Preparing Teachers for Linguistically Diverse Classrooms—A Systematic Review on Interventions and Intersectional Perspectives

Abstract

Teachers need to be well-equipped to work with diverse groups of students from various linguistic backgrounds. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review analyzed international empirical research on interventions aiming at preparing secondary pre-service teachers for teaching linguistically diverse students. The dataset includes papers from 2012 to 2022 retrieved through the electronic databases ERIC, Education Source, and Scopus. The goal of this review was twofold, namely (1) to investigate how interventions contribute to the development of strategies and skills for teaching linguistically diverse students and (2) to analyze which of the identified interventions considered aspects of intersectionality and, more specifically, in what sense. Multiple intervention strategies, such as assessment tools, self-inquiry, or practice experiences, were found. Regarding the targeted skills of pre-service teachers, this review identified the emerging themes of Methods and Instruction, Critical and Reflective Thinking, as well as Linguistic Awareness. While the term intersectionality was hardly used explicitly, several studies implicitly addressed intersectional matters. Single-issue approaches, which considered multiple diversity referents in an additive rather than an interconnected way, occurred most frequently. This review underlines the need for interventions in teacher education that are based on a broader understanding of linguistic diversity and emphasizes the importance of employing critical and intersectional perspectives.

1. Introduction

Today’s classrooms are characterized by a remarkable diversity of students from various linguistic backgrounds with different language skills. Therefore, it is important to identify interventions in teacher education that successfully equip pre-service teachers (PSTs) to teach in linguistically diverse classrooms so that they can develop professional competences essential to fostering an inclusive and discrimination-sensitive learning environment [1]. Granted that adolescence is a crucial life stage in which issues of identity, self-perception, and interaction with others are particularly dominant [2], this is especially important for secondary teachers-to-be. Recent research has shown a variety but also an inconsistency in approaches and strategies for integrating matters of linguistic diversity in teacher education [3]. Furthermore, it is necessary to acknowledge aspects of students’ diversity that extend beyond their linguistic backgrounds, such as socioeconomic factors. At the same time, other diversity referents, such as gender or disability, may be underrepresented in teacher education research focusing on linguistic diversity [4,5]. Rowan et al. [4] use the term diversity referent in order to relate to a specific aspect of diversity that a study or review focuses on, such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, linguistic background, sexual orientation, etc. In the context of teacher education research, the term aims to categorize a group of learners based on aspects regarding their social background, identity, or specific needs. Given the interplay of various interindividual differences beyond linguistic diversity and their power dynamics [5], intervention approaches may explicitly or implicitly address intersectional perspectives and thus acknowledge diversity beyond the linguistic scope and embrace it as the norm.

1.1. Linguistic Diversity in the Inclusive Classroom

In discussions concerning diverse student populations with varying linguistic abilities, different terms such as bilingual, multilingual, culturally and linguistically diverse, as well as English language learners, are commonly used [6]. For the purpose of this systematic review, the umbrella term linguistically diverse was adopted to embrace the broad spectrum of linguistic abilities among students. When held to the same linguistic standards as their native language-learning classmates, linguistically diverse students often face educational disparities [7]. Inequalities are also commonly connected to deficit perspectives based on dominant language ideologies, stereotypes, and assumptions that limit the learners’ potential rather than recognizing their individual skills, interests, and strengths [8,9]. Considering possible social and historical backgrounds such as experiences as a refugee, a history of own or family migration, or being from indigenous or minority-language-speaking groups, it becomes evident that linguistically diverse students “represent a large variety of learners […] with intersectional identities and wide-ranging educational experiences, literacy practices and competencies” [10] (p. 219). While linguistic differences are often experienced as a main differentiator in the classroom, these life experiences are interconnected with socioeconomic and other factors. For example, development and skills in first and other languages are not only influenced by societal constellations but also by individual capacities for language learning, as evident in children, adolescents, and adults with cognitive or sensory impairments or language disorders [11]. This interconnectedness of various aspects of (linguistic) diversity underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of inclusive education that addresses all dimensions of inequality, as highlighted by UNESCO [12]:

“Inclusion and equity in and through education are the cornerstones of a transformative education agenda, and we therefore commit to addressing all forms of exclusion and marginalization, disparities and inequalities in access, participation and learning outcomes”

[12] (p. iv)

With this in mind, this systematic review examines how teacher education research embraces, advances, and passes on those principles, particularly in the context of linguistic diversity.

1.2. Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in Teacher Education

In the pursuit of enriching and transforming teacher education curricula to be more inclusive and sensitive towards linguistic diversity, several frameworks have emerged in recent years. For example, Villegas and colleagues [13] suggested a framework that characterizes the inclusive teacher as being aware of the social and cultural aspects that shape education, having positive attitudes towards diversity, and recognizing the need to advocate for students as agents of change. The framework further highlights that understanding how learners construct knowledge and having insights into their lives allows teachers to bridge the gap between students’ experiences and learning. The authors also emphasize that “the entire teacher education curriculum must be transformed to make diversity a central element in the preparation of all teachers” [13] (p. 144). Along the lines of Villegas et al.’s “commitment to acting as change agents” [13] (p. 136), Cummins [14] introduced the concept of educator agency, which describes the power of apprehending exclusionary structures and ideologies and altering them into inclusive learning environments by looking beyond societal and institutional attributions and stereotypes to recognize the potential within all students. In this context, the selection of instructional methods plays a critical role, for example, in determining whether minorized students can overcome presumed language deficits [14]. Already in 2013, García and Kleyn [15] demanded that “all teacher education programs in the 21st century must prepare teachers for multilingual education” [15] (p. 1), regardless of their subjects. They proposed three strands of competencies to be employed in teacher education curricula. Firstly, understanding the students and their families along with comprehending the broader linguistic, cultural, and sociopolitical environments in which they are situated; and secondly, gaining knowledge about the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic basics of multilingualism, such as translanguaging [16], as well as recognizing that languages are socially constructed and influenced by social and political dynamics. The third and final strand addresses a multilingual pedagogy constituted by social justice and social interactions, which contains actively supporting issues of equity and a pedagogical practice closely connected to students’ lives [15]. These frameworks not only show the multifaceted needs for linguistically sensitive teacher education but also its entanglement with intersectional perspectives.

1.3. Current Research on (Linguistic) Diversity in Teacher Education

Previous reviews addressed linguistic diversity in teacher education from different points of view. Cochran-Smith and colleagues [17] reviewed studies from the years 2000 to 2012 on teacher preparation for diversity and equity and, as one focus, examined the impact of pedagogical interventions through courses and learning opportunities, both inside and outside the university. The authors stated that most of the reviewed studies focused on changing PSTs’ beliefs about diverse students but did not sufficiently analyze or establish practical pedagogical implications [17].

