Monolingual Early Childhood Educators Teaching Multilingual Children: A Scoping Review

Abstract

The presence of culturally and linguistically diverse children increases in early education classrooms worldwide. In monolingual education settings, multilingual children are at a disadvantage regarding their learning opportunities compared to monolingual children. Knowledge about how monolingual educators support children in a multilingual classroom has not been systematized yet. The present scoping review aims to synthesize the existing empirical evidence on (a) characteristics of the learning environment of monolingual teachers with multilingual children and (b) how teacher characteristics relate to the learning environment characteristics in early education institutions worldwide. The inclusion criteria used in this review included articles that report empirical evidence from 1990 to 2024, with multilingual children aged 0–6 of minoritized languages and monolingual teacher practices within a naturalist environment. Subsequently, through the PRISMA-ScR method on the articles found in the WOS and SCIELO databases, 40 articles were included with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs. The results showed that in the Latin American context, culturally responsive practices are scarce for bilingual children with immigrant backgrounds. In the USA and European contexts, educators are more likely to implement activities that include children’s L1, even if they have limited knowledge of that language. The international perspective of this review allows us to identify contributions and challenges in different geographic regions.

1. Introduction

Approximately 40% of the global population lacks access to education in a language they speak or understand (UNESCO, 2016). In early education classrooms with multilingual children, communication challenges arise for monolingual educators, who are challenged to foster positive relationships and equitable classroom participation. Difficulties in effective classroom communication have been described, with monolingual educators struggling to teach; they may require translation during activities, reading activities may take longer for multilingual children, and teachers spend more time explaining the meaning of words (Langeloo et al., 2019). These challenges make evident the limited preparation of monolingual teachers to work with this group of children. It is documented that there are strategies monolingual teachers could use to effectively educate multilingual children (e.g., Castro et al., 2011b). At the socio-emotional level, it has been described that (a) the socio-emotional well-being of bilingual children is associated with their proficiency in both languages in both preschool and higher education, (b) their social skills can be better developed in classrooms where their L1 (first language) is spoken occasionally, and (c) communicating in both languages creates positive ties to their identity and cultural heritage (Axelrod, 2025; Banse, 2019; Winsler et al., 2014). Finally, peer interactions have been described as beneficial for language development. However, multilingual children are more likely to interact with their peers than with educators in the classroom, and educators provide limited support to multilingual children in peer interactions (Langeloo et al., 2019; Washington-Nortey et al., 2022). In summary, it is necessary to consider the challenges of teaching and communication in classrooms with monolingual educators to prevent these experiences from affecting the participation and socio-emotional development of multilingual children.

Bilingual children display unique developmental characteristics that differ from those of monolingual children. Research suggests that the bilingual experience fosters cognitive and socioemotional skills that exceed those cultivated through a monolingual experience (Barac et al., 2014; Bialystok, 2017; Winsler et al., 2014). When bilingual exposure begins early—between ages 0 and 3—children achieve similar developmental milestones in their dominant language as monolinguals, and developmental differences emerge after age 3 (Paradis et al., 2021). These differences can be explained by the different environmental factors to which bilingual children are exposed and with which they interact.

The environment where bilingual children develop is critical in their learning process. On the one hand, certain aspects of the home environment, such as family demographics—socioeconomic status and parental education—directly impact bilingual children’s academic outcomes more than their bilingual status (Winsler et al., 2014). On the other hand, participation in early childhood education programs and the characteristics of the learning environment can support bilingual development (Castro, 2014). Specifically, high-quality classroom practices that benefit monolingual children also support bilingual children. However, this is not enough to ensure competent academic success for bilinguals. Educational teams must implement specific, high-quality practices designed for the unique needs of this population (Castro, 2014). Given the linguistic and cultural diversity of children, implementing this set of practices is challenging for educational teams, so teacher preparation is essential in this process.

Bilingual children score lower than monolingual native speakers on reading assessments. Indeed, children who receive instruction in a language different from that spoken at home score 34% lower on reading tests than monolingual peers who speak the same language at home and school (UNESCO, 2020). This disparity grows because bilingual children are often assessed in the majority language, which does not accurately reflect all their knowledge and competencies (Castro, 2014). These differences affect younger children in early childhood education, as they are in a sensitive development period and they are exposed to disadvantaged learning opportunities (Buysse et al., 2014; Dixon et al., 2012; Sawyer et al., 2018). A systematic review of classroom interactions describes inequalities in interaction and learning opportunities between monolingual and multilingual children at this level (Langeloo et al., 2019). Even in classrooms with professionals who speak children’s L1, it is not frequently used; instead, the majority language is preferred (Franco et al., 2019). Therefore, considering increased migratory flows, educational institutions face a critical challenge and responsibility: implementing teaching practices for children acquiring a second language (L2), which is different from their L1.

