Leveraging diversity through purposeful flexibility: towards a redefinition of the international classroom

ABSTRACT

To date, participation in an international classroom has been positioned as a means to prepare most Dutch higher education students to live and work in a globalised world. Nevertheless, it is not clear how the international classroom is defined and how lecturers should be equipped to deliver on its potential for Internationalisation at Home, especially within culturally diverse, practice-oriented universities of applied sciences. Through a Delphi study engaging 28 expert lecturers and policy makers from five Dutch universities of applied sciences, this study offers a new definition of the international classroom, framing it as an approach that centralises diversity across the classroom as an asset in the design and facilitation of education. Drawing on the panel’s collective experience, it proposes eight competences that lecturers need to implement this approach, providing a framework to rethink professional development, curriculum innovation and human resource policies within and beyond Dutch universities of applied sciences.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• internationalisation
• teaching and learning
• diversity
• lecturer professionalisation

To thrive in the world of work, an increasingly diverse body of graduates needs a new set of personal and professional competences, incorporating intercultural competences, an international orientation towards their profession and a range of transversal ‘soft’ skills (Elferich and Van Staden 2022). This provides an important rationale for universities to internationalise their education (Kommers et al. 2021). Recognising that traditional student mobility has only been accommodating a select minority, underrepresenting student groups, such as first-generation students (Favier, Thravalou, and Peeters 2022), internationalisation policies across Europe have shifted their focus to the home curriculum, aiming to provide intercultural learning experiences to all students (e.g. Alexiadou, Kefala, and Rönnberg 2023; Sercu 2022) through Internationalisation at Home (IaH). Beelen and Jones (2015) define IaH as ‘the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments.’ This process, may include internationalising course content, internationalising pedagogies and intercultural learning opportunities (Mittelmeier et al. 2024). Despite terminological confusion, the implementation of international classrooms has often been positioned as a key strategy in this endeavour.

Terminological confusion and potential added value

For decades, mixing students with diverse cultural backgrounds in international classrooms has been cited as a promising strategy within internationalised curricula (e.g. Leask 2015; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2017; Van der Wende 1997). However, by lack of a clear definition, the term international classroom has been interpreted in different ways (EQUIIP 2019). On the one hand, there are authors who consider the international classroom to be a situation, being an educational context that includes students from different countries (e.g. De Hei et al. 2020; Hofhuis, Jongerling, and Jansz 2023; Safipour, Wenneberg, and Hadziabdic 2018). On the other hand, there are authors who approach the international classroom as an internationalisation strategy, incorporating specific learning outcomes, course content, language of instruction, pedagogies and/or support structures (Gregersen-Hermans and Lauridsen 2021). In line with this ambiguity, a mixed body of evidence emerged that suggests that the implementation of international classrooms may lead to both positive outcomes and negative outcomes. Some studies suggest that international classrooms may foster improved in-group attitudes, enhanced multicultural personality traits and cross-cultural knowledge and problem solving (e.g. Héliot, Mittelmeier, and Rienties 2020; Hofhuis, Jongerling, and Jansz 2023; Poort, Jansen, and Hofman 2019). At the same time, the discourse recurrently reports potential negative outcomes, such as perceived language barriers, cultural misunderstandings, participation gaps and experienced discrimination (e.g. Bijsmans et al. 2021; Harrison and Peacock 2010; Héliot, Mittelmeier, and Rienties 2020). Notably, critical voices highlight that many of these reported challenges reflect recurrent deficit narratives in the discourse on international students, underlining power imbalances in international education (Heng 2018; Mittelmeier and Yang 2022). At the same time, authors problematize the focus on national diversity in the discourse on the international classroom, suggesting that cultural perspectives may not only depend on national background, but may be informed by multiple, possibly intersectional ‘learned and shared systems of meaning (such as beliefs and values) that are transmitted through shared activities’ (Arshad and Chung 2022). Moreover, the dichotomy between local and international students does not do justice to the multi-faceted diversity within modern higher education, also incorporating dimensions, such as socio-economic status, gender and (bi)cultural and academic background (Jones 2017; Poort 2021).