Focusing more directly on linguistically diverse students, Solano-Campos et al. [18] reviewed how aspects of Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) [19], a pedagogical framework that promotes teacher learning and reflection by emphasizing the integration of linguistic, racial, and cultural considerations in instructional practices, are considered within PST education research. More than half of the identified studies focused on orientations, which, according to the LRT framework, include sociolinguistic consciousness, appreciation for language diversity, and a willingness to advocate for English language learners. Fewer studies considered pedagogical knowledge and skills, as defined as knowing about students’ linguistic and academic backgrounds as well as about second-language learning, language demands within tasks, and related instruction strategies. Some studies offered a combination of both orientation and pedagogical knowledge and skills. The authors concluded that teacher education programs should pay more attention to providing practical skills for teaching linguistically diverse students [18]. Li [3] synthesized approaches and challenges within US-American teacher education programs focusing on teaching English language learners and criticized the “sporadic efforts among different programs and institutions, and significant variability in content covered or selected to be integrated into the existing programs” [3] (p. 223). Rowan et al. [4] investigated the perception and references to diversity in teacher education research. Analyzing articles from the years 2009 to 2019, they identified three types of claims regarding how PSTs can be prepared for teaching in diverse settings, namely either teaching about, to, or for diversity. These distinctions represent providing knowledge about diversity and students’ challenges, pedagogical frameworks and practices, or focusing on broader issues and relations between diversity and social justice issues. Their review also identified which “groups of students are (most commonly) referenced as diverse or ‘at risk’” [4] (p. 120). The most frequent terms were cultural, linguistic, and inclusion, followed by special education, socioeconomic factors, race, rurality, sexual orientation, and religion [4].

Taken together, several themes can be identified from existing reviews. Firstly, pedagogical interventions often aimed to change PSTs’ beliefs about diverse students, but many lacked detailed analysis and practical implications [17,18]. Secondly, there is a variety and inconsistency in approaches and strategies for integrating matters of linguistic diversity in teacher education [3]. Diversity has been addressed in different ways, such as by teaching about, to, or for diversity. And finally, students’ cultural and linguistic diversity are oftentimes thought of together, which may lead to a decreased attention paid to linguistic backgrounds [3,4].

1.4. Intersectionality in Teacher Education

Originating in Black Feminism (see Combahee River Collective Statement [20]), the concept of intersectionality advocates for social change by addressing interconnected systems of oppression such as race, gender, and class. Legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw [21], who substantially shaped the term intersectionality, emphasized its ability to draw attention to the specific experiences of individuals. Intersectionality has since traveled across various disciplines and fields of research [22]. As it can be seen as a framework for a multifaceted analysis of societal and organizational outlines that create or reproduce systems of (dis)advantage, intersectional perspectives have also become more prevalent in educational research [23]. For instance, García et al. [24] promoted intersectional frameworks for looking at identity and difference in special education. Harris [25] underlines the potential of intersectional frameworks in educational research, describing them as guiding for all levels of analysis, moving from an idea to the conceptualization of a study to an actual intervention. Pugach et al. [26] utilized an intersectional framework to establish that the identities of students, or PSTs, are predominantly viewed from one-dimensional perspectives within teacher education research. Since intersectionality as a conceptual framework in education has the potential for “strengthening the synergy between critical inquiry and praxis” [27] (p. viii), it is implied that practical approaches need to be further developed in teacher education.

One example of such a synergy is the “Intersectional Competence Measure”, a tool for assessing PSTs’ awareness of intersectional identities [28]. The author reflected that the tool may enhance PSTs’ perceptions of diverse learners and also enable them to transfer the principles of different pedagogical focuses surrounding diversity.

Annamma and Winn [29] advocated for animating teachers for intersectional justice by focusing on four pedagogical stances regarding history, race, justice, and language. Those stances include critically reflecting on historic circumstances and their connection to oppression and privilege, interacting with students from a humanity-based and asset-based standpoint, and establishing transformative discussions about race. The pedagogical stance concerning justice further contains an “action-oriented oath by which educators acknowledge their intention to disrupt injustices in education that impact marginalized groups” [29] (p. 320), an agenda aligning with the ones advocating for teachers as agents of change [13,14,30].

1.5. Research Gap and Rationale

Previous research has pointed out PSTs’ insecurities when teaching linguistically diverse students [9,30]. While many studies have focused on understanding and changing teacher beliefs and attitudes towards diversity, there is a need for a synthesis of research that provides evidence for interventions that effectively equip PSTs with pedagogical strategies and skills to address the diverse needs of linguistically diverse students [17,18,31]. Teacher education programs must ensure that PSTs possess skills that extend beyond advocacy, appreciation, and consciousness and include instructional techniques and methods tailored for teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms [18].

Moreover, the existing literature calls for a shift towards social justice issues in teacher education, highlighting the importance of PSTs understanding themselves and acting as agents of change [13,14,15,17,30]. To effectively address the complex and intersecting identities of linguistically diverse students in secondary education, PSTs need to develop an understanding of the power dynamics associated with the linguistic and social circumstances of the adolescents they are working with. However, there is a lack of research exploring the specific strategies and skills that can help PSTs navigate these relations of power and privilege in their future teaching practice. To bridge this research gap, it is crucial to investigate the strategies and skills targeted in teacher education interventions and to assess the quality of these approaches while also examining the extent to which they incorporate aspects of intersectionality. An intersectional perspective has the potential to strengthen the link between theory and practice, to enable the examination of multiple dimensions of identity, and to help overcome one-dimensional perspectives or prioritize certain diversity referents [4,27]. Linguistically diverse students have multifaceted identities influenced by various factors such as race, socioeconomic status, gender, or disability. An intersectional approach may enable PSTs to understand and appreciate this fact and help recognize how these intersecting identities impact students’ educational experiences and needs. By incorporating an intersectional lens, researchers and educators can develop inclusive strategies that address systemic barriers and promote equity in education. Supporting the fact that intersectionality requires both theoretical analysis and practical action, the focus of this review lies on examining pedagogical interventions in secondary teacher education research.

1.6. Objectives and Research Questions

This work aims to identify and summarize empirically-based strategies and skills for teaching linguistically diverse students by reviewing interventions in secondary teacher education (see research question 1). The focus lies on secondary education, as adolescence is a particularly sensitive phase of life for identity formation [2]. Also, as established in the previous section, intersectional perspectives may benefit PSTs in multiple ways for their future work with linguistically diverse students. Therefore, the second research question aims to analyze the current state of intersectional perspectives in the identified interventions. This creates an important overview not only for teachers and PSTs but also for teacher educators who are interested in developing intersectional methods in the field of linguistic diversity. It is important to note that intersectionality in educational research may be addressed either explicitly or implicitly; some researchers openly acknowledge and advocate for intersectionality, while others may take on intersectional perspectives without explicitly labeling them as such. Specifically, this review addresses the following research questions:

• How can interventions in secondary teacher education contribute to the development of pre-service teachers’ strategies and skills for working with linguistically diverse students?
• Which of the identified interventions explicitly or implicitly consider aspects of intersectionality, and in what sense?

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review strategy was devised, and the literature search was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [32]. Following standard practice, the search strategy was implemented as follows.

