Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive Pedagogy in Nigeria: Evidence from Pre-service Teachers’ Perspectives

Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue; Andikan Ibanga; Oluwafisayo Ayodeji; Carol Barlow; Sunday Nto; Emediong Otu; Stella Adewalure; Ochuko Imonikugbere; Utenwo-ojo Abraham

doi:10.12688/f1000research.179937.1

Home Browse Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Policy Brief

Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive Pedagogy in Nigeria: Evidence from Pre-service Teachers’ Perspectives

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue ¹, Andikan Ibanga², Oluwafisayo Ayodeji², [...] Carol Barlow³, Sunday Nto¹, Emediong Otu², Stella Adewalure³, Ochuko Imonikugbere³, Utenwo-ojo Abraham²

Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue ¹, Andikan Ibanga², [...] Oluwafisayo Ayodeji², Carol Barlow³, Sunday Nto¹, Emediong Otu², Stella Adewalure³, Ochuko Imonikugbere³, Utenwo-ojo Abraham²

PUBLISHED 26 May 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Sydani Institute for Research and Innovation, Sydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria
² Sydani Initiative for International Development, Sydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria
³ CEBAR Training and Consultancy Services Limited, Abuja, Nigeria

Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue
Roles: Conceptualization

Andikan Ibanga
Roles: Supervision

Oluwafisayo Ayodeji
Roles: Investigation

Carol Barlow
Roles: Project Administration

Sunday Nto
Roles: Formal Analysis

Emediong Otu
Roles: Project Administration

Stella Adewalure
Roles: Data Curation

Ochuko Imonikugbere
Roles: Supervision

Utenwo-ojo Abraham
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Gender inequality in education in Nigeria persists beyond access, manifesting in classroom participation, leadership opportunities, and everyday pedagogical interactions. Pre-service teachers occupy a strategic position in either reproducing or transforming these inequalities, yet their baseline perceptions have received insufficient examination.

Policy and implications

Drawing on qualitative evidence from 150 pre-service teachers across colleges of education (CoEs) in Taraba State, Enugu State, and the Federal Capital Territory, this policy brief demonstrates that gender bias is widely perceived to favour boys, particularly in classroom participation and leadership roles. Inequalities are further compounded by socioeconomic status, with privilege frequently linked to wealth, social background, and influence. Although girl-focused empowerment initiatives are visible, they remain limited in scope and do not adequately address intersecting forms of disadvantage, including disability and poverty. These findings indicate that existing teacher education policies insufficiently integrate gender-responsive and inclusive pedagogical frameworks, thereby limiting their capacity to address structural inequities.

Recommendations

The brief proposes the institutionalisation of gender-transformative and intersectional training within teacher education curricula to strengthen practicum-based learning and align teacher competency standards with inclusive education principles.

Conclusions

Teacher education systems in Nigeria risk perpetuating existing inequalities without comprehensive reform. Policy action is required to reposition teacher education as a central mechanism for advancing equity and inclusion in Nigeria’s education system.

Keywords

Classroom bias, education policy, Gender equality, inclusive education, intersectionality, Nigeria, pre-service teachers, teacher education.

Corresponding author: Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This research was supported by the GPE-KIX–IDRC partnership, project number: 110511-001. The views and interpretations presented in this policy brief are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the GPE-KIX–IDRC partnership.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2026 Okagbue HI et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Okagbue HI, Ibanga A, Ayodeji O et al. Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive Pedagogy in Nigeria: Evidence from Pre-service Teachers’ Perspectives [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:797 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179937.1) First published: 26 May 2026, 15:797 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179937.1) Latest published: 26 May 2026, 15:797 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179937.1)

Introduction

Gender inequality within education systems reflects broader sociocultural, economic, and institutional structures. Existing policy efforts have increasingly focused on improving access to education; however, disparities in classroom participation, leadership, and learning experiences remain evident in the Nigerian educational system, especially at the tertiary level. These inequalities are often reproduced through routine pedagogical practices, teacher expectations, entrenched gender norms and power dynamics.¹ Dissecting gender inequality in this context using feminist theory showed that cultural norms, gender socialisation, and patriarchal structures are major enablers, while critical theory showed that power dynamics and entrenched, often rigid institutional processes are major facilitators.¹

Teachers occupy a pivotal role in shaping these dynamics if addressed by relevant actors. Their beliefs, expectations, and classroom practices mediate not only academic outcomes but also students’ self-concept and participation. Consequently, the pre-service phase of teacher preparation, which often serves as a litmus test for future classroom readiness, represents a critical period during which professional dispositions are formed.² At this stage, pre-service students enter training with pre-existing beliefs shaped by prior schooling experiences and societal norms.