Lecturers’ role in capitalising on the benefits of diversity

Throughout.the literature, authors stress that lecturers are key players in creating the conditions for intercultural learning in classrooms accommodating diverse student bodies (e.g. Gregersen- Hermans 2016; Poort 2021; Sercu 2023; Wolff and de Jong 2018). Studies approaching education through the lens of social psychology argue that lecturers’ multicultural diversity approach plays an important role in this process (Celeste et al. 2019; Hagenaars et al. 2023). In this discourse, a multicultural diversity approach signifies that policies, or people acknowledge and emphasise cultural diversity as an asset within an organisation (Plaut et al. 2018; Rosenthal and Levy 2010), in contrast to assimilation and colourblind approaches that de-empathize cultural diversity for different reasons. Multiple studies report that international classroom lecturers’ multicultural diversity approach predicts increased academic performance and sense of belonging and reduced cultural misunderstandings across the student body (Baysu et al. 2021; De Leersnyder, Gündemir, and Ağirdağ 2021; Jansen, Otten, and Van der Zee 2015). Although these outcomes suggest that recognising and positioning cultural diversity as an asset may be at the basis of the purposeful design and facilitation of international classrooms, it does not specify why and how lecturers should bring this into practice.

Recognising the well documented need to equip lecturers with specific competences to design and facilitate intercultural, international and global classrooms (e.g. Carroll 2015; Gregersen-Hermans and Lauridsen 2021; Wolff and de Jong 2018), a plethora of competence profiles and good practice principles emerged within studies and projects with institutional, national and international scopes within the Anglophone world (e.g. Scudamore 2013; Leask and Caroll 2013) and across Europe (e.g. Cozart et al. 2015; Cozart and Gregersen-Hermans 2021). In this section, we will review four competence profiles that all operationalise a multiculturalist diversity approach with a different starting point. In line with the context of our study, we included research-based profiles and practice-based profiles that emerged from a Dutch context, or a consortium that included Dutch participants. Table 1 provides an overview of the aim and background of each profile and analyses shared competences and unique contributions.

Table 1. Overview of competence profiles for intercultural, international and global classrooms.

Profile	Context & Method	Shared competences	Specific contributions
Intercultural Teaching Competence (Dimitrov and Haque 2016)	Context: Canada, research university Method: synthesis of interdisciplinary literature Aim: Reflective tool to support university lecturers in teaching effectively across cultures and developing students’ intercultural competence	Positionality Intercultural competence: Design: accommodating diverse learning, designing purposeful global learning experiences, developing multi-perspective input Teaching and learning: accommodating culturally and linguistically diverse learners, facilitating purposeful interaction across differences.	Startingpoint: enabling intercultural competence development as a prerequisite for global learning
International Competence Matrix (Van der Werff 2012; 2015; 2017)	Context: The Netherlands, university of applied science Method: Inspired by earlier profile, iterative development in practice Aim: Tool to inform HRM policies and professional development for university lecturers within internationalised higher education	Intercultural competence: Teaching and learning: accommodating culturally diverse learners Language proficiency: proficiency in two languages	Startingpoint: equip lecturers to carry out their work effectively in the context of internationalised universities. Focus: differentiation between different teaching and supervision tasks Specific competences Knowledge of local and international labour market
EQUIIP Ideal international competence profile for educational developers (EQUIIP 2019)	Context: Consortium of a British, Danish, Dutch, French, German and Spanish research university Method: Iterative development within project, systematic action research approach Aim: Standard of excellence for educational developing and delivering internationalised programmes, targeted at educational developers	Positionality Intercultural competence: Design: designing purposeful global learning experiences, developing multi-perspective input Teaching and Learning: accommodating culturally and linguistically diverse learners, facilitating purposeful interaction across differences	Startingpoint: supporting comprehensive, inclusive internationalisation of the curriculum Focus: Critical reflection and reciprocal learning Specific competences: Integrating critical, interdisciplinary and comparative approaches
Globally Competent Teaching Continuum (Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019)	Context: United States, research university Method: Systematic literature review and iterative development based on review (72 teachers and experts), pilot (111 teachers), cognitive interviews (9 teachers) Aim: Reflective tool to support teachers across education in the continued development of global teaching competence in the context of global learning.	Positionality Intercultural competence: Design: Designing purposeful global learning activities, developing multi-perspective input Teaching and learning: facilitating purposeful interaction across differences Language proficiency: proficiency in two languages	Startingpoint: implementing global learning practices with a focus on equity and societal responsibility Focus: differentiation between five competence levels Specific competences: Multi-perspective knowledge of current affairs and interconnected local and global issues Facilitating real world global learning experiences in collaboration with diverse communities