2.1. Search Strategy

The SPIDER tool [33], designed for qualitative and mixed-methods research, was used to develop the search strategy by identifying the following key components: Sample (pre-service teachers), Phenomenon of Interest (development of skills for teaching linguistically diverse students in teacher training as well as explicit and implicit considerations of intersectionality), Design (interventions in pre-service teacher training), Evaluation (teaching strategies for linguistic diversity/skills and intersectional approaches within those), and Research Type (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods). The search was limited to peer-reviewed, English-language papers published in the decade from 2012 to 2022, dealing specifically with interventions for preparing PSTs for working with linguistically diverse students in secondary education. The search was carried out in three educationally relevant electronic databases (ERIC, Education Source, and Scopus). The subject and keyword searches were conducted based on the terms “teacher education” and “linguistically diverse students” while excluding “primary education” and their associated terms. We used asterisks to truncate words and capture various endings and forms (see

Table 1. Search strategy.

Search Term (Joined with AND)	Search Terms in Abstract (Joined with OR)
teacher education	teach* training, teach* education, teach* studies, teach* preservice
linguistically diverse students	multilingual* divers* student*, multilingual* divers* pupil*, multilingual* divers* learner*, linguist* divers* student*, linguist* divers* learner*, linguist* divers* pupil*
Exclusion Term (Joined with AND NOT)	Exclusion Terms in Abstract (Joined with OR)
primary education	preschool, kindergarten, primary, elementary, childhood

). The Boolean operators (OR/AND) and search filters were applied to obtain more focused results. A detailed report can be found in the supplementary materials of this article (S1: Search Source Report Table). Additionally, we conducted hand searches and reviewed the bibliographies of identified papers. All relevant studies were imported into the EPPI Reviewer version 4, a software tool for managing the study selection and screening process.

2.2. Selection Criteria

Only peer-reviewed papers published in English within the decade from 2012–2022 were included. The studies encompassed in the final analysis were original research articles that focused on the interests of RQ1 and RQ2. Abstracts were excluded if they focused on target groups other than PSTs, school settings other than secondary education, did not present results of original research, or did not report on an intervention in PST higher education programs. Furthermore, papers that did not focus on students’ linguistic diversity or that presented research on intervention sites other than the university (e.g., studying abroad) were also excluded. Finally, papers that only explored diversity related to a particular population or one social group, such as students from a certain origin and heritage language, were excluded. Papers without interventions, review papers, gray literature (e.g., conference presentations), and studies published in a language other than English were omitted from the sample. An overview and description of the selection criteria can be found in the supplementary material (see S2: Title and Abstract Screening Table).

The authors independently screened the abstracts following the exclusion criteria that were employed by the EPPI-Reviewer. Decisions were cross-checked in consensus meetings, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and mutual agreement between the reviewers. Following this initial abstract screening, the authors recognized the need for more specific exclusion criteria to ensure that the selection of studies in the full-text screening would align with the research objectives and questions. Several additional exclusion criteria were applied during the full-text screening. For example, papers that did not report on the implementation and evaluation of an intervention in teacher training were excluded from the sample because they did not align with the objectives of this systematic review. Furthermore, studies that featured interventions that did not target the development of pre-service teachers’ professional identity (including aspects such as knowledge, skills, attitudes, or beliefs) for working with linguistically diverse students were also excluded from the full-text screening. Finally, papers were excluded for quality of construct if the operationalization of the investigated construct was not transparent, e.g., because the studies’ instruments were not adequately capturing the intended constructs. Therefore, studies that showed minimal change in the pre- and post-tests or exhibited were excluded due to poor operationalization of the items. A detailed description and overview of this process is provided in the supplementary material (see S3: Full Text Screening Table).

2.3. Study Selection Process

The original search identified 449 records. No additional records were found through other sources. A total of 357 records remained after duplicates and unrelated articles were removed. Of this number, 309 papers were excluded after abstract review for not meeting the inclusion criteria, leaving 34 full-text articles for eligibility checks. After reviewing those articles, 19 were excluded based on the criteria outlined in Figure 1. This screening process resulted in 15 studies for inclusion in the qualitative review synthesis.

2.4. Quality Assessment and Critical Appraisal

Two existing critical appraisal checklists were adapted and adjusted to meet the needs of this systematic review. Guiding questions from the “Critical Appraisal Checklist for an Article on an Educational Intervention” [34] allowed for a close look at the quality of the educational interventions carried out in the included studies. Items adapted from this checklist included those regarding the research question, the validity of the intervention, as well as the validity and applicability of the results. Since the sample included quantitative as well as qualitative approaches to research, the new checklist was extended by further elements from the “Quality appraisal checklist for qualitative studies” [35]. Aims, designs, context descriptions, conclusions, the researchers’ roles, and trustworthiness were partly modified. This process resulted in a checklist with eight topics and a total of 17 questions, answerable with “yes”, “no”, or “not accessible”.

2.5. Data Extraction

Relevant information about intervention participants, research design, type of intervention, duration, and methods, including their theoretical underpinnings, as well as the reported outcomes, was summarized. The authors independently reviewed the studies and resolved differences through discussion. Further steps of the data synthesis process included the extraction of general themes emerging from the studies, such as determining information relevant to the research questions.

RQ1: To extract the more general emergent themes addressed in the studies, a color-coding method was employed to highlight prominent themes. The identified themes were clustered into categories, allowing for a more organized and comprehensive representation of the data. Subsequently, the targeted skills and outcomes of the reported interventions were also clustered using a color-coding method.

RQ2: In the data synthesis process, the studies were additionally examined to identify relationships to intersectionality, assigning them to one of three categories: Studies in the category Single-Issue Approach did not adopt approaches to intersectionality either explicitly or implicitly. Studies categorized for Explicit Intersectionality used the term in some form and directly addressed intersectionality in their analysis. Studies categorized for Implicit Intersectionality did not directly reference intersectionality but drew on theoretical concepts pertaining to diversity and intersectionality, among them:

• Multiple Diversity Referents: Actively addressing more than one diversity referent in a non-additive way.
• Constructivist Perspective: Viewing diversity referents (e.g., disability, gender, class, race, etc.) as socially constructed categories.
• Societal Power Dynamics: Acknowledging the embeddedness of education within power dynamics and various forms of domination (e.g., ableism, racism, linguicism, etc.).
• Multi-level Analyses: Examining societal, institutional, and individual aspects of inequality in education.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

A total of 15 papers with a wide range of intervention designs were included in this review; their study characteristics are summarized in Table 2. An even more comprehensive version of the study characteristics can be found in the supplementary material (see S5: Study Characteristics Table). Most studies were carried out in English-speaking countries, nine of them in the USA and three in Australia [36,37,38]. Two studies [39,40] were conducted in Germany; another one was carried out in the Francophone part of Canada [41].

The study participants covered different groups of PSTs. For example, some studies focused on teaching English and Language Arts [42], English as a second language [41,43,44], general language instruction [36], or teaching English to speakers of other languages [45]. It is worth noting that since the majority of the studies (n = 9) were conducted in English-speaking countries, the context often revolved around the English language. Additionally, the participants came from various study programs. Participants were education students [46] or PSTs from different disciplines [47]. Some studies addressed PSTs with scientific subjects such as master-level science [37], Bachelor of Science [48], or math and science [40]. Information regarding the participants’ study phase was not always accessible but ranged from undergraduate or Bachelor students [38,48,49] to students pursuing their master’s degrees [37,50]. The sample sizes varied significantly, ranging from case studies with three participants [48] to mixed-method approaches that included surveys with 262 participants [42].