This policy brief draws on empirical evidence from a qualitative descriptive study conducted among pre-service teachers in three Colleges of Education (CoEs) in Nigeria. The study provides a baseline assessment of perceptions regarding gender inequality, discrimination, and inclusion prior to formal pedagogical training (intervention). Such evidence obtained from the project is essential for informing policy interventions to strengthen teacher education systems. This brief will move beyond gender parity³ to the dynamics of gender equality in the Nigerian educational system.

The brief is further informed by social exchange theory (SET), one of the most influential theories in the social sciences.⁴ SET posits that interactions within institutional environments shape individual attitudes and behaviours. In educational contexts, SET has been applied widely as documented in these papers.^5–7 The norms, expectations, and practices observed by pre-service teachers constitute a system of exchange that influences their understanding of inclusion, fairness, bias, and professional responsibility. Research has shown that where inequities are normalised within this system, they are likely to be reproduced or perpetuated in future practice.⁸

Aim

To examine pre-service teachers’ perceptions of gender equality and inclusion in Nigeria and to identify policy-relevant gaps in teacher education frameworks.

Objectives

1. To assess perceptions of gender bias and norms within classroom environments.
2. To examine perceptions of discrimination and privilege across gender and socioeconomic dimensions.
3. To analyse how inclusion and empowerment are conceptualised in educational contexts.
4. To propose evidence-informed strategies for strengthening gender-responsive and inclusive teacher education.

Policy outcomes and implications

The findings offer insight into the ways in which future teachers interpret and internalise patterns of inequality within educational settings. These perceptions carry significant policy implications because they influence future classroom practices and institutional culture.

Persistent gender bias in classroom interactions

Across all study locations, a substantial proportion of pre-service teachers perceived that classroom environments favour male students in terms of participation, leadership, and subject engagement. This pattern indicates that gender bias is embedded within routine pedagogical practices rather than being episodic or limited to specific contexts. This can be explained as follows. In many Nigerian communities, gender roles are still strongly defined, and the construction of masculinity in academic places and workplaces is prevalent.⁹ Boys are often socialised to be assertive, outspoken, and confident in public spaces, while girls are encouraged to be compliant and less vocal.⁹ These unequal expectations do not disappear in the classroom; they are reproduced within it. Pre-service teachers, having grown up in the same unfair and heavily gendered environment, may unconsciously interpret boys’ assertiveness as intelligence or leadership potential, while viewing girls’ quietness as a lack of competence.¹⁰ This sustained culture often results in more frequent interactions between teachers and boys. Others include greater tolerance of disruptive or dominant behaviour among male students and lower expectations for girls’ active participation.

Implication

Policies that prioritise enrolment parity without addressing classroom-level dynamics remain insufficient in Nigeria. Hence, mechanisms must be incorporated to address gendered participation, teacher expectations, and leadership allocation within learning environments.

Intersection of gender and socioeconomic inequality

The study demonstrates that inequality operates along multiple axes. Respondents frequently identified socioeconomic status as a determinant of privilege, influencing access to opportunities, recognition, and participation.

Gender and socioeconomic disadvantage often intersect, resulting in compounded forms of exclusion. The intersection, which has been studied by various researchers,^11–12 means that disadvantage is not only about being female or poor in isolation, but also about how both conditions interact to restrict opportunities, participation, and long-term learning, as well as related outcomes.

Implication

Policy frameworks that address gender inequality in isolation risk overlooking broader structural disparities as observed in the study. An intersectional approach is required to capture the complexity of disadvantage across various levels of Nigeria’s educational system.