Shared competences and unique contributions across lecturer profiles

Analysing these four profiles, a common theme that emerged across profiles is the need to equip lecturers with intercultural competences, defined as the ‘knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary to communicate and behave effectively and appropriately in interactions across difference’ (Deardorff 2020). Echoing Deardorff’s process model of intercultural competence development (2006; 2009; 2020), the profiles do not only reflect internal and external outcomes of intercultural competence, but also underlying attitudes, knowledge and skills. Two other competences that are shared across the profiles are the ability to accommodate diverse learners’ learning needs and the ability to purposefully integrate intercultural and/or international dimensions in education. These shared, interconnected competences all echo a multiculturalist diversity approach, emphasising cultural diversity and positioning diversity in the classroom as an asset. However, each profile reflects the enactment of this diversity approach in a different way and based on a different starting point.

Both the Dimitrov and Haque’s Intercultural Teaching Competence profile (2016) and Tichnor-Wagner’s Globally Competent Teaching Continuum (2019) aim to equip lecturers to shape conditions for global learning in different ways. The EQUIIP profile (EQUIIP 2019) is grounded in the comprehensive implementation of inclusive internationalisation of the curriculum and Van der Werff’s International Competence Matrix (2012; 2015; 2017) departs from lecturers’ different roles within international(ised) higher education education. Aligned with their background in educational development, both the Intercultural Teaching Competence profile and the EQUIIP profile incorporate a strong focus on student-centered pedagogy and purposeful curriculum design and facilitation, supporting interaction across differences and perspective taking. The lecturers competences outlined in both these profiles resonate.with higher education contexts with a primarily academic focus, emphasising reciprocal learning, critical reflection and knowledge construction. By contrast, the International Competence Matrix and Global Teaching Competence Continuum highlight dimensions related to the world beyond the classroom. Resonating with its background in a university of applied sciences, highlighting professional, employability-focused higher education, the International Competence Matrix is the only profile that highlights lecturers’ knowledge of the local and international world of work. Tichnor-Wagner’s continuum is the only profile that requires globally competent teachers and lecturers to network and facilitate real world global learning experiences, widening the scope of lecturers’ activities and the potential scope of the international ‘classroom.’ Together, these partly overlapping, partly complementary profiles may inform the competences that international classroom lecturers need to capitalise on their students’ diverse cultural perspectives within the context of Dutch universities of applied sciences.

Context: international classrooms in Dutch universities of applied sciences

In the Netherlands, higher education is offered by two types of universities. Besides, research universities, traditionally focusing on research and research-oriented education, about two-thirds of all Bachelor students in the Netherlands is educated at universities of applied sciences (UAS)es, emphasising professional higher education and practice-oriented research (Ministerie van OCW, 2023). In contrast to research universities that attracted an increasing number of international students, making up about 24% of all bachelor students, only 10% of all students enrolling at UAS Bachelor programmes are international (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek 2023). However, the local student population within Dutch UAS is increasingly culturally diverse. On a national scope, 29% of all local students enrolling in Dutch UAS have a migrant background (Ministerie van OCW, 2023), including many bicultural and multilingual students (Thieme and Vander Beken 2021). Although exact percentages are not publicly available, these percentages are likely to be much higher in the five comprehensive UASes situated in the densely populated Randstad area, all holding a complex highly culturally diverse student body that is likely to mirror the superdiverse demographics of a region, in which a range of different cultural minorities has been the majority for years (Prins 2014; Wolff and de Jong 2018). Within UAS contexts like these, the implementation of the international classroom is often approached as a purposeful IaH strategy (Poort and Okken 2024) aimed to enable the achievement of specific international, or intercultural learning outcomes across the student body. As outlined in Table 2, this strategy may be implemented differently in English-taught programmes, primarily equipping students to work in international(ly oriented) labour markets and Dutch taught programmes, primarily catering preparing graduates for local, culturally diverse labour markets.