The classroom learning environment is central to language acquisition, regardless of the language used. Adults in early education settings can provide interaction opportunities, facilitating L2 development in young bilingual children (Tabors, 2008). Accordingly, a linguistically and culturally responsive learning environment is essential to ensure that children feel welcome in a warm, inclusive classroom that reflects their home language and culture (Gay, 2000; López & Páez, 2021). Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) emphasizes the importance of educational teams scaffolding learning—whether in L1, L2, or both—depending on the curricular context, to support successful participation in the teaching-learning process (Lucas et al., 2008; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Tabors, 2008). Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) is defined as “the understanding of and commitment to cultural diversity and its influence in the classroom, using this knowledge to guide educational and instructional practices” (Gay, 2018, p. 53). LRT and CRT align with the principles of interculturality by acknowledging the convergence and divergence among diverse cultural backgrounds, aiming for a critical intercultural perspective (Tubino, 2004; Walsh, 2010). This perspective encourages educators to recognize the inequality faced by children from minoritized languages, whose languages are systematically marginalized and threatened at the socio-political level. In Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, there are policies that promote Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) in certain places. However, schools often act as places that distance indigenous children from their cultural identity and languages, promoting Spanish instead of acting as a bridge and place for dialog between different worldviews (Loncón et al., 2023).

A warm, linguistically responsive classroom environment that uses specific teaching strategies to scaffold L2 acquisition has narrowed achievement gaps between monolingual and bilingual children in early childhood education (NASEM, 2017). In addition, the role of educators in supporting this process through high-quality teaching is fundamental (Castro et al., 2011a; Dixon et al., 2012; López & Páez, 2021; Tabors, 2008). Such teaching must include (a) structured, intentional instruction targeting language and literacy development, (b) the presence of educators who share children’s home language and cultural beliefs, and (c) encouraging family involvement. This approach fosters cultural identity development, promotes communication with families, and supports the development of L1 skills that can later transfer to L2.

The Present Review

Several literature reviews have synthesized classroom environment characteristics involving multilingual children. For example, one review examined the effects of teaching strategies on the language development of bilingual children and reported that linguistically and culturally responsive interventions are highly effective (Larson et al., 2020). Buysse et al. (2014) found that bilingual children benefit from attending early education programs (e.g., Head Start in the United States), as just participation in the program was associated with greater L2 development than children who did not attend. Additionally, peer interaction has been found to facilitate language development due to the social exchanges and communicative resources involved (Washington-Nortey et al., 2022). However, these reviews only included intervention studies conducted in a single country—the United States—and did not consider qualitative studies or those from other nations. As such, they fail to provide a comprehensive overview that includes diverse countries, cultures, and languages, along with qualitative or mixed-method approaches capable of capturing a broader spectrum of responsive practices that may be emerging in early childhood education.

Other scoping reviews have synthesized teaching strategies that support bilingual language development. These reviews reported (1) that language and literacy teaching contexts that promote home language use have been most frequently studied (e.g., home language use and explicit vocabulary instruction) (Banse, 2019), and (2) that teachers use a wide range of strategies in instruction such as (a) translanguaging strategies: this term brings together the different communicative resources that bilingual speakers manage and implies allowing children to use their entire linguistic repertoire in the classroom (e.g., encouraging children to listen to and/or use their L1 along with their L2) (García & Espinosa, 2020; Zheng et al., 2021), (b) interaction-promoting strategies (e.g., responding positively to children’s use of different languages, fostering conversation, using diverse materials, and asking questions), (c) linguistically and culturally responsive strategies (e.g., based on multilingual children’s language development, vocabulary teaching, grammatical correction; valuing children’s home cultures, respecting their ideas and emotions, building family and peer alliances), and (3) that teacher-related factors may influence bilingual children’s language outcomes, such as teacher characteristics (e.g., certification, education, professional development, beliefs, and attitudes), teaching quality (e.g., instructional support, pedagogical practices, classroom management, emotional support), and teacher language use (e.g., language of instruction and its implementation) (Ramírez et al., 2021). Nevertheless, these studies focused only on strategies implemented by bilingual teachers, who have knowledge of the children’s L1 and, therefore, have an advantage in implementing practices such as code-switching. However, frequently teachers do not speak their young bilingual learners’ L1 (Fillmore & Snow, 2018). Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize current literature with a broader perspective on learning environment characteristics experienced by monolingual educators working with multilingual children.

This scoping review aims to expand the existing knowledge by synthesizing a broad and diverse set of strategies associated with the learning environment, specifically examining classroom contexts in which monolingual educators interact with multilingual children in Europe, Latin America, and the United States. This review builds upon the work of Buysse et al. (2014), Larson et al. (2020), and Washington-Nortey et al. (2022) by including studies from countries beyond the United States and incorporating qualitative methodologies. It also extends the work of Zheng et al. (2021) and Ramírez et al. (2021) by focusing on teaching strategies in multilingual classrooms with a particular emphasis on monolingual educators—a group that has been largely excluded from prior reviews, despite being a substantial portion of the teaching workforce (Zheng et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2016), and who may implement effective interactional practices despite language barriers.