Normalisation of inequitable practices

Although respondents were aware of gender bias, many perceived such patterns as typical of the Nigerian education system. This indicates that inequitable practices have become normalised through repeated exposure, and familial factors are culpable.¹³ These normalisations manifest as follows. First, the internalisation of gender-stereotyped academic roles among students. Second, routine differential teacher expectations and classroom interactions by gender. Third, acceptance of the gendered division of school tasks and responsibilities. Fourth, reduced likelihood of reporting or challenging discriminatory practices. Fifth, reinforcement of gender-biased career aspirations and subject choices.

Implication

Teacher education programmes must progress beyond awareness-raising to actively challenge and transform entrenched beliefs. Pre-service teachers are likely to reproduce existing inequalities in their professional practice without intervention to address the issues.

Limited conceptualisation of inclusion

Inclusion was predominantly conceptualised in relation to gender, particularly through girl-focused empowerment initiatives. Other dimensions of exclusion, such as disability and socioeconomic disadvantage, received comparatively limited attention. Inclusion is often misconstrued as gender equality, and this misconceptualisation of inclusion affects both the most influential traditions in feminist theorising about gender: social-position accounts and identity accounts.¹⁴

Implication

Current policy discourse may inadvertently narrow the scope of inclusion. Conceptual frameworks within teacher education should be expanded to encompass multiple and intersecting forms of marginalisation.

Partial effectiveness of empowerment initiatives

Empowerment efforts targeting girls were widely acknowledged. However, they coexist with persistent structural inequalities that manifest in diverse ways. This indicates that such initiatives operate within, rather than transform, existing systems of inequality.

Implication

Policy interventions must transition from isolated programmes to systemic reforms that address the underlying institutional and cultural drivers of inequality in Nigeria’s educational systems.

Actionable recommendations

The following actionable recommendations are prescribed.

Institutionalise gender-transformative pedagogy

Teacher education curricula in Nigeria should include compulsory modules on gender equality, equity, bias recognition, and inclusive pedagogy. These modules will be designed to recognise and uphold that gender equality can shape students’ attitudes, engagement levels, and academic performance. The country can learn from policies that moved several countries from gender-sensitive pedagogy¹⁵ to gender-responsive pedagogy¹⁶ and move towards gender-transformative pedagogy¹⁷ to address gender inequality in Nigeria’s education systems.

Embed intersectionality within policy and training frameworks

Education policies should explicitly integrate intersectional perspectives, addressing how gender interacts with socioeconomic status, disability, and other forms of marginalisation. Training programmes must include case-based and reflective approaches to support this integration. The recommendations should go beyond the education space and incorporate all aspects of pre-service teachers’ lives, as outlined in a paper published for the Nigerian context, particularly in areas where intersectionality can help improve gender inequities.¹⁸

1). Stakeholders must acknowledge that different groups of people face unique challenges and disadvantages and that gender inequality cannot be addressed without considering the broader social context, such as ethnicity, religion, sexuality, disability, income, marital status, education and so on.
2). Stakeholders should take the lead in changing biases and stereotypes.
3). Stakeholders should advocate for the voices of minority and marginalised groups, ethnicities, to be heard in the context of gender.
4). Policymakers should advocate and make policies that challenge the prevailing power dynamics that for years have limited women and other marginalised groups in Nigeria. Policies that promote equal representation and participation, social inclusion and gender neutrality. Hence, creating a system of treating individuals without bias or discrimination based on gender.

Strengthen practicum-based learning

Teaching practice should be structured to emphasise inclusive classroom strategies using the highly acclaimed framing, relational, organisational and didactic dimensions.¹⁹ Assessment frameworks must include criteria for evaluating gender-responsive, transformative, and inclusive teaching practices to ensure alignment between theory and practice.

Align teacher competency standards with inclusion goals

National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) standards should incorporate measurable competencies related to gender equality and inclusive education. Certification from the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria (TRCN) must assess pre-service teachers’ ability to implement inclusive pedagogical approaches effectively. Hence, competency-based teacher education in gender and inclusive practices²⁰ is highly recommended.