Table 2. Characteristics of international classrooms within different types of programmes.

	International classrooms within English-taught programmes with a primarily international focus e.g. International Business, European Studies	International classrooms within Dutch-taught programmes with a primarily local focus e.g Nursing, law
Language of instruction	English, as part of predominantly English taught programme.	English, as part of predominantly Dutch taught programme
Students	Combination of culturally diverse local students and degree seeking international students, joined by credit seeking international students in selected parts of the programme	Majority of culturally diverse local students, joined by a minority of credit seeking international students in selected parts of the programme
Graduate attributes	Include intercultural, international and global dimensions, in line with the requirements of the local and global labour market	May include intercultural, international and global dimensions, in line with the requirements of the local labour market
Implementation	International classroom situation, or comprehensive approach (throughout the undergraduate programme)	International classroom as internationalisation at home activity (within selected parts of the undergraduate programme)

According to their educational strategies, all five UASes position the multi-faceted diversity across the universities as a particular strength within their professionally oriented education and practice-oriented research in culturally diverse, internationally connected regions. However, it is not always clear from these strategies how lecturers should enact this explicit multiculturalist diversity and unleash the alleged power of diversity within their education, in the context of the implementation of IaH and in international classrooms in particular. Nevertheless, experienced international classroom lecturers in this context may have been capitalising on diverse perspectives across the student body in their practice-oriented education, aiming to equip all students with the specific international, intercultural and global competences they need to thrive in their future profession. Based on our analysis, all four competences profiles in our overview may inform the competences lecturers need to design and facilitate purposeful international classrooms that unleash the power of their diverse classroom to enhance learning for all, potentially as part of student-centred and practice-oriented pedagogies that are prevalent in the UAS context. However, so far, it is not clear how these competences relate to the experience and lived reality of professionals in this superdiverse UAS context.

To fill this gap, we will answer the following two questions in this study:

1. How can the international classroom be defined as a purposeful educational approach in the context of Internationalisation at Home?

2. Which competences do international classroom lecturers need to implement this approach within Dutch, superdiverse universities of applied sciences, according to expert professionals in this context?

Methods

The Delphi method

In this study, we used a Delphi as a method ‘to elicit opinions and subsequent consensus among a group of experienced practitioners in a particular field’ (Zeedick 2010). Delphi methods have been applied for decades in education research, for example to identify and validate generic, intercultural and global teacher competences in consultation with expert education professionals (Dimitrov and Haque 2016; Tiggelaar et al. 2004; Van Werven et al. 2021).

Respondents

To reduce bias and safeguard the validity of the results, we included individuals that represent diverse backgrounds in expertise and experience in our panel, as suggested by Linstone and Turoff (1975). Hence, we set out to gather a representative panel of experienced professionals, including expert lecturers from both (primarily) Dutch-taught and international, English-taught programmes and expert policy advisors within the five comprehensive UASes in the Dutch Randstad area. We used a purposive sampling method (Clark et al. 2021) to gather a sample that represented all five UASes and a combination of internationalisation policy makers and international classroom lecturers connected to Dutch – and English – taught programmes. We reached out via emails to people within our professional network and direct messages and two open calls on linked in. Additionally, we used snowball sampling (Clark et al. 2021) to widen the participation of lecturers in some institutions, asking responding lecturers to extend our invitation to colleagues in different programmes within their UAS. We aimed to engage 11–20 participants, following the most prevalent range in Sossa et al.’s review of trends in Delphi methods (2019).