The majority of the studies (n = 8) used mixed-methods designs [41,43,44,46,47,48,49,50], while five studies were solely qualitative in design [36,37,38,42,45], and two applied quantitative approaches [39,40]. Popular designs within the studies included pre- and post-designs (n = 7), which aimed to measure the effects of interventions, as well as data collection through interviews (n = 6), and reflection tasks (n = 6).

The interventions varied in duration. However, with the exception of Moloney and Oguro’s [36] one-time workshop, most interventions were conducted over several months. The contents of the interventions encompassed various topics in the areas of sociolinguistics, sociopolitical perspectives, cultural perspectives, and language instruction, as well as specific strategies and skills for preparing PSTs for teaching linguistically diverse students. The vast majority of the studies reported positive outcomes regarding their interventions. For instance, Ollerhead [37] stated an increase in participants’ teaching skills (regarding scientific knowledge, literacy, and reflective practice), and Hammer and Berkel-Otto [39] reported a statistically significant increase in participants’ Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) competences. Other studies provided mixed outcomes, such as Bacon [47], who reported that participants’ deficit perspectives towards non-standard English writings hardly changed after the intervention. Woll’s [41] intervention, which targeted PSTs’ contradictory beliefs, did not yield effects on PSTs’ beliefs regarding best practices or their approval of crosslinguistic pedagogy. Furthermore, Sharma and Lazar [49] reported an increased level of awareness among PSTs towards culturally and linguistically diverse students and their abilities. However, they discussed that this newfound awareness led to some PSTs feeling even more overwhelmed when it came to teaching in multilingual settings.

Table 2. Study characteristics table.

Study	Participants	Study Design	Intervention	Outcomes
Accurso et al. (2017) [50]	M.Ed. PSTs (N = 55)	Mixed methods	Weekly classes + workshops	Improved disciplinary linguistic knowledge
Athanases and Wong (2018) [42]	ELA PSTs (N = 23)	Qualitative	Inquiry during practice training	Questioning assessment tools, developing a non-deficit perspective
Athanases et al. (2019) [46]	Education students (N = 262)	Mixed methods	Bi-weekly courses over 4 years	Understanding socio-political contexts
Bacon (2017) [47]	PSTs and beginning teachers (N = 24)	Mixed methods	One-time course	Increased non-deficit views on grading, linguistic normativity, and ideology remain
Hammer and Berkel-Otto (2019) [39]	PSTs (N = 162)	Quantitative	Weekly courses	Growth in LRT competencies
He (2013) [43]	ESL teacher candidates (N = 21)	Mixed methods	Semester-long course	Development of cultural competence
Moloney and Oguro (2015) [36]	Language PSTs (N = 33)	Qualitative	One-time workshop	Improvement in intercultural understanding and critical cultural thinking
Ollerhead (2020) [37]	Science PSTs (N = 11)	Qualitative	Teaching practicum	Increase in teaching skills
Ramos (2017) [44]	PSTs for K12-ELs (N = 18)	Mixed methods	Biweekly sessions	Increased confidence in teaching ELs
Rutt and Mumba (2022) [48]	B.Sc. PSTs (N = 3)	Mixed methods	Two-semester intervention	(Varying) application of language-integrated practices
Schroedler and Grommes (2019) [40]	Math and Science PSTs (N = 146)	Quantitative	Blended- learning seminar	Slightly increased awareness and knowledge in multilingual (subject) teaching
Sharma and Lazar (2014) [49]	Undergraduate PSTs (N = 73)	Mixed methods	5-month field experience	Positive beliefs and an asset-based approach towards students
Turner et al. (2022) [38]	B.Ed. PSTs (N = 23)	Qualitative	Elective sessions	Prior formal language learning and teaching experience as biggest indicators of a multilingual stance
Woll (2020) [41]	PSTs for ESL (N = 7)	Mixed methods	Foreign language class	Favorability for crosslinguistic pedagogy did not improve
Zoch and He (2020) [45]	TESOL PSTs (N = 15)	Qualitative	ESL-Literacy methods course	Increased awareness about students’ and their families’ resources and forms of capital

Abbreviations: M.Ed. = Master of Education, PSTs = Pre-service Teachers, ELA = English Language Arts, ELs = English Learners, ESL = English as a Second Language, K12 = Kindergarten through 12th Grade, B.Ed. = Bachelor of Education, B.Sc. = Bachelor of Science.

Table 2. Study characteristics table.

Study	Participants	Study Design	Intervention	Outcomes
Accurso et al. (2017) [50]	M.Ed. PSTs (N = 55)	Mixed methods	Weekly classes + workshops	Improved disciplinary linguistic knowledge
Athanases and Wong (2018) [42]	ELA PSTs (N = 23)	Qualitative	Inquiry during practice training	Questioning assessment tools, developing a non-deficit perspective
Athanases et al. (2019) [46]	Education students (N = 262)	Mixed methods	Bi-weekly courses over 4 years	Understanding socio-political contexts
Bacon (2017) [47]	PSTs and beginning teachers (N = 24)	Mixed methods	One-time course	Increased non-deficit views on grading, linguistic normativity, and ideology remain
Hammer and Berkel-Otto (2019) [39]	PSTs (N = 162)	Quantitative	Weekly courses	Growth in LRT competencies
He (2013) [43]	ESL teacher candidates (N = 21)	Mixed methods	Semester-long course	Development of cultural competence
Moloney and Oguro (2015) [36]	Language PSTs (N = 33)	Qualitative	One-time workshop	Improvement in intercultural understanding and critical cultural thinking
Ollerhead (2020) [37]	Science PSTs (N = 11)	Qualitative	Teaching practicum	Increase in teaching skills
Ramos (2017) [44]	PSTs for K12-ELs (N = 18)	Mixed methods	Biweekly sessions	Increased confidence in teaching ELs
Rutt and Mumba (2022) [48]	B.Sc. PSTs (N = 3)	Mixed methods	Two-semester intervention	(Varying) application of language-integrated practices
Schroedler and Grommes (2019) [40]	Math and Science PSTs (N = 146)	Quantitative	Blended- learning seminar	Slightly increased awareness and knowledge in multilingual (subject) teaching
Sharma and Lazar (2014) [49]	Undergraduate PSTs (N = 73)	Mixed methods	5-month field experience	Positive beliefs and an asset-based approach towards students
Turner et al. (2022) [38]	B.Ed. PSTs (N = 23)	Qualitative	Elective sessions	Prior formal language learning and teaching experience as biggest indicators of a multilingual stance
Woll (2020) [41]	PSTs for ESL (N = 7)	Mixed methods	Foreign language class	Favorability for crosslinguistic pedagogy did not improve
Zoch and He (2020) [45]	TESOL PSTs (N = 15)	Qualitative	ESL-Literacy methods course	Increased awareness about students’ and their families’ resources and forms of capital

Abbreviations: M.Ed. = Master of Education, PSTs = Pre-service Teachers, ELA = English Language Arts, ELs = English Learners, ESL = English as a Second Language, K12 = Kindergarten through 12th Grade, B.Ed. = Bachelor of Education, B.Sc. = Bachelor of Science.