Build capacity among teacher educators

Continuous professional development (CPD) programmes must be established by relevant stakeholders to equip in-teacher educators with the knowledge and skills required to deliver gender-responsive, transformative and inclusive training.

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems

Robust monitoring frameworks must be developed to track progress in implementing gender-responsive, transformative and inclusive education policies across the education system. Evidence-based data-driven approaches should inform continuous improvement and policy adaptation or review.

Conclusion

The findings presented in this brief demonstrate that gender and socioeconomic inequalities remain deeply embedded within educational environments in Nigeria, CoEs in particular. Pre-service teachers exhibit some awareness of these inequalities; however, this awareness is often partial and insufficient to drive transformative change. The normalisation of inequitable practices, combined with a narrow understanding of inclusion, highlights the limitations of current teacher education frameworks.

Teacher education represents a critical point of intervention for addressing systemic inequalities. However, without deliberate and comprehensive reform, it risks perpetuating the very structures it seeks to challenge. Policies must therefore move beyond symbolic commitments to equity and prioritise embedding inclusive principles within the core of teacher preparation systems.

The adoption of gender-transformative and intersectional approaches within teacher education can reshape classroom practices and contribute to broader societal change. Equipping future teachers with the necessary knowledge, skills, and critical awareness will strengthen Nigeria’s capacity to deliver an equitable and inclusive education system.

Ethical Clearance

Ethical approval with NHREC/01/01/2007–31/10/2024 was obtained from the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) of the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) in Abuja. Written informed consent was received from the respondents after the aim of the study was explained to them, and their rights were fully explained. All study respondents were informed of their voluntary participation in the study, and the confidentiality and anonymity of all data collected were maintained by avoiding the inclusion of possible identifiers, such as names and contact details. Participants’ responses were anonymised using identification codes throughout the analysis.

Data availability

The data of this policy brief can be accessed via Mendeley (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/khcvdx9dgk/1.²¹

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the valuable partnership and collaboration of the National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE), whose support was instrumental to the successful implementation of this study.

We also extend our sincere appreciation to the Provosts of the participating Colleges of Education for providing an enabling environment for this research. Their leadership and cooperation were critical to the success of the study.