This work integrates several frameworks: The Learning Environment Model for Multilingual Children (Tabors, 2008), Quality Teaching Practices in Classrooms with Bilingual Children (Castro et al., 2011a), Teaching Dual Language Learners (López & Páez, 2021), Funds of Knowledge (González et al., 2005), and Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2018; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). These frameworks were used to construct a conceptual analysis framework for examining strategies and practices in naturalistic studies, excluding intervention-based research. Furthermore, the review incorporated effective strategies identified in five recent intervention studies with young multilingual children (Castro et al., 2017; Figueras-Daniel & Li, 2021; Grøver et al., 2022; Kane et al., 2023; Spencer et al., 2024). The analysis and coding focused on the following categories:

Learning environment characteristics:

(a)

Provision of a consistent and organized routine;

(b)

Provision of a linguistically and culturally responsive environment (e.g., curriculum incorporating the L1, multilevel curriculum, scaffolding through linguistic and non-verbal strategies; home culture reflected in printed materials, books, photos, stories, instructional materials);

(c)

Provision of a language- and literacy-rich environment (e.g., activities focused on L1 and L2 acquisition and use, storytelling, shared reading, and use of educational materials);

(d)

Provision of participation opportunities (e.g., interaction with adults, peers, play-based activities, large and small group work);

(e)

Provision of a collaborative environment (e.g., partnerships with families and other professionals).

Consequently, this review aims to (1) synthesize the methodological and sociodemographic characteristics of the current body of evidence and (2) present a thematic analysis of the characteristics of the educators and its relationship with the characteristics of the learning environment in classrooms with multilingual children.

2. Methodology

This scoping review follows the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the process is based on the recommended stages for such reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).

2.1. Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study: (1) What does recent empirical evidence report about the characteristics of the learning environment in classrooms with monolingual educators and multilingual children with minoritized languages in early childhood education across different regions? (2) How are the characteristics of the educators related to the characteristics of the learning environment in classrooms with multilingual children?

2.2. Search Terms

A search was conducted in both the WOS (in English) and SCIELO (in Spanish) databases to identify relevant articles. Keywords used in WOS were as follows: Learning environment category: Classroom interaction OR teacher-child interaction OR “teaching practice*” OR “classroom environment” OR “language environment” OR “pedagogical practice*” OR appropriate* OR responsive* OR “classroom quality” OR “classroom language” OR “translang*” OR talk* OR Conversation* OR academic language* OR discourse* OR “Communication*” OR “language interaction*” OR literacy environment OR “small-group” OR “language attitudes” OR “parent-teacher” OR family involvement OR collaboration OR paraprofessional OR assistants teachers OR professional development. (AND) Multilingual children category: Multilingual* OR bilingual* OR “dual language learner*” OR multilingual children OR plurilingual OR trilingual. (AND) Educational level category: “early childhood” OR preschool* OR “early education” OR “early childhood education” OR ECEC OR daycare OR childcare OR preschool OR nursery school.

Keywords used in SCIELO are outlined below and split into two categories. Teacher category: (docente$ OR educador$ OR profesor$ OR maestr$). Multilingual children and minoritized language groups category: (multilingüe$ OR bilingüe$ OR plurilingüe$ OR trilingüe$ OR inmigrante$ OR migrantes OR migración OR minoría OR indígena$ OR multicultural$ OR intercultural$).

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This literature review included articles that met the following criteria: (a) studies published between 1990 and 2024; to incorporate studies not previously systematized; (b) written in English or Spanish, (c) included bilingual or multilingual children; simultaneous or sequential between the ages of 0–6 who speak minoritized languages (e.g., immigrants, Indigenous populations), (d) collected data from early childhood education institutions with monolingual educators; articles were reviewed thoroughly to confirm this—if not explicitly stated, they were excluded after agreement with a second author, (e) reported empirical data about educators’ strategies and/or practices involving children, families, or other professionals in naturalistic settings. Excluded articles focused on children or students from other educational levels and those centered on home practices.

2.4. Article Selection

The combination of search syntax yielded a total of 972 articles (see Figure 1). The search was completed on 26 November 2024. Articles were filtered and selected based on the inclusion criteria (see Figure 1), resulting in 863 articles being screened. The final article selection was conducted using the 2024 Rayyan software. This involved two phases: first screening, which involved titles and abstracts, and second screening, which involved a full-text review (see Figure 1). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles from both databases were selected.