3.2. Risk of Bias Assessment

All studies were analyzed for quality, with special regard to the educational interventions conducted. A scoring system was used to assess the research questions, study aims, research design, participants, intervention validity, results, trustworthiness, and conclusions. Out of fifteen possible points, the studies scored between nine and fourteen points (see

Table 3. Risk of bias assessment table.

Study	RQ	AIM	RD	PA	IV	RE	TR	CO	Score/15
Accurso et al. (2017) [50]	X	X	X	-	X	X	X	X	13
Athanases and Wong (2018) [42]	X	X	X	-	X	X	NA	X	10
Athanases et al. (2019)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	14
Bacon (2019) [46]	-	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	13
Hammer and Berkel-Otto (2019) [39]	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	14
He (2013) [43]	X	X	-	X	-	-	X	X	9
Moloney and Oguro (2015) [36]	X	-	-	X	-	X	-	X	9
Ollerhead (2019) [37]	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	12
Ramos (2017) [44]	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	14
Rutt and Mumba (2022) [48]	X	X	-	X	X	X	X	X	13
Schroedler and Grommes (2019) [40]	-	X	X	X	X	X	NA	X	10
Sharma and Lazar (2014) [49]	X	X	X	X	X	-	X	X	12
Turner et al. (2022) [38]	X	X	-	X	X	X	X	X	13
Woll (2020) [41]	X	X	X	X	NA	X	X	X	13
Zoch and He (2020) [45]	X	X	NA	NA	X	X	NA	X	11

(RQ = Research Question, AIM = Aim, RD = Research Design, PA = Participants, IV = Intervention Validity, RE = Results, TR = Trustworthiness, CO = Conclusion).

).

Bacon’s [47] as well as Schroedler and Grommes’s studies [40] lacked clear research questions. All studies, except Moloney and Oguro [36], clearly articulated their research purpose. Moloney and Oguro [36] overlooked important aspects of their theoretical background, impacting the study’s coherence. Observations on research designs revealed gaps in several studies. For instance, He [43] employed a research design that worked with very personal and biographical insights into students’ lives. The author did not adequately address the issue of students becoming direct objects of research. This potential danger was not adequately addressed in the research design, which could impact the validity and ethical considerations of the study. Participant descriptions were mostly satisfactory, yet there were some shortcomings, as Accurso et al. [50] and Athanases and Wong [42] lacked adequate participant background information. Zoch and He [45] faced accessibility issues with participant data, ultimately affecting transparency. Most studies satisfied expectations for intervention validity, with the exception of Sharma and Lazar [49], who did not provide information on the instructors or the duration of the intervention. The majority of studies effectively described the results and their relevance. However, only seven acknowledged alternative explanations. Trustworthiness varied, with only two studies meeting the criteria [38,46]. Others lacked adequate consideration or description of researcher-participant relationships. Overall, the included studies presented clear conclusions linked to data and interpretation. All studies but Athanases and Wong [42], He [43], and Ollerhead [37] explicitly listed limitations. Within the supplementary material, a detailed table on the questions and topics for risk of bias assessment is available (see S4: Risk of Bias Assessment Table).

3.3. Emerging Themes

Throughout the data synthesis process, the following themes emerged:

• Sociolinguistics: Systemic Functional Linguistics; Social and Academic Language
• Sociopolitical Perspectives: Sociopolitical Perspectives; Inequity; Legal, Historical, and Cultural Issues Surrounding Linguistic Diversity; Reforms Regarding Language Integration
• Cultural Perspectives: Intercultural Language Pedagogy; Language and Culture
• Language Instruction: Linguistic Basics; Language Development; Scaffolding; Literacy

It is important to note that these themes are interconnected and that a straightforward assignment of all studies to one single category is not always possible. For instance, Hammer and Berkel-Otto [39] described their intervention as follows: “The main content areas of the course […] were linguistic basics, language acquisition, social and academic language, formative assessment, scaffolding and home languages” [39] (p. 248). Looking at the topic of academic language, it can be argued that it intersects with both sociolinguistics, as it relates to language use in educational contexts, as well as sociopolitical perspectives, as it is influenced by educational policies and language politics within schools [15,16]. Bacon [47] addressed sociolinguistic perspectives when reflecting on linguistic discrimination, stating that it is “predominantly maintained, not by speakers of socially stigmatized varieties of English, but by the individuals and the institutions invested in the use of SE and the maintenance of its perceived value” [47] (p. 354). Also, the author addressed a shift in perspective on this matter as the aim of his study. An example of a study that included sociopolitical aspects is the study by He [43], whose intervention emphasizes the legal, historical, and cultural dimensions of teaching English as a second language. Furthermore, PSTs were sensitized to these issues and were expected to utilize their expertise when working with learners and their families. The topic of cultural perspectives emerged in several studies, as seen in Moloney and Oguro’s [36] intervention aiming at PSTs’ critical reflection and intercultural awareness. The theme of language instruction contains aspects concerning knowledge about language and multilingualism, ranging from language development theories over teaching techniques like scaffolding to general linguistic basics [39] or theoretical knowledge of literacy support [37].

3.4. Strategies for Teaching Linguistically Diverse Students

The analysis of the study sample revealed multiple strategies used for preparing PSTs to teach linguistically diverse students in secondary education. Most studies employed several approaches, as listed in

Table 4. Strategies.

Strategy	Studies	N°
Assessment Tools	Accurso et al. (2017) [50]; Athanases and Wong (2018) [42]	2
Self-reflective Inquiry	Athanases et al. (2019) [46]; Bacon (2017) [47]; Sharma and Lazar (2014) [49]; Turner et al. (2022) [38]	4
Literature-based knowledge transfer	Hammer and Berkel-Otto (2019) [39]; Schroedler and Grommes (2019) [40]	2
Guided Community Experience	He (2013) [43]; Zoch and He (2020) [45]	2
Practice Experience	He (2013) [43]; Ollerhead (2020) [37]; Rutt and Mumba (2022) [48]; Sharma and Lazar (2014) [49]; Zoch and He (2020) [45]	5
Language immersion/language learning	Woll (2020) [41]; Turner et al. (2022) [38], Zoch and He (2020) [45]	3
Research-based learning	Ramos (2017) [44]	1
Narrative Videos	Zoch and He (2020) [45]	1

.