References

1. Omojemite MD: Unpacking Gender Inequality in Education: A Theoretical Exploration. Journal of Culture and Values in Education. 2024; 7(4): 103–116. Publisher Full Text
2. Patterson C, Hartley S: Pre-service teacher preparedness for their profession: a systematic review of the literature. Aust. Educ. Res. 2026; 53(2): 29. Publisher Full Text
3. Kuye LO, Adebisi AS, Ishola SA, et al.: The Nigeria National Policy on gender in Basic Education (2006-2015): A Policy Review of Milestone Achievement. Int J Inf Bus Manag. 2021; 13(2): 122–145.
4. Ahmad R, Nawaz MR, Ishaq MI, et al.: Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Front. Psychol. 2023; 13: 1015921. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Wang X, Han R, Yang HH: Exploring the factors that influence the intention to co-create open educational resources: A social exchange theory perspective. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13: 918656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Mousa M, Althalathini D, Abdelgaffar H: The gendered use of cronyism in academic contexts: does social exchange really matter?. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2023; 37(5): 968–985. Publisher Full Text
7. Bordogna CM: Using social exchange and equity theory to explore postgraduate student mentoring initiatives and academic faculty participation. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2023; 12(2): 128–144. Publisher Full Text
8. Katuna B: Perpetuating inequality through the canons of disciplinary knowledge. Disrupting the Culture of Silence. Routledge; 2023; pp. 163–172.
9. Ilodigwe AO, Ezealla EC, Olisa AL: Gender and Family Type as Factors Influencing Assertive Behavior of Workers in Anambra State: A Study of Non-Academic Staff of Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University. Afr J Humanit Contemp Educ Res. 2025; 21(1): 104–125.
10. Fakkel M, Branje S, Vollebergh WA, et al.: Intergenerational upward and downward social mobility: the role of intelligence, effortful control, assertiveness, and peer competence in early adolescence. Emerg. Adulthood. 2024; 12(5): 838–851. Publisher Full Text
11. Potter L, Zawadzki MJ, Eccleston CP, et al.: The intersections of race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status: Implications for reporting discrimination and attributions to discrimination. Stigma and health. 2019; 4(3): 264–281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Makhanya MTB: Between intersectionality and socioeconomic inequality. Bridging Social Inequality Gaps-Concepts, Theories, Methods, and Tools: Concepts, Theories, Methods, and Tools. 2024; 51.
13. Mani S, Antony Raj M: Role of families in normalizing gender inequalities. Educ. Soc. 2023; 47(1): 199–206.
14. Kirk-Giannini CD: How to solve the gender inclusion problem. Hypatia. 2025; 1–25. Cambridge University Press.
15. Muhammed KV: Transforming Education through Gender-Sensitive Pedagogy in Promoting Gender Equality. i-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology. 2025; 21(2): 33. Publisher Full Text
16. Kihwele GE, Kinyota M, Moses I: Pre-service teachers’ conceptualisation of gender-responsive pedagogy as a strategy for achieving gender equality in classrooms. Cogent Education. 2025; 12(1): 2584919. Publisher Full Text
17. Greaves L: How Could a Gender Transformative Lens Foster the Integration of Sex/Gender into More Equitable Policy and Practice?. Sex and Gender: Toward Transforming Scientific Practice. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025; pp. 285–310.
18. Okpokwasili OA, Dukor M: The intersectionality of culture in gender relation in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of African Studies (NJAS). 2023; 5(2): 52–59.
19. Molbaek M: Inclusive teaching strategies–dimensions and agendas. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018; 22(10): 1048–1061. Publisher Full Text
20. Ghosh S, Sankar CS: Competency-based teacher education in gender and inclusive practices. Social Science Journal for Advanced Research. 2024; 4(5): 18–25.
21. Okagbue H: Reflective Transcripts on Gender Bias and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy Among Preservice Teachers in Nigerian Colleges of Education. Mendeley Data. 2026; V1. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 26 May 2026

Author details Author details

¹ Sydani Institute for Research and Innovation, Sydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria
² Sydani Initiative for International Development, Sydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria
³ CEBAR Training and Consultancy Services Limited, Abuja, Nigeria

Hilary Izuchukwu Okagbue
Roles: Conceptualization

Andikan Ibanga
Roles: Supervision

Oluwafisayo Ayodeji
Roles: Investigation

Carol Barlow
Roles: Project Administration

Sunday Nto
Roles: Formal Analysis

Emediong Otu
Roles: Project Administration

Stella Adewalure
Roles: Data Curation

Ochuko Imonikugbere
Roles: Supervision

Utenwo-ojo Abraham
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This research was supported by the GPE-KIX–IDRC partnership, project number: 110511-001. The views and interpretations presented in this policy brief are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the GPE-KIX–IDRC partnership.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 26 May 2026, 15:797

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179937.1

Copyright

© 2026 Okagbue HI et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Okagbue HI, Ibanga A, Ayodeji O et al. Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive Pedagogy in Nigeria: Evidence from Pre-service Teachers’ Perspectives [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:797 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179937.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 26 May 2026

Views

8

Reviewer Report 02 Jun 2026

Tauqeer Abdullah, University of Peshawar, University of Peshawar, Pakistan

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198499.r488814

In abstract, the policy implications section reports findings but provides limited information regarding how the qualitative evidence was generated. A brief mention of the sampling strategy and analytical approach would enhance transparency.
In introduction, the

