The task of preparing future teachers for diversity, equity and social justice is a challenging and complex task (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Milner, 2010; Lucas et al., 2008). It is a task that Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs continually strive for, but researchers often conclude that programs are not doing enough (e.g., Magogwe & Ketsitlile, 2015; Thomassen & Munthe, 2021). Our goal is that this review will be of help to teacher educators when developing future programs and interventions by providing a knowledge base of what ITE programs already do and what results they have achieved. We will also shed light on the various theoretical perspectives used when designing and discussing interventions (including courses).

Previous reviews on multicultural and anti-racist education in ITE have highlighted varying conceptualizations and methodological shortcomings in the existing studies, leading to inconclusive findings. They also highlighted the need for research to dig deeper to enhance our knowledge of how ITE can contribute to teaching for diversity, for social equity, and to address the emotional aspects of prejudice and racism. The current review is an attempt to dig deeper into the strategies used when attempting to prepare teacher candidates to work with diverse students in diverse contexts especially in the field of prejudice prevention and racism. Our study aims to analyze strategies, implementation approaches, and what they intend to achieve (intended or non-intended learning outcomes).

While our review has a broad focus encompassing multiculturalism, diversity education, prejudice, and social justice, there is an underlying connection with prior reviews like Hambacher and Ginn (2021) and Solano-Compas et al. (2020). This review acknowledges both the importance of challenging established beliefs and addressing race-related issues, aligning with the themes of awareness and discomfort; and also focusing on both pedagogical strategies aiming to modify beliefs, knowledge, and skills, aligning with the themes of orientations and pedagogical knowledge and skills, in a wider context. We aspire to contribute to the understanding of this domain, with implications for future research, policy, and practice in ITE.

In this review, we limited our focus to interventions within ITE that aim to prepare future teachers for work on discrimination, racism, and prejudices in school. More specifically, we will investigate the following research questions:

1) What are the main characteristics of the studies?

2) What are the main characteristics of the interventions (type – aim – duration – consequences)?

3) What similarities or differences are there in the studies’ educational approaches in terms of what they aimed at versus what they achieved?

In order to answer our research questions, we conducted a systematic review with a qualitative thematic synthesis. The method used in the article involves following the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009). The steps recommended by van Wesel et al. (2015) were followed in conducting this review: (a) literature search, (b) study identification, (c) data extraction/study coding, (d) study quality appraisal, and (e) thematic analysis. First, a priori inclusion /exclusion criteria were determined. Studies with the following characteristics were included: a) involving an ITE intervention (including workshops, courses, new curriculum with no such design limitations), b) to reduce prejudice, racism and discrimination, c) targeting preservice teachers, d) written in English, and e) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Exclusion criteria were thus related to intervention (i.e., a lack of intervention such as correlational studies just assessing preservice teachers attitudes on discrimination, racism in relation to some outcomes without any intervention were excluded), topic (i.e., without a focus on reducing prejudice, discrimination, and racism), target group (i.e., with a different target group such as teachers working in schools), and language (i.e., written in another language than English). We also excluded studies based on study type /e.g., not a primary empirical study such as reviews, meta-analyses, theoretical, conceptual papers). Then a comprehensive literature search was carried out in three databases: ERIC, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS. The identified studies were screened for their eligibility in a two-stage independent double screening process (i.e., screening on title and abstract and screening on full-text) using EPPI-Reviewer systematic review software (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/). Detailed data were extracted for the eligible studies. First, the characteristics of the studies such as country, study design, data collection methods and of the interventions were extracted for descriptive purposes. Then the data synthesis involved a qualitative thematic synthesis (e.g., Bryman, 2016; Malterud, 2019). This entails (1) careful reading and coding of each study (2) to identify descriptive themes and then (3) to develop analytical themes by further abstracting the descriptive themes. The interventions in the included studies were first categorized according to their content, main topic (i.e., general multicultural/diversity, prejudice/racism, and social justice) and then based on their type (e.g., a course, program, field experience), aim (i.e., creating awareness, evoking emotions, building capacity/skills), duration, and consequences. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018).

Through a comprehensive literature search of peer reviewed articles in three databases, 1380 studies were identified and screened independently by two authors. After the two-stage abstract and full text screening, 103 studies were selected as eligible. We differentiated between studies that focused predominantly on general multicultural/diversity (44 studies), prejudice/racism (36 studies), and social justice (23 studies). Interventions were further categorized under four main categories: course (71 studies), program (23 studies), field experience (37 studies), and immersion experience (11 studies). Some of the interventions involved more than one category such as a course combined with a field experience. Among the 103 studies included, almost all (101 studies) aimed at creating “awareness” in addition to another outcome, while in 29 studies creating “awareness” was the only targeted outcome. Building “capacity” was the target outcome in 58% of the studies (60 studies) in addition to creating “awareness” and “emotions”. Lastly, creating “emotions” was a target in 24 studies. Of 103 included studies, only 10.7 % of the studies (11 studies) involved all three pedagogical outcomes as their target. This review identified a diverse range of intervention strategies, suggesting that a multifaceted approach is crucial for effective teacher preparation and equip them with the necessary skills and awareness for diverse classrooms. The emphasis on critical pedagogy, reflective practices, and racial literacy in recent studies suggests a growing acknowledgment of the importance of fostering critical thinking skills among pre-service teachers. The findings underscore the need for more comprehensive and sustained interventions to effectively provide future teachers with the awareness, skills, and emotional capacity to reduce racism, prejudice, and discrimination. These findings have implications for future research, policy, and practice in initial teacher education, emphasizing the importance of cultivating a critical mindset for addressing complex issues in the classroom and in schools effectively.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.   Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass. Hambacher, E., & Ginn, K. (2020). Race-visible teacher education: A review of the literature from 2002 to 2018. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120948045 Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M-P-, Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M-C., & Vedel, I. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach english language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110 Magogwe, J., Ketsitlile, L.E. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ preparedness for teaching multicultural students, Journal for Multicultural Education, 9(4), 276-288. doi: 10.1108/JME-11-2014-0040 Malterud, K. (2019). Qualitative metasynthesis: A research method for medicine and health sciences. Routledge. Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347670 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Solano-Campos, A., Hopkins, M., & Quaynor, L. (2020). Linguistically responsive teaching in preservice teacher education: A review of the literature through the lens of cultural-historical activity theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118808785 Thomassen, W., & Munthe, E. (2021) Educating Norwegian preservice teachers for the multicultural classroom – what knowledge do student teachers and mentor teachers express?, European Journal of Teacher Education, 44:2, 234-248. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1758661 van Wesel, F., Boeije, H., & Alisic, E. (2015). Towards a method for synthesizing diverse evidence using hypotheses as common language. Quality & Quantity, 49(6), 2237-2249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0105-9