The analysis of the selected studies was carried out in two stages: (1) The characteristics of the 40 articles were synthesized based on the following aspects: country, early childhood education institution, program type, educator characteristics (language background), child characteristics (age and languages), and research design. (2) The results and findings were analyzed as follows: first, findings were deductively coded based on a set of codes derived from conceptual and theoretical frameworks regarding the characteristics of the learning environment (see Appendix A with codes); second, article findings were coded according to features of the learning environment; finally, thematic coding was used to organize the findings from the various studies.

3. Results

3.1. Synthesis of Selected Articles

This literature review synthesized the characteristics of 40 selected articles according to the following areas: country, institution, program level and type, characteristics of monolingual educators (languages and number), characteristics of the children (age and languages), and research design (see

Table 1. Article general description.

Reference	Country	Early Education Level	Bilingual Program Type	Children Age	Children Languages	Teachers nº	Teacher Language	Study Design
(Baker, 2019)	USA	Early education	none	3–6 years	English, Spanish +10	Not specified	English, Spanish +10	qualitative: multiple case study
(Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015)	Chile	Early education	IBE	4–5 years	Spanish, Mapudungún	2	Spanish	qualitative: case study
(Bihler et al., 2018)	Germany	Early education	none	2.5–3.9 years	German, Turkish, Russian, Polish, Arabic, Albanese	135	German	quantitative: correlational
(Briceño et al., 2018)	México	Primary school	IBE	4–12 years	Spanish, Wixarika	1	Spanish	qualitative: ethnographic
(Campos-Bustos, 2019)	Chile	Primary school	none	4–5 years	Haitian Creole, Spanish, French, English	19	Spanish	quantitative: descriptive. qualitative: interviews
(Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019)	Sweden	Early education	none	3–6 years	Kurdish, Croatian	1	Sweden	qualitative: ethnographic
(Cépeda García et al., 2019)	Perú	Primary school	IBE	3–12 years	Spanish, Shipibo	6	Spanish	qualitative: interviews
(Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021)	Ecuador	Primary rural school	IBE	3–15 years	Spanish, Quechua	Not specified	Spanish	qualitative: interviews
(Delgado-Gastélum et al., 2022)	México	Early education	IBE	5 years	Spanish, Tsotsil	1	Spanish	qualitative: ethnographic
(Dominguez & Trawick-Smith, 2018)	USA	Early education	none	3.7–4.5 years	Chinese, Spanish	3	English	qualitative: case study
(Farrand & Deeg, 2021)	USA	Special education school	dual	3–5 years	Spanish, English, Arabic	1	English	qualitative: case study
(Flanagan Bórquez, 2021)	Chile	Primary school	none	4–5 years	Chinese, Spanish, Haitian Creole	1	Spanish	qualitative: interviews
(Flanagan-Bórquez et al., 2022)	Chile	Primary school	none	4–5 years	Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Haitian Creole	10	Spanish	qualitative: phenomenological
(Flynn et al., 2021)	USA	Early education	none	4 years	English, Spanish, Arabic, Somali, Creole, Russian	1	English	qualitative: observational
(Garrity et al., 2019)	USA	Early education	none	-	Spanish, English	17	English, Spanish	quantitative: correlational
(Gelir, 2023)	Turkey	Early education	none	3–6 years	Kurdish	1	Turkish	qualitative: ethnographic
(Gillanders, 2007)	USA	Primary school	none	4 years	Spanish	1	English	qualitative: case study
(Jacoby & Lesaux, 2014)	USA	Early education	none	2.9–6 years	Spanish, English	3	English	quantitative: correlational
(Kilinc & Alvarado, 2021)	USA	Primary school	dual	4–5 years	Spanish, English, Korean, Arabic, Nepali	1	English	qualitative: ethnographic
(Kirby et al., 2023)	USA	Early education	none	1–5 years	-	102	English	multiple methods
(Langeloo et al., 2019)	Netherlands	Early education	none	5–6 years	Turkish, Dutch, English, +5	19	Dutch	qualitative: observational
(Limlingan & McWayne, 2023)	USA	Early education	none	-	Spanish, English	7	English	qualitative: phenomenological
(Limlingan et al., 2022)	USA	Early education	none	4 years	Spanish, English	5	English	quantitative: correlational
(Lundberg et al., 2023)	Sweden	Early education	none	3–5 years	Arabic, French, English, +10	2	Sweden	qualitative: ethnographic
(Mary & Young, 2017)	France	Primary school	none	3–4 years	French, Turkish, Serbian, Arabic, Albanese	1	French	qualitative: ethnographic
(Mary & Young, 2018)	France	Primary school	none	3–4 years	French, Turkish, Serbian, Arabian, Arabic	1	French	qualitative: ethnographic
(McClain et al., 2021)	USA	Early education	immersion	3–5 years	Spanish, English	2	English	Mixed
(Ovati et al., 2024)	Norway	Early education	none	-	-	167	Norwegian	quantitative: correlational
(Peleman et al., 2022)	Belgium	Early education	none	-	-	242	Dutch	quantitative: correlational
(Plascencia González & Núñez Patiño, 2022)	México	Primary school	none	3–6 years	Spanish, native languages	Not specified	Spanish	qualitative: interviews
(Pozzo & Parucci, 2017)	Argentina	Primary school	IBE	4–5 years	Guaraní, Spanish	8	Spanish	qualitative: interviews
(Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017)	Sweden	Early education	none	3–5 years	Swedish, Romani, Arabic, Polish, Greek, Vietnamese	2	Swedish	qualitative: ethnographic
(Puskás, 2017)	Sweden	Early education	none	3–5 years	Swedish, Arabic, Romani, Greek	1	Swedish	qualitative: ethnographic
(Ramírez et al., 2019)	EEUU	Early education	none	3–5 years	Spanish, English	Not specified	English	quantitative: cross-sectional, longitudinal
(Sawyer et al., 2017)	EEUU	Early education	none	3.2–5.5 years	Spanish, English	3	English	qualitative: consensual
(Sembiante et al., 2023)	USA	Early education	none	4 years	Spanish, English	Not specified	English, Spanish	quantitative: correlational
(Thompson, 1994)	UK	Early education	none	3 years	Mirpuri, English	Not specified	English	qualitative: ethnographic
(Trawick-Smith et al., 2023)	USA	Early education	none	3–5 years	Spanish, English	2	English	quantitative: correlational
(Tsai & García, 2000)	EEUU	Early education	none	3–4 years	Chinese, Spanish, Polish, Urdu	1	English	qualitative: ethnographic
(Zettl, 2023)	Germany	Early education	none	2–7 years	German, Turkish, Albanese, Bulgarian, Dutch	1	German	qualitative: ethnographic