In abstract, the policy implications section reports findings but provides limited information regarding how the qualitative evidence was generated. A brief mention of the sampling strategy and analytical approach would enhance transparency.
In introduction, the statement that disparities remain evident “especially at the tertiary level” requires further justification. Authors should provide empirical evidence or recent policy reports demonstrating that these inequalities are particularly pronounced within tertiary education settings.
The sentence beginning “Dissecting gender inequality in this context using feminist theory showed…” appears to present findings rather than theoretical justification. Authors may consider rephrasing this section to distinguish between theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence.
The phrase “prior to formal pedagogical training (intervention)” requires clarification. It is unclear whether participants had received no pedagogical training at all or whether they were surveyed before a specific intervention. Authors should clarify the educational stage at which data were collected.
The inclusion of Social Exchange Theory (SET) requires stronger justification. While the theory is widely used in social science research, its relationship to gender inequality, inclusion, and teacher education is not fully explained. Authors should provide a clearer rationale for selecting SET and explain how it complements feminist and critical theoretical perspectives.
Objective 2 introduces socioeconomic dimensions, which are not extensively discussed in the earlier sections of the introduction. Additional background should be provided to justify the inclusion of socioeconomic status as a major analytical focus.
The section ‘In policy outcomes and implications’ is logically organized and links findings to policy implications. However, several findings appear to move beyond the empirical evidence presented and enter into explanatory interpretations that may not have been directly derived from participants’ responses. Authors should clearly distinguish between study findings and the authors’ interpretations.
The discussion attributing gender bias to broader Nigerian constructions of masculinity and femininity is plausible. However, it is not clear whether these explanations emerged from participant responses or from the literature. Authors should clarify the source of these interpretations.
In conclusion, the claim that awareness is “partial and insufficient” is important, but authors should clearly indicate the evidence supporting this conclusion.

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Partly
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 26 May 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 26 May 26	read

Tauqeer Abdullah, University of Peshawar, University of Peshawar, Pakistan

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

02 Jun 2026 | for Version 1

Tauqeer Abdullah, University of Peshawar, University of Peshawar, Pakistan

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

In abstract, the policy implications section reports findings but provides limited information regarding how the qualitative evidence was generated. A brief mention of the sampling strategy and analytical approach would enhance transparency.
In introduction, the statement that disparities remain evident “especially at the tertiary level” requires further justification. Authors should provide empirical evidence or recent policy reports demonstrating that these inequalities are particularly pronounced within tertiary education settings.
The sentence beginning “Dissecting gender inequality in this context using feminist theory showed…” appears to present findings rather than theoretical justification. Authors may consider rephrasing this section to distinguish between theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence.
The phrase “prior to formal pedagogical training (intervention)” requires clarification. It is unclear whether participants had received no pedagogical training at all or whether they were surveyed before a specific intervention. Authors should clarify the educational stage at which data were collected.
The inclusion of Social Exchange Theory (SET) requires stronger justification. While the theory is widely used in social science research, its relationship to gender inequality, inclusion, and teacher education is not fully explained. Authors should provide a clearer rationale for selecting SET and explain how it complements feminist and critical theoretical perspectives.
Objective 2 introduces socioeconomic dimensions, which are not extensively discussed in the earlier sections of the introduction. Additional background should be provided to justify the inclusion of socioeconomic status as a major analytical focus.
The section ‘In policy outcomes and implications’ is logically organized and links findings to policy implications. However, several findings appear to move beyond the empirical evidence presented and enter into explanatory interpretations that may not have been directly derived from participants’ responses. Authors should clearly distinguish between study findings and the authors’ interpretations.
The discussion attributing gender bias to broader Nigerian constructions of masculinity and femininity is plausible. However, it is not clear whether these explanations emerged from participant responses or from the literature. Authors should clarify the source of these interpretations.
In conclusion, the claim that awareness is “partial and insufficient” is important, but authors should clearly indicate the evidence supporting this conclusion.

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Partly
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Omojemite MD: Unpacking Gender Inequality in Education: A Theoretical Exploration. Journal of Culture and Values in Education. 2024; 7(4): 103–116. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Patterson C, Hartley S: Pre-service teacher preparedness for their profession: a systematic review of the literature. Aust. Educ. Res. 2026; 53(2): 29. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Kuye LO, Adebisi AS, Ishola SA, et al.: The Nigeria National Policy on gender in Basic Education (2006-2015): A Policy Review of Milestone Achievement. Int J Inf Bus Manag. 2021; 13(2): 122–145.