One of the strategies was the use of assessment tools that consider linguistic knowledge and aim to promote a non-deficit perspective [42,50]. Athanases and Wong [42] suggested that an asset-based approach to assessment involves closely examining students’ literacy practices to better identify individual achievements, such as tracking students’ learning and relying on various memos, for instance, those collected in interviews with students. Another strategy involved encouraging self-reflection and self-reflective inquiry, such as PSTs reflecting on their position towards different languages within sociopolitical and linguistic contexts [46]. Furthermore, self-reflective exercises, such as exploring one’s idiolect, were used [47]. Studies by Athanases et al. [46], Bacon [47], Sharma and Lazar [49], and Turner et al. [38] implemented self-reflective inquiry, including analyzing artwork, such as films [49], or engaging with poems [47]. Sharma and Lazar [49] additionally employed “pedagogies of discomfort” (p. 5), an approach designed to intentionally expose learners to challenging or uncomfortable ideas, experiences, or perspectives related to language and teaching linguistically diverse students. Two of the studies primarily focused on providing literature-based knowledge to PSTs, e.g., in the areas of basic concepts of linguistics, language development, and teaching methods for linguistically diverse classrooms [39,40]. In this sense, interventions using literature-based knowledge assign PSTs to explore selected introductory and research literature [39] or to answer questions about a text given in a written online format [40]. Other studies included guided community experiences [43,45] which involved integrating field visits into linguistically diverse learners’ families and communities. This strategy aimed to develop so-called cross-cultural communication skills and an appreciation for families’ linguistic, aspirational, and social capital. Additionally, several studies integrated teaching practicums or field experiences alongside accompanying classes [37,48,49]. Three studies used language immersion and/or language learning [38,41,45] by exposing PSTs to a new language to better understand the experiences of non-native-speaking students or engaging PSTs in the process of learning a new language while reflecting on their learning journey. Other strategies, each used by one study only, were research-based learning [44] and the creation of narrative videos by PSTs during field visits with linguistically diverse families [45].

Taken together, practice experiences were employed most often (n = 5), followed by self-reflective inquiry (n = 4), and concepts of language immersion or language learning (n = 3). Two studies each used assessment tools, literature-based knowledge transfer, and guided community experience. Research-based learning and narrative videos were each applied in one study.

3.4.1. Skills for Teaching Linguistically Diverse Students

A synthesis of the developed skills for teaching linguistically diverse students presented in the studies’ outcomes was summarized in the main categories of Methods and Instruction, Critical and Reflective Thinking, and Linguistic Awareness. Given that many studies in the sample targeted multiple skills, a brief summary will be presented below by highlighting some examples. It is important to note that these skills and categories are closely interrelated.

Methods and Instruction: This category encompasses skills around knowing and being able to apply strategies and methods for teaching linguistically diverse students. For instance, this skill was documented in Ramos’ [44] outcomes, who reported participants’ increased confidence in instructional concepts. The research-based learning experiences in the courses were found to be subjectively helpful for participants’ growth in readiness for teaching linguistically diverse students, as assessed by a questionnaire. After the intervention, all participants strongly agreed that they were able to apply differentiated instruction to linguistically diverse students with different language levels. In contrast, prior to the intervention, only 17% agreed with this statement [44].

Critical and Reflective Thinking: This category of skills focuses on PSTs’ ability to engage in (self-reflective) inquiry, reflect on their own beliefs, and confront them when necessary. Critical and reflective thinking may mean approaching linguistic diversity open-mindedly and challenging one’s biases in order to create inclusive learning environments that respect different linguistic backgrounds [51]. For instance, Zoch and He [45] reported that their community-engaged approach enabled PSTs to reflect on their assumptions about students and their families and led them to critically examine their own biases or misconceptions. For example, PSTs were asked to observe different types of capital (such as aspirational, linguistic, and social) within their students’ families. Regarding linguistic capital, one participant noticed “how [her student] used English and Spanish interchangeably when talking about her family” [45] (p. 156). The authors concluded that this reflection on their conversations “encourages teachers to view students’ use of multiple languages simultaneously as an asset rather than a deficiency or lack of proficiency” [45] (p. 156). Critical and reflective thinking skills were also a central element in the intervention of Sharma and Lazar [49], which combined “critical self-reflection with intellectual analysis of educational research, policy, and practice in a historical context” [49] (p. 25).

Linguistic Awareness: Linguistic awareness entails awareness about linguistic diversity and multilingualism as well as linguistic knowledge [15]. Sharma and Lazar [49] credited a “growing awareness of the role of the teacher in supporting students’ language development and building upon the language and literacy resources of emergent bilingual students “(p. 24) to their intervention. Furthermore, Accurso and colleagues [50] reported how their intervention helped to improve PSTs’ ability to transfer disciplinary linguistic knowledge for adjusting their assessment and written feedback to students while considering their linguistic backgrounds. Similarly, Bacon [47] argued that linguistic knowledge contributed to an increased non-deficit view of PSTs when grading non-standard English writings. This study also found that teachers with higher levels of linguistic knowledge were more likely to recognize and appreciate the diverse linguistic abilities and strengths of linguistically diverse students, rather than evaluating them solely based on supposed language norms.

3.4.2. Intersectional Approaches

In terms of their inclusion of intersectionality and its related frameworks, studies were assigned to either Explicit Intersectionality (the term was used in some form and intersectional aspects were directly addressed in the analyses), Implicit Intersectionality (intersectionality was not directly referenced, but theoretical concepts pertaining to diversity and intersectionality were applied), or Single-Issue Approach (approach did not include intersectionality either explicitly or implicitly but rather concentrated on a single issue or discussed dimensions of diversity in an additive way).

Explicit Intersectionality: A total of three studies explicitly addressed intersectionality. Athanases et al. [46] mentioned that “reflecting on one’s own multiple, intersecting identities is foundational” [46] (p. 583) in self-reflective inquiry. The authors also repeatedly reflected on the intersection of race and language, e.g., when stating that reflecting personal language ideologies “may highlight race and language intersections, or raciolinguistic ideologies, and how such intersections further complicate power dynamics, as racism and linguicism comingle and deepen biases“ [46] (p. 583). Bacon [47] first drew on intersectional approaches when discussing literature in his study’s background that examines the intersections of non-standard English, race, and deficit ideologies. Additionally, the author applied intersectional approaches when describing the procedure of the study’s educational intervention. For instance, the instructor encouraged the participants to reflect on how biases towards language and race intersectionally affect linguistically diverse students and gave them a corresponding reading assignment. Sharma and Lazar [49] explicitly addressed intersectionality only once within the description of their intervention design: “All participants were enrolled in a required course, Literacy, Language, and Culture, focused on the intersection of race, class, literacy, and language in relation to equity in education in general and developing a more complex understanding of the language skills and literacy resources of emergent bilingual students, in particular”. [49] (p. 13).

Implicit Intersectionality: Schroedler and Grommes [40] implicitly included aspects of intersectionality in two ways. Within their intervention, students were taught different notions of multilingualism, including “important definitions, such as differences between individual, societal, territorial and institutional multilingualism” [40] (p. 231). Specifically, this framing of multilingualism by examining societal, institutional, and individual dimensions closely aligns with intersectional perspectives. The authors further addressed the relationship between migrant origin and educational success, stating that “the problem in this has nothing to do with differences in academic or intellectual capacity, but with the exclusion and non-consideration of multilingualism in (subject) education within the German school system” [40] (p. 227). Schroedler and Grommes [40] demonstrated an intersectional perspective by recognizing that individuals’ experiences and opportunities are shaped by the intersecting dynamics of language, migration, and education and illustrating how systemic factors, social structures, and discrimination may contribute to educational inequalities. Zoch and He [45] used Yosso’s [52] concept of community cultural wealth in their intervention, a framework that they stated is a “critical race theory concept” [45] (p. 150). This framework questions several notions of capital (aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistance) in order to demonstrate power relations within society and their relevance to educational settings [52]. This approach could be considered intersectional not only because of the different aspects of diversity represented in the forms of capital but also because of its connection to critical race theory, which considers race to be a social construct and addresses societal power relations. Finally, Moloney and Oguro [36] implied an intersectional perspective by discussing that PSTs’ critical cultural competence “is fundamental to their ability in reducing prejudice and racism in the culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms which are increasingly common today” [36] (p. 105).