). Of the 40 reviewed studies, 17 were conducted in the United States. Most studies focused on children aged 3–5 years (N = 32), with fewer studies involving children aged 0–3 years (N = 4). Approximately 70% of the studies employed qualitative methodologies, while 22% used quantitative approaches. The qualitative studies included ethnographies, interviews, and case studies. The quantitative studies employed descriptive, correlational, and observational designs. Most of the studies originated from the United States (N = 17), followed by Chile (N = 4), Sweden (N = 4), and México (N = 3). Furthermore, 18 articles reported that educators were monolingual English speakers, while 13 indicated that educators were monolingual Spanish speakers. Other languages spoken by educators included Swedish, Dutch, and French.

3.2. Findings for Research Question 1: Characteristics of the Learning Environment

3.2.1. Responsive Environment

Teacher–child interactions are central to creating a participatory, responsive, and interactive environment for multilingual children. Many of these interactions occur during activities conducted in the children’s first language (L1) or second language (L2), frequently involving multimodal communication (See

Table 2. Summary of learning environment strategies and practices of monolingual educators.

Category	Strategies and Practices	Articles
Characteristics of the learning environment; responsive environment	Linguistics: (1) Activities that include L1 in games, basic phrases, reading, L1 support, with other professionals, bilingual books, songs, translanguaging, bilingual intercultural curriculum.	(Campos-Bustos, 2019; Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019; Farrand & Deeg, 2021; Gillanders, 2007; Mary & Young, 2017, 2018; McClain et al., 2021; Limlingan & McWayne, 2023; Lundberg et al., 2023; Sembiante et al., 2023; Tsai & García, 2000)
	Linguistics: (2) Activities focused on L2 through specific teaching scaffolds.	(Baker, 2019; Gelir, 2023; Gillanders, 2007; Jacoby & Lesaux, 2014; Kirby et al., 2023)
	Linguistics: (3) Multimodal communication: use of different materials (e.g., toys, puppets, pictures, books, blocks) and nonverbal strategies (e.g., gestures, signs, nonverbal cues, eye contact).	(Baker, 2019; Flynn et al., 2021; Gillanders, 2007; Kirby et al., 2023; Limlingan & McWayne, 2023; Trawick-Smith et al., 2023; Zettl, 2023)
	Cultural: - Participation of indigenous teachers, cultural teaching materials, cultural puppets, and a curriculum that incorporates cultural elements	(Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015; Cépeda García et al., 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021)
Characteristics of the learning environment; collaboration strategies	(1) With other professionals: language teachers, art teachers, multilingual teachers. Co-teaching with multilingual assistants, multilingual educators, and linguistic-cultural facilitators.	(Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019; Farrand & Deeg, 2021; Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017; Trawick-Smith et al., 2023; Zettl, 2023; Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015; Campos-Bustos, 2019)
	(2) With families: home visits, family participation in classroom activities, parent-teacher conferences, breakfasts, and parades.	(Baker, 2019; Mary & Young, 2017, 2018; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021; Flanagan-Bórquez et al., 2022)

). Notably, studies involving monolingual educators document specific practices that enable translanguaging. In particular, educators (a) alternate instruction between languages using a 50–50 model (i.e., half-day in one language and half-day in the other) (Baker, 2019), (b) allow children to use their L1 in the classroom (Lundberg et al., 2023; McClain et al., 2021), and (c) co-teach with multilingual educators who scaffold activities using the children’s L1 (Dominguez & Trawick-Smith, 2018).