[4] 4. Ahmad R, Nawaz MR, Ishaq MI, et al.: Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Front. Psychol. 2023; 13: 1015921. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Wang X, Han R, Yang HH: Exploring the factors that influence the intention to co-create open educational resources: A social exchange theory perspective. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13: 918656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Mousa M, Althalathini D, Abdelgaffar H: The gendered use of cronyism in academic contexts: does social exchange really matter?. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2023; 37(5): 968–985. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Bordogna CM: Using social exchange and equity theory to explore postgraduate student mentoring initiatives and academic faculty participation. Int. J. Mentor. Coach. Educ. 2023; 12(2): 128–144. Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Katuna B: Perpetuating inequality through the canons of disciplinary knowledge. Disrupting the Culture of Silence. Routledge; 2023; pp. 163–172.

[9] 9. Ilodigwe AO, Ezealla EC, Olisa AL: Gender and Family Type as Factors Influencing Assertive Behavior of Workers in Anambra State: A Study of Non-Academic Staff of Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University. Afr J Humanit Contemp Educ Res. 2025; 21(1): 104–125.

[10] 10. Fakkel M, Branje S, Vollebergh WA, et al.: Intergenerational upward and downward social mobility: the role of intelligence, effortful control, assertiveness, and peer competence in early adolescence. Emerg. Adulthood. 2024; 12(5): 838–851. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Potter L, Zawadzki MJ, Eccleston CP, et al.: The intersections of race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status: Implications for reporting discrimination and attributions to discrimination. Stigma and health. 2019; 4(3): 264–281. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Makhanya MTB: Between intersectionality and socioeconomic inequality. Bridging Social Inequality Gaps-Concepts, Theories, Methods, and Tools: Concepts, Theories, Methods, and Tools. 2024; 51.

[13] 13. Mani S, Antony Raj M: Role of families in normalizing gender inequalities. Educ. Soc. 2023; 47(1): 199–206.

[14] 14. Kirk-Giannini CD: How to solve the gender inclusion problem. Hypatia. 2025; 1–25. Cambridge University Press.

[15] 15. Muhammed KV: Transforming Education through Gender-Sensitive Pedagogy in Promoting Gender Equality. i-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology. 2025; 21(2): 33. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Kihwele GE, Kinyota M, Moses I: Pre-service teachers’ conceptualisation of gender-responsive pedagogy as a strategy for achieving gender equality in classrooms. Cogent Education. 2025; 12(1): 2584919. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Greaves L: How Could a Gender Transformative Lens Foster the Integration of Sex/Gender into More Equitable Policy and Practice?. Sex and Gender: Toward Transforming Scientific Practice. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025; pp. 285–310.

[18] 18. Okpokwasili OA, Dukor M: The intersectionality of culture in gender relation in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of African Studies (NJAS). 2023; 5(2): 52–59.

[19] 19. Molbaek M: Inclusive teaching strategies–dimensions and agendas. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018; 22(10): 1048–1061. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Ghosh S, Sankar CS: Competency-based teacher education in gender and inclusive practices. Social Science Journal for Advanced Research. 2024; 4(5): 18–25.

[21] 21. Okagbue H: Reflective Transcripts on Gender Bias and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy Among Preservice Teachers in Nigerian Colleges of Education. Mendeley Data. 2026; V1. Publisher Full Text

Strengthening Teacher Education Policy for Gender Equality and Inclusive Pedagogy in Nigeria: Evidence from Pre-service Teachers’ Perspectives

Abstract

Background

Policy and implications

Recommendations

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Aim

Objectives

Policy outcomes and implications

Persistent gender bias in classroom interactions

Implication

Intersection of gender and socioeconomic inequality

Implication

Normalisation of inequitable practices

Implication

Limited conceptualisation of inclusion

Implication

Partial effectiveness of empowerment initiatives

Implication

Actionable recommendations

Institutionalise gender-transformative pedagogy

Embed intersectionality within policy and training frameworks

Strengthen practicum-based learning

Align teacher competency standards with inclusion goals

Build capacity among teacher educators

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation systems

Conclusion

Ethical Clearance

Data availability

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated