Linguistically responsive learning and teaching for non-native speakers in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review.

AIMS: To map the literature on linguistically responsive learning and teaching for non-native-speaking students in undergraduate nursing education, covering students' and educators' experiences, language needs and requirements, assessment instruments, and supportive measures.

DESIGN

Scoping review conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology and reported following PRISMA-ScR.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, and MLA International Bibliography; grey literature via OpenGrey; archives of German second/foreign language journals; reference list screening. Searches conducted in June 2023 and updated in June 2025; English- and German-language sources without date restriction.

REVIEW

METHODS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Findings were synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively per research question, with language-related challenges organised by core language skill and supportive measures by actor level.

RESULTS

133 sources published between 1990 and 2025 were included, most from the United States (45%), Australia (30%), and Canada (8%); qualitative designs predominated (47%). Student experiences encompassed seven psychosocial categories and language-related challenges across reading, listening, speaking, and writing. Educators reported pedagogical, assessment-related, and institutional challenges, with insufficient preparation the most consistently documented finding. Formal admission requirements varied substantially across national contexts, with no unified standard identified. Twelve assessment instruments addressing six distinct constructs were identified, with limited contextual validation for clinical language performance. Supportive measures spanned student, educator, and institutional levels; linguistic modification of assessment items was the only measure for which experimental evaluations were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature documents a structural misalignment between admission language standards, programme demands, and available support infrastructure. Supportive responses have been predominantly reactive, educator-initiated, and infrequently evaluated. Priorities include validated nursing-specific language competency frameworks, systematic educator preparation, curriculum-integrated language support, and a conceptual shift from deficit-based to asset-based framing.