Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies

Background: School populations in many education systems are culturally, linguistically and ability-diverse, while the teaching workforce remains comparatively homogeneous. Culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogies are widely advocated as the response, and teacher preparation is the principal lever. Which preparation approaches actually shift what teachers believe, know and do remains contested.

Objective: To identify, appraise and synthesise, without meta-analysis, empirical evaluations of culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogical approaches used in the preparation and continuing development of teachers for diverse learners.

Methods: Eighteen source-specific search lines were executed in ERIC and the Directory of Open Access Journals, with the last search on 30 July 2026. Eligible reports were primary empirical studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 July 2026 that evaluated an identifiable preparation approach intended to develop culturally responsive, culturally relevant or sustaining, linguistically responsive, anti-racist, multicultural or inclusive pedagogy, and that reported outcomes for pre-service or in-service teachers or teacher educators. Inclusion required a full text that could be retrieved and read. Screening, extraction and appraisal were completed by one reviewer working with computer assistance; no second reviewer independently repeated any stage. Methodological quality was appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Findings were synthesised narratively using structured tabulation and effect-direction coding, without pooling. No meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Of 2,509 records identified, 634 duplicates were removed and 1,875 were screened. Thirty-nine reports were sought, 12 could not be retrieved, 27 were assessed at full text and 21 studies were included. Studies came from 13 countries or territories and used qualitative (n = 9), mixed-methods (n = 7), quantitative descriptive (n = 3) and quantitative non-randomised (n = 2) designs; sample sizes ranged from 12 to 2,746 participants. Only four studies included an internal comparison group, and all four favoured approaches that placed candidates in structured, analytic contact with concrete practice over primarily informational instruction: case-based instruction over textbook instruction, theory combined with practice over theory alone, multi-professional over mono-professional co-teaching, and case-based learning over usual coursework. Self-reported proximal outcomes such as self-efficacy and perceived preparedness shifted more readily than demonstrated enactment. Critical consciousness was consistently the least-achieved dimension: only 45 of 175 candidates in one study reached a systemic articulation of privilege, one of 20 in another addressed critical consciousness, and most candidates in a third embedded culturally sustaining practice only tokenistically. Methodological quality was uneven, with 13 of 105 domain judgements rated No and 31 as Can't tell.

Conclusions: Practice-proximal, analytically structured preparation approaches are the most consistently supported design feature in this body of evidence, but confidence in every outcome domain is low or very low. The literature is dominated by small, uncontrolled, self-report studies of single courses. The field needs comparative designs, measures of enacted practice rather than reported confidence, and sustained attention to critical consciousness, which current approaches rarely move.