In U.S. and European contexts, educators implemented various activities incorporating the children’s L1 (Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019; Farrand & Deeg, 2021; Gillanders, 2007; Mary & Young, 2017, 2018). Even with limited knowledge of the children’s L1, educators implemented (a) play-based activities, (b) learning of basic phrases in the children’s L1, (c) book reading, (d) L1-supportive strategies (e.g., permitting L1 use among peers, encouraging translanguaging, allowing children to respond in their L1), (e) collaboration with other multilingual professionals (e.g., co-teachers, assistants, language specialists), (f) use of bilingual books, and (g) songs in the L1. Other studies have observed teacher strategies focused on L2 development (Bihler et al., 2018; Gelir, 2023; Jacoby & Lesaux, 2014; Kirby et al., 2023), including (a) targeted instructional supports (e.g., reducing options, providing cues, establishing common topics for discussion, and modeling), (b) responsive interactions, (c) small group activities, (d) play-based activities, (e) music and singing, and (f) reading. Additionally, teachers use multimodal communication in their interactions with multilingual children (Kirby et al., 2023; Trawick-Smith et al., 2023; Zettl, 2023), employing (a) diverse materials (e.g., toys, puppets, animals, and human figurines, cell phones, toy cars, blocks, images, and books), and (b) nonverbal strategies (e.g., facial and body gestures, nonverbal cues, and eye contact).

Multimodal communication has been documented in Latin American, U.S., and European contexts. In the United States, nonverbal strategies include various instructional resources (e.g., picture books, visuals, printed materials with phrases, iPods, musical instruments, CDs, CD players, and songbooks) and body language (e.g., gestures used in conversation, instruction, and songs) (Flynn et al., 2021; Gillanders, 2007; Kirby et al., 2023). In Latin America, educators promote expressive practices through music and use instructional materials in children’s native languages and cultures to foster participation in play-based activities, songs, and Andean dances (Cépeda García et al., 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021). In European settings, the use of bilingual books (Zettl, 2023), books reflecting children’s home cultures (Mary & Young, 2017), and nonverbal communication (e.g., facial expressions and eye contact) are prominent strategies for promoting interaction (Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019). However, not all classrooms included in the reviewed studies had sufficient resources to provide bilingual or culturally relevant materials. One observational study reported that during free play among multilingual children, certain materials (e.g., wooden blocks, animal and human figurines, stuffed animals, toy phones, and cars) facilitated significantly more peer interaction between monolingual and multilingual children than others (e.g., Legos, art supplies, writing tools, science materials) (Trawick-Smith et al., 2023). Furthermore, cultural responsiveness was infrequently implemented in instructional practices or daily interactions; its presence was limited primarily to songs and books representing children’s home cultures (Gillanders, 2007) and bilingual books (Zettl, 2023).

3.2.2. Collaboration

Monolingual educators collaborated with other professionals and families to develop joint strategies for working with multilingual children. In a preschool in Sweden, teachers who spoke the children’s L1 were hired to lead play-based and metalinguistic activities involving translanguaging (Cekaite & Evaldsson, 2019). In other European institutions, educators were assigned based on the language of instruction—monolingual educators led activities in L2, while multilingual assistants conducted them in L1 (Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017; Zettl, 2023). Meanwhile, in a U.S. setting, a monolingual educator worked alongside a multilingual art teacher and a bilingual classroom assistant (Spanish-speaking) to co-teach a literacy program in English and Spanish. This approach involved co-teaching strategies (e.g., one teaches/one assists, station teaching, team teaching, one teaches/one observes). It included inclusive environments with theater strategies using gestures and educational materials (Farrand & Deeg, 2021). In Latin America, monolingual educators work with intercultural facilitators (Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021) and Native origin teachers (Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015; Cépeda García et al., 2019) who share the children’s ancestral language and culture. They also collaborate with students who serve as translators for monolingual educators (Campos-Bustos, 2019). Finally, monolingual teachers collaborate with families through different actions. In Europe and the U.S., this collaboration includes (a) inviting families to participate in classroom activities to gain more information about the children’s languages and cultures, (b) home visiting to get to know families (c) home visiting to share reading and play activities with children (d) holding group or individual meetings focused on children’s learning (Baker, 2019; Mary & Young, 2017, 2018). In Latin America, educators invite families to participate in events such as meetings, breakfasts, and fairs or festivals, where the families and community members participate showing their traditional dances, music, and foods (Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021; Flanagan-Bórquez et al., 2022).

