Although empowerment theory distinguishes intrapersonal and interactional components analytically (Zimmerman, 1995, 2000), students’ accounts illustrate how these components may be developmentally intertwined in practice. In this sense, empowerment was not simply an internal shift in self-perception but the product of interpersonal experiences that affirmed students’ knowledge and again positioned them as capable participants in shared inquiry.

Students frequently contrasted these experiences with school-based math classrooms they perceived as characterized by pressure, competition, and the fear of being wrong. Research on mathematics anxiety suggests that evaluative, competitive, performance-oriented classroom climates are associated with heightened anxiety and reduced engagement (O’Hara et al., 2022). In contrast, mentors in Math CEO structured problem-solving as shared inquiry rather than teacher-directed evaluation, creating a learning environment that emphasized collaboration and signaled to students that their ideas were legitimate and their contributions were valued. As a result, students described feeling empowered when they encountered “hard problems [they] wouldn’t normally do in school” and were supported through struggle, rather than being shielded from challenge or evaluated through deficit-oriented lenses. These findings further align with qualitative research demonstrating that developmental growth often emerges from dissonance and adaptive learning in the face of setbacks (Larson & Walker, 2006). These experiences fostered intrapersonal and behavioral empowerment by reinforcing the belief that effort, persistence, and improvement were both expected and attainable (Zimmerman, 1995). Consistent with empowerment theory’s emphasis on process rather than outcomes, youth described feeling a sense of agency when mentors encouraged them to try, support their peers, and guided them through uncertainty—even when they had not yet achieved competence. These findings extend narrow interpretations of empowerment as contingent on achievement by illustrating how agency can develop through engagement with challenge itself.

5.2. Shared Power and Critical Reflection as Emerging Pathways

Although most students’ descriptions of empowerment centered on relational and participatory experiences, a smaller number of students described practices aligned with shared power and critical reflection—two dimensions central to critical youth empowerment (Jennings et al., 2006). When present, these experiences signaled forms of empowerment that extend beyond individual confidence toward collective agency and meaning-making. Students described feeling empowered when mentors solicited their input, listened to their ideas, or emphasized that “everyone [… has] a right to their say.” These moments reflect ways mentors can share power, recognizing youth as active partners rather than passive recipients within the learning process. Similarly, a small number of students connected empowerment to discussions about the broader importance of mathematics, suggesting nascent forms of critical reflection.

The relative infrequency of these themes may reflect developmental considerations, program priorities, or the structural constraints of organized after-school STEM activities. Early adolescence is marked by heightened sensitivity to peer relationships and belonging within social contexts (Brown & Larson, 2009), which may make relational participatory experiences more immediately salient than explicit sociopolitical critique. At the same time, research on youth civic and sociopolitical development suggests that collective agency and critical reflection are shaped by access to structured opportunities for dialog, shared authority, and engagement with social issues (Wray-Lake, 2019; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Organized after-school STEM programs frequently prioritize skill development and academic confidence, which may limit the extent to which explicit critical reflection or shared decision-making is foregrounded in daily activities (National Research Council, 2009). Nevertheless, the presence of these themes suggests that organized after-school STEM contexts hold potential to cultivate deeper forms of empowerment that extend beyond participation toward collective agency and critical awareness. Indeed, rather than viewing these findings as a gap, they point to opportunities for extending empowerment beyond the foundational processes of confidence and participation toward more explicitly collective and reflective forms.

5.3. Implications for Practice

The findings from this study offer several implications for the design of culturally responsive after-school STEM programs. Taken together, these implications are relevant for a practice-oriented framework organized around four domains of culturally responsive practices, as shown in Figure 1—caring and inclusive relationships, cultural and linguistic affirmation, empowerment and engagement, and relevance and real-world connection—which can guide the design of equitable and empowering learning environments in after-school contexts. First, how youth are positioned and their perceived level of agency and voice in activities matter. Programs seeking to support youth empowerment should intentionally create opportunities for contribution, collaboration, and shared problem-solving that position youth as active contributors rather than passive recipients of knowledge. Structuring learning environments to normalize student voice, multiple approaches to problem-solving, and peer-to-peer teaching can redistribute authority in ways that foster agency. Second, maintaining high expectations within relationally supportive environments is critical. Students described challenges as empowering when they were paired with encouragement, scaffolding, and an ethic of care. After-school math programs can cultivate empowerment by pairing rigor with responsiveness, signaling that growth is both expected and attainable. Third, centering students’ knowledge and ways of doing things serves as a powerful pathway to agency. When mentors validated students’ thinking strategies, connected to their prior knowledge, and normalized mistakes, youth experienced increased confidence and willingness to engage. Designing instruction that treats students’ experiences and perspectives as assets rather than deficits may reduce barriers to participation and promote sustained engagement. Fourth, although shared power and critical reflection were less frequently articulated, their presence highlights opportunities for deeper empowerment in after-school STEM contexts. Programs may consider intentionally incorporating structured opportunities for youth input in decision-making and explicit conversations about the broader purpose and significance of mathematical learning. Such efforts may extend empowerment beyond participation toward collective agency and critical awareness. Finally, the findings from this study underscore the importance of ensuring that youth from historically marginalized backgrounds have meaningful access to culturally responsive after-school STEM activities, as prior research suggests that access to such opportunities is uneven, particularly in under-resourced communities (Fredericks & Caroleo, 2026). In this study, supports such as providing transportation and not having any fees were critical for enabling participation, highlighting the role of structural investments in reducing barriers to access. Expanding these supports may be essential for addressing opportunity gaps and ensuring that such programs are equitably accessible.