Single-Issue Approach: The majority of studies neither explicitly nor implicitly addressed intersectional perspectives. Several studies mentioned diversity referents or aspects of diversity in an additive way without exploring their interconnectedness. For instance, in He’s [43] study, participants made observations regarding various factors such as socio-economic status, immigrant or refugee status, educational background, language proficiency, and cultural groups, which could potentially impact students’ academic performance. While He [43] referred to multiple diversity referents, the study itself did not actively address intersectional matters. Similarly, Ramos [44] acknowledged the diverse socioeconomic status, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and countries of origin among English language learners in the introduction, and Rutt and Mumba [48] mentioned the importance of teachers recognizing the unique cultural, intellectual, and linguistic experiences and resources of students. The remaining studies in the final sample [37,38,39,41,42,50] did not address such aspects of diversity at all. Instead, their interventions examined other aspects related to preparing PSTs for teaching linguistically diverse students, such as providing precise written feedback to students [50] or analyzing their work through an asset-based lens [42].

4. Discussion

The aim of the current systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence on interventions targeting PSTs’ skills for teaching in linguistically diverse secondary classrooms as well as to explore if and how these interventions considered aspects of intersectionality. We included 15 studies with a wide range of intervention types and research designs. Overall, our review indicated that multiple interventions aimed at developing PSTs’ strategies and skills for teaching linguistically diverse students, for instance, by using adapted assessment tools, engaging in self-inquiry, and participating in practice experiences. Intersectional perspectives could hardly be found within the sample. Several studies implicitly addressed topics of intersectionality or used single-issue approaches that considered multiple diversity referents in an additive rather than an interconnected way and therefore not in an intersectional way.

The results regarding the first research question, “How can interventions in secondary teacher education contribute to the development of pre-service teachers’ strategies and skills for working with linguistically diverse students?” revealed different approaches within the sample. Self-reflective inquiry was used in several studies [38,46,47,49] to help PSTs establish a non-deficit and diversity-sensitive point of view and reflect on their positions towards diversity and language. This self-reflective engagement further allowed PSTs to reflect on their individual pedagogical interactions but also understand institutional and societal aspects as well as the interplay between these different levels. This aligns with Cummins’ view [14], who points out that comprehending and addressing exclusionary systems and beliefs as well as transforming them into inclusive educational settings involves seeing beyond societal and institutional labels and biases and acknowledging the potential of all students. Including such reflections as well as critical thinking in teacher education may help prospective teachers better understand and question themselves, their future roles as educators, and their students’ complex life realities.

Also, practice experiences were part of several of the identified studies [37,43,45,48,49], aligning with García and Kleyn [15], who pointed out that teachers of multilingual classrooms should engage in issues of equity and in a pedagogical practice closely connected to students’ lives. Besides field visits where PSTs could interact with linguistically diverse students and their families and communities [43,45], practice experiences included PSTs collecting teaching experiences in (linguistically) diverse classrooms alongside their university classes [37,48,49]. Such approaches can help to overcome biases and negative or deficit-oriented views towards students from diverse backgrounds. Practical experiences can also help reduce PSTs’ feelings of being overwhelmed when it comes to teaching linguistically diverse students [40].

Several other studies used language immersion [38,41,45]. This approach allowed PSTs to shift their perspectives and gain a deeper understanding of language and what it is like to learn a language while also experiencing the difficulties of being surrounded by a language they were not fully proficient in. Especially in the context of inclusive education, such experiences may alter PSTs sensibilities towards the importance of differentiated instruction and of students’ home languages and lead to a broader openness towards multilingualism. Taken together, practical experiences can be considered a powerful tool for developing the skills necessary for teaching linguistically diverse students.

Some studies focused on the instructional methods needed to effectively teach linguistically diverse students. As articulated by Cummins [14], the choice of instructional methods is of high importance as it can support marginalized students in overcoming language barriers. The identified interventions analyzed PSTs’ developing linguistic awareness, which entails understanding and appreciating students’ linguistic backgrounds [47,49,50]. This aspect of linguistic awareness is not new but still fundamental for teaching in linguistically diverse settings, as it is, for example, constitutive of the LRT framework [19].

Most of the strategies and skills addressed in the included studies aligned with the ones mentioned in the introduction of this systematic review. For instance, it became apparent that, aligning with findings from Rowan [4], the topic of culture was frequently referred to in conjunction with students’ linguistic diversity. As Rowan [4] observed, the diversity referent cultural was most frequently used in association with students referred to as diverse or at risk. Connections between culture and proposed skills often appeared throughout this review, which is also why Cultural Perspectives was one of the main themes emerging from the sample. For instance, Moloney and Oguro [36] used the term intercultural awareness but did not provide a detailed definition. Within their study, intercultural awareness focused on participants’ experiences with linguistic and cultural differences and their reflections about them [36]. This focus on cultural differences could run the risk of portraying cultures as coherent wholes, which poses the risk of stereotyping cultures and attributing students to rigid concepts of one or another culture. This could, in turn, lead to culturalization, which entails stereotyping and related disadvantages, especially within the educational context. Additionally, an overemphasis on cultural within the term linguistic diversity may lead to less attention being paid to students’ actual linguistic backgrounds. Instead, teacher education should move away from static attributions and fixations on alleged cultural differences and towards an inclusive approach that understands students’ intersecting backgrounds [10]. Along those lines, Villegas et al. [13] revised their framework for teacher education by introducing the term inclusive teacher instead of the rather narrow culturally responsive teacher. The revised framework emphasizes the importance of PSTs in fostering positive attitudes towards diversity and students’ intersectional identities.

Beliefs towards linguistic diversity, which is a common research topic in teacher education [17], were addressed by Bacon [47] and Woll [41]. Bacon [47] observed merely “cosmetic changes” (p. 352) in PSTs’ beliefs after the intervention, which reinforces the notion that beliefs on diversity are rather hard to change.

Therefore, broader underlying ways of thinking should be the basis of teacher education. Inclusion and intersectionality should be advocated for from the very beginning of teacher education programs and should be seen as a mindset for teaching in today’s schools. Hard-to-change beliefs also emphasize that research on PSTs’ beliefs could benefit from an intersectional perspective, which questions linguistic normativity from a power-critical and historically embedded point of view. Solano-Campos et al. [18] encourage such standpoints by looking at what they define as orientations. With reference to the LRT framework [19], such orientations include sociolinguistic consciousness, appreciation for language diversity, and the will to advocate for English language learners [18].

To effectively develop PSTs’ skills in the areas of Methods and Instruction, Critical and Reflective Thinking, and Linguistic Awareness, it is helpful to consider both studies that scored highest in the quality assessment as well as those that demonstrated large positive effects. For instance, Ramos [44] reported PSTs’ increased competence in teaching English language learners, targeting skills related to Methods and Instruction. After the intervention, which included research-based learning experiences, PSTs could effectively design and tailor instruction for their linguistically diverse students. This approach provided practical, research-grounded tools and strategies, making it a powerful method for teacher education. In terms of fostering skills around Critical and Reflective Thinking, especially among white and monolingual PSTs, Sharma and Lazar [49] showed significant changes in the PSTs` beliefs on linguistic diversity pre- and post-intervention by combining self-reflective inquiry and practice experiences. Accurso et al. [50] demonstrated how PSTs improved their ability to tailor assessments and feedback to students’ linguistic backgrounds, supported by a course examining the relationship between language and its social functions. This approach underscores the importance of understanding language in context and offers an effective approach for teacher preparation in the area of Linguistic Awareness.

Beyond examining the strategies and skills employed in preparing PSTs for instructing linguistically diverse students, the second research question asked which of the identified interventions explicitly or implicitly considered aspects of intersectionality, and in what sense. Only three out of 15 studies within the sample explicitly named intersectionality in their article [46,47,49]. The primary emphasis of these studies is centered around the intersections between race and language. However, Sharma and Lazar [49] additionally considered intersections of class and literacy. To a certain degree, each of the three identified studies had the potential to advocate for intersectional justice as they dealt with matters of history, race, justice, and language. An intersectional approach was also underscored by reflecting on meaningful connections between diversity categories. For example, Bacon’s [47] study examined raciolinguistic ideologies and their origins. This correlation aligns with Crenshaw’s [21] original definition of intersectionality, which highlights the interconnection between diversity categories—in this context, race and language—and how they interact with each other. It is evident that the categories of race and language are especially important in the context of teaching linguistically diverse students. An example of this are the deficit perspectives and stereotypes speakers of African American English often face in educational settings [17]. However, this strong focus on race and language may limit the possibilities of intersectional analysis if other categories such as disability, socio-economic background, or migration are overshadowed or disregarded. Especially the diversity category of disability is often underrepresented in intersectional perspectives and in research on linguistic diversity in teacher education in general [53]. This also becomes evident when examining the studies included in this review. In intersectional educational research, the emphasis frequently lies on race, class, and gender, while categories such as disability or body are, if at all, implied in the appended “etc”.. However, it is important to note that inclusive education inherently encompasses the inclusion of students with disabilities. When researching mechanisms of discrimination and disadvantages faced by marginalized students from an intersectional standpoint, focusing on any particular diversity category has shown its relevance and applicability to other diversity categories as well [28].

Three other studies implicitly used an intersectional lens by including methods that resonate with intersectionality [36,40,45]. These studies either addressed a multitude of diversity facets [40], promoted constructivist viewpoints [45], looked into social power dynamics [36], or examined educational disparities across societal, institutional, and individual dimensions [40]. While these implicitly intersectional approaches make an important contribution to research concerning the preparation for teaching in linguistically diverse contexts, an explicitly intersectional approach offers additional advantages.

The majority of the included studies neither explicitly nor implicitly considered intersectional perspectives. On the one hand, some of the interventions simply concentrated on other subjects rather than intersectional matters. For example, Rutt and Mumba’s [48] intervention sought to educate PSTs in language- and literacy-integrated science practices. On the other hand, interventions employed single-issue approaches, which pose the risk of essentialization or the previously mentioned culturalization. As pointed out by Florian [30], a broader view of inclusion should be promoted in teacher education to prevent the problematization of diversity and to move away from concentrating solely on individual diversity referents. This view, as well as the findings presented in this review, clearly speak for a more nuanced integration of intersectional perspectives in teacher education.

5. Limitations

There are some limitations in this systematic review that could affect the generalizability of the results. The majority of the studies included in the sample originated in the United States, which limits the diversity of perspectives and practices, potentially affecting the transferability of the findings to other educational systems and teacher education programs. Given that different countries have different understandings of intersectionality that may be influenced by their unique historical contexts and sociodemographic dynamics, the applicability of the identified approaches to teacher education beyond the United States may also be limited. Also consider the heterogeneity in the academic backgrounds, practical experiences, and teaching subjects of the participating PSTs, which may further limit the potential to universally apply the identified approaches. Finally, the language bias resulting from the categorical exclusion of non-English language studies leads to an incomplete representation of international research and is a disadvantage for non-English-speaking researchers and regions. This, in turn, could lead to a geographic bias in the study’s findings and interpretations.

6. Conclusions

This review highlighted how interventions in secondary teacher education can enhance teachers’ strategies and skills for working with linguistically diverse students. It presented different strategies like assessment tools, self-inquiry, and practice experiences, as well as skills surrounding Methods and Instruction, Critical and Reflective Thinking, and Linguistic Awareness. After revealing that intersectional perspectives are rarely employed in the identified interventions, and when they are, it is mostly in implicit rather than explicit ways, we conclude that teacher education programs need to explore broader understandings of the interconnected concepts of multilingualism, (linguistic) diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality. Linguistic diversity should be recognized as a societal reality and an asset in educational contexts. Inclusion needs to be perceived as an equity-based approach to teaching all students, encompassing not only students with disabilities but all learners. Similarly, the understanding of intersectionality should extend beyond a limited set of diversity categories. Instead, it should serve as a tool to make various realities of life visible and to reflect on them in their diverse individual, institutional, and societal contexts. Some of the reviewed interventions shared fresh approaches, including power-critical perspectives and a differentiated view on language, linguistic diversity, and socially constructed norms regarding these topics. Teacher education programs focusing on teaching linguistically diverse students need to move away from potentially essentializing and othering students. Instead, they should embrace an inclusive perspective that acknowledges students’ differences and needs, adjusting teaching methods accordingly without disregarding their individuality. Future teachers should be equipped to act as agents of change by interrupting inequitable practices in schools that discriminate against marginalized students [13]. This systematic review synthesized evidence that there are promising approaches to reaching this goal, but there is still a need for strengthening this transformative role, for example, by extending teacher education curricula towards topics of language and diversity.

Also, there is a pressing need for more research focusing on integrating intersectional perspectives into teacher education in linguistically diverse classrooms. Intersectionality helps to exceed limited, static, and superficial approaches and advocates for an expanded application of analytical categories that encompasses the complexities of individuals’ experiences across diverse teaching and learning environments [27]. Future teacher education research could benefit from intersectional perspectives when designing and evaluating interventions. An intersectional approach may offer insights into the origins of negative beliefs and thus provide points for teacher development. Additionally, integrating issues around language in teacher education that go beyond language acquisition, such as exploring social norms and their origins in relation to language, should be explored further. Such approaches demonstrate the complexity of linguistically diverse classrooms and can enrich teacher education. By taking advantage of these opportunities for educational interventions, a more inclusive approach to teacher education can be established. This, in turn, will help prepare PSTs to successfully teach to the needs and strengths of all students.