3.3. Findings for Research Question 2: Relationship Between Teacher Characteristics and Their Learning Environment Characteristics

3.3.1. Responsiveness to Linguistic–Cultural Diversity

It is worth mention that the responsiveness of monolingual educators toward diversity, sociocultural practices, and the inclusion of children with minoritized languages significantly influences the practices they implement. For example, in European and U.S., educators firmly committed to social justice and inclusion allowed children to use their L1 in the classroom and invited families to participate with the support of multilingual assistants (Baker, 2019; Kilinc & Alvarado, 2021). In contrast, some educators were prohibited from using translanguaging due to monolingual language policies in their institutions. Nevertheless, they held positive views about bilingualism and allowed using different L1s in the classroom (McClain et al., 2021). A particularly relevant finding comes from researchers Ramírez et al. (2019), who discovered that sociocultural beliefs and practices (e.g., a positive appreciation and respect for children’s cultures) impacted multilingual children’s L2 vocabulary and writing development.

The use of L1 largely depends on the educator’s responsiveness. There is no single model for how languages are treated. Some educators allow L1 use in the classroom despite their institution’s monolingual policies (Mary & Young, 2017, 2018), while others are influenced by their own monolingual beliefs. For example, some allowed only German in the classroom, while others allowed L1 use and even asked children whether they were taught their L1 at home (Zettl, 2023). Language use also depends on the educator’s knowledge of the children’s mother tongue. Many teachers, even without speaking the children’s L1, made efforts to learn basic phrases, allowed translanguaging, encouraged L1 use among children, collaborated with multilingual professionals, and valued multilingualism (Baker, 2019; Gillanders, 2007; Kilinc & Alvarado, 2021; McClain et al., 2021).

In Latin America, other aspects of responsiveness to diversity stood out. This region has intercultural bilingual education (IBE) policies that support learning in both the mother tongue and Spanish as a second language. Six of the reviewed studies were conducted in IBE early childhood education institutions. Monolingual teachers often worked in linguistically and culturally diverse settings with children, families, and colleagues from Native origin communities. In these contexts, the following was reported: (a) prioritizing the appreciation and knowledge of one’s own culture (Cépeda García et al., 2019), based on the belief that interculturality begins with affirming and valuing one’s own identity in order to relate to others with respect; (b) valuing the differences among ancestral languages, cultures, and worldviews (Cépeda García et al., 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021), encouraging children to speak their native languages and learn others in a respectful environment; (c) appreciating respectful knowledge and worldview exchange (Cépeda García et al., 2019), achieved through dialogue with ethnic and linguistic groups different from one’s own. However, in institutions where cultural exchange with the educational team is limited or where there are no clear guidelines on how to address cultural diversity, educational teams often demonstrate assimilationist conceptions of language and inclusion—especially regarding immigrant children (Flanagan Bórquez, 2021; Flanagan-Bórquez et al., 2022).

3.3.2. Teacher Preparation

In Latin America, a recurring finding links challenges in working with multilingual minoritized language children to weak initial and ongoing teacher preparation. On one hand, educators in IBE institutions who do not belong to the children’s cultural–linguistic group described the challenges they faced due to a lack of understanding of the children and families’ cultures (Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015), and due to insufficient preparation to work with multilingual children (Pozzo & Parucci, 2017)—particularly regarding the adaptations required in the classroom when they do not know the children’s L1. In non-IBE institutions, these adaptations often emerged intuitively rather than from formal preparation (Flanagan Bórquez, 2021; Flanagan-Bórquez et al., 2022).

On the other hand, both IBE and non-IBE educators reported receiving valuable support from colleagues or linguistic–cultural facilitators (Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015; Campos-Bustos, 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021), which helped them learn about the cultural elements of the children and families they worked with. In the European context, teachers who had received preparation in multilingualism were more likely to collaborate with multilingual families in raising multilingual children than those who had not received such preparation (Peleman et al., 2022). Furthermore, social justice and equity preparation encouraged educators to reflect critically and question the dominance of the majority language in multilingual classrooms (Mary & Young, 2018; Zettl, 2023). In the U.S. context, teachers trained in bilingual education practices positively impacted bilingual children’s academic development in both English and Spanish (Ramírez et al., 2019). However, educators also expressed frustration in working with multilingual children, citing a lack of knowledge about strategies to support oral L2 development (Kirby et al., 2023), simplistic views on L2 acquisition, and a tendency to claim that learning a second language is easy for young children (Sawyer et al., 2017).