5.4. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This study makes important contributions to the growing literature on organized after-school STEM activities by identifying specific culturally responsive practices that adolescents perceive as fostering their empowerment in an after-school math enrichment activity. Through the use of in-depth qualitative interviews, this study centers adolescents’ voices, offering a unique perspective into how program design features and mentoring practices support empowerment processes and outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, this study directly responds to calls for research on the educational concepts and didactics that characterize effective organized after-school STEM activities. Grounded in culturally responsive frameworks (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995) and empowerment theories (Jennings et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 1995), this study demonstrates how particular relational, structural, and instructional practices may serve as key mechanisms supporting youth confidence, agency, and engagement in STEM learning. By detailing how culturally responsive practices operate as empowering processes, this study provides actionable insights for educators and program designers seeking to create inclusive, meaningful, and motivational organized after-school STEM experiences, particularly for youth from historically marginalized backgrounds.

At the same time, several limitations warrant consideration. Firstly, this study focused on a single after-school math enrichment activity serving primarily Latine adolescents within a university-based setting. While this design allowed for a rich, in-depth exploration of participants’ experiences, generalizability to other programs, contexts, or youth populations is limited. Future studies should examine how culturally responsive practices and empowerment processes operate across a broader range of youth populations, including Black, Indigenous, and other racially/ethnically marginalized youth, as well as youth with other marginalized identities (e.g., LGBTQ+ youth). Additionally, examining these processes across diverse after-school STEM contexts—including different program models, community-based organizations, or online STEM education initiatives—will be important for understanding how culturally responsive practices function across settings and for identifying both shared and context-specific mechanisms of empowerment. Secondly, because this study employed cross-sectional interviews at a single point in time, we cannot determine the longer-term impacts of these empowering experiences on students’ academic trajectories, STEM identity development, or career interests. Longitudinal research is needed to explore where early experiences of empowerment in after-school STEM settings contribute to sustained participation, motivation, and career persistence in STEM fields. Thirdly, although this study utilized a structured qualitative coding approach, some aspects of empowerment—particularly more complex domains such as critical reflection or sociopolitical change goals—may remain difficult for adolescents to articulate in brief interviews. Future research may benefit from incorporating additional data sources, such as participant observations or youth-produced work samples, to further document how empowerment processes unfold within organized after-school STEM learning environments. Finally, though this study highlights specific mentoring practices, future research should examine how program design features (e.g., mentor training, curriculum development, organizational supports) shape the consistency and fidelity of implementing culturally responsive, empowering practices across programs and staff.

6. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that empowerment in after-school STEM contexts is not merely an internal psychological shift but a culturally enacted process that is shaped through relational, instructional, and structural features of the learning environment. Across our findings, the four domains of culturally responsive practices—caring and inclusive relationships, cultural and linguistic affirmation, empowerment and engagement, and relevance and real-world connections—emerged as a practice-oriented framework for understanding how youth empowerment is supported in organized after-school activities. Within this framework, students felt that specific practices such as centering youth knowledge, redistributing voice, pairing challenge with care, and affirming identities functioned as mechanisms that activated empowerment processes.

These findings underscore the importance of designing after-school STEM environments that move beyond access toward culturally responsive settings that center youth and position them as capable and valued contributors. As efforts to broaden participation in STEM continue, equity-oriented program design must attend not only to who is present in STEM spaces but to how those spaces are structured to cultivate agency, belonging, and confidence. By articulating a practice-oriented framework grounded in adolescents’ experiences, this study extends existing culturally responsive scholarship by specifying how these practices are enacted within after-school contexts and how they support youth empowerment in STEM learning environments.