4. Discussion

This scoping review identified 40 empirical articles that described strategies and practices used by monolingual early childhood educators working with multilingual children who speak minoritized languages. The analysis revealed that educators’ appreciation for diversity plays a positive role in supporting culturally and linguistically diverse children (Cépeda García et al., 2019; Kilinc & Alvarado, 2021; Mary & Young, 2017; McClain et al., 2021). Responsive practices that foster a welcoming environment were widely used by monolingual educators, with translanguaging standing out as a common strategy (allowing children to use their L1 in the classroom), along with activities involving children’s L1 in reading, games, and songs (Baker, 2019; Gillanders, 2007; Lundberg et al., 2023; Tsai & García, 2000). Notably, exemplary monolingual educators (as identified by their communities and school districts) made efforts to learn basic words and phrases to help children and families feel welcomed in the classroom (Baker, 2019; Gillanders, 2007). However, such practices—alongside L2-focused activities—were rarely found among non-exemplary educators.

Culturally responsive practices were scarcely addressed in Latin American research concerning children of immigrant families, in contrast to those involving Indigenous communities. Some studies in Latin America described the participation of intercultural facilitators from Native origin backgrounds who shared the language and culture of the children and supported teachers in early education institutions with a high number of Native origin children populations. These facilitators played a role that went far beyond being language models—they conveyed deep respect for ancestral identities and languages, contributing to practices that aimed to revitalize Native indigenous languages in the face of Spanish dominance (Becerra-Lubies & Mayo González, 2015; Cépeda García et al., 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021). These studies also described the culturally appropriate use of instructional materials and books and bilingual and intercultural curricula incorporating Native people’s origin worldviews (Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021).

Various strategies have emerged in classrooms with monolingual educators in recent decades, such as multimodal communication and collaborative strategies. On the one hand, multimodal communication has proven to be a promising set of tools for supporting interaction by using materials (puppets, toys, books), classroom technology (music players, songs in L1 and L2), and gestures or eye contact (Cépeda García et al., 2019; Chireac & Guerrero-Jiménez, 2021; Flynn et al., 2021; Kirby et al., 2023). On the other hand, collaborative strategies are essential for monolingual educators. Co-teaching has emerged as a valuable instructional approach, occurring through various formats: working with multilingual teachers (e.g., 50/50 instruction in both languages, use of the children’s L1), with multilingual assistants, or with other professionals (language teachers, Native people origin educators, interpreters, intercultural facilitators). Family collaboration also tends to be present in exemplary cases (Baker, 2019; Mary & Young, 2017, 2018), offering monolingual educators opportunities to learn about children’s languages and cultures through classroom activities, home visits, and family interviews.

The contribution of this scoping review consists of its inclusion of a wide variety of research designs, which allowed the identification of context-specific learning environments and a wide range of strategies used by educators who do not share the children’s language in their classrooms. This body of knowledge would not have been accessible through reviews focused only on intervention outcomes. Nonetheless, future experimental studies could explore the effects of multimodal communication—such as the use of instructional materials and non-verbal strategies—as well as the impact of involving other actors (e.g., intercultural facilitators, other professionals, and families) on the development of linguistically and culturally responsive practices for bilingual children. There is an urgent need to intentionally incorporate these practices and strengthen teacher preparation for monolingual educators working with multilingual children. In Latin America, this topic must be urgently addressed in teacher education. Although progress has been made in teacher preparation on multilingual education in the U.S. and Europe, further development is needed to understand bilingual children’s learning and development more comprehensively. This is crucial given the high linguistic and cultural diversity in classrooms and the communication challenges faced by teachers who do not share the children’s L1 or culture.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

The findings presented are based on articles published in Spanish and English. Therefore, this review excluded articles written in German, Portuguese, Korean, French, Russian and Chinese (N = 179). Additionally, a limitation of the reviewed studies is that many of them (N = 87) did not report the language spoken by the educators. For this reason, those articles were excluded, meaning that many implemented strategies remain unexplored. This is an important consideration for current and future research involving multilingual children. Moreover, there is still a lack of knowledge about what happens with bilingual children aged 0–3 who attend early childhood education institutions. This knowledge gap was identified in prior reviews over a decade ago (e.g., Castro, 2014; Larson et al., 2020). Similarly, there is limited understanding of bilingual children with disabilities and strategies implemented in special education schools that teach multilingual children. Regarding the populations studied, several questions remain unanswered about the learning environments experienced by bilingual children from immigrant families in Latin America. This is particularly relevant given the recent increase in regional migratory movements. In contrast, in the United States, research on education in indigenous languages for children from Native Nations is absent, as all studies reviewed focused on immigrant populations. Similarly, European studies focused exclusively on immigrant children and did not consider the broader linguistic diversity inherent to the region. A possible explanation is that such research is often conducted with older children or in primary or secondary education settings. The international perspective of this scoping review allows us to identify the contributions and challenges faced across different geographic regions.