In the end, our panel (N = 28) represented all five universities, including both policy advisors and international classroom lecturers connected to Dutch – and English-taught programmes, covering various academic disciplines. Table 3 presents an overview of all participants in round 1, outlining our inclusion criteria and a number of background characteristics.

Table 3. Respondents included in round 1.

Overview respondents round 1 (N = 28)
Organisation:	UAS 1 (2), UAS 2 (2), UAS 3 (5), UAS 4 (13), UAS 5 (6)
	Expert international classroom lecturers (N = 23)	Expert Policy makers (N = 5)
Role:	Lecturer in English-taught programme (14) Lecturer in (predominantly) Dutch-taught programme (9)	Educational advisor (2) International officer (3)
Disciplinary context:	Business (10), Health (3), Language and culture (1), Law and safety (2), Management and organisation (4), Teacher education (2), Unknown (1)	Institutional level (5)
Inclusion criteria:	(1.) Facilitated international classrooms (including students with min. four different cultural backgrounds) for at least three years (2.) Completed basic didactic training (3.) Completed additional professional development activities focussed on internationalisation, inclusive education and/or education for global citizenship	(1.) Contributed to policy on internationalisation and/or diversity and inclusion on institutional level

During the Delphi study, some participants left the panel, while other respondents only joined in the second and third rounds due to personal circumstances and the timing during busy exam periods. Fourteen participants took part in the final round, still representing a combination of lecturers and policy advisors from all five Dutch comprehensive urban UASes.

Instruments

Following Green (2014), our Delphi included three rounds in which the panel was asked to form issues, evaluate their collective answers and, ultimately, re-evaluate their answers to reach consensus. In the first round, we asked the respondents to react to a working definition of the international classroom based on the literature, create common ground for the next question. Afterwards, we presented them with six open questions, asking to identify the three most important teaching and learning strategies, or approaches a competent UAS lecturer uses to:

1. support the learning of local students who are who are linguistically and/or culturally different from the lecturer or from other students in your international classrooms.

2. support the learning of international students who are who are linguistically and/or culturally different from the lecturer or from other students in your international classrooms.

3. capitalise on their international and local students’ cultural diversity in your international classrooms.

After each of those questions, we asked the panel to list the five most important competences that a UAS lecturer needed to apply the strategies identified in the previous question. We asked for practical teaching and learning strategies first, to elicit examples of behaviour that support and leverage cultural diversity within the international and local student population, assuming that it would provide richer input on the more abstract competences afterwards.

We piloted the suitability of the survey with researchers and lecturers in our network and adjusted the wording and structure based on their feedback. Afterwards, we shared the first survey with potential participants via email and LinkedIn, including introductory questions to confirm their suitability for the panel. We chose to conduct our Delphi online to prevent group dynamics – related problems that may arise in face-to-face Delphi studies (Adler and Ziglio 1996) and for cost and time related benefits.

In the second round, we presented the panel with an adjusted working definition and list of eleven lecturer competences with descriptors, based on their input from round one, asking them to (1) react to the definition, (2) select the four competences they deemed most important and (3) to react to the descriptors of the competences they selected. In a third survey, we asked the panel to which extent they agreed with a revised definition and an adjusted list of competences, including descriptors, using a 5-point Likert scale.

Analysis

After the first round, we analysed and synthesised the data. Based on an inductive analysis of the suggested changes, we adjusted the working definition. We coded the strategies and competences respondents identified in a round of initial coding (Saldaña 2016, 115), followed by a round of inductive, thematic analysis (Jegede 2021). Based on this analysis, a list of sixteen preliminary themes emerged. Upon exemplifying these themes with extracts from the data, we focused on eleven themes that were mentioned by ten, or more respondents. Based on this analysis, we formulated eleven competences with descriptors in the form of can-do statements, using the participants’ words as much as possible. Analysing the data from the second survey, we dismissed one competence that was only deemed most important by one participant. Afterwards, we adjusted the descriptors of the other competences, synthesising the panel’s proposed adjustments. Seeing that the descriptors of two competences overlapped to a great extent, we merged these teo into one, overarching competence, arriving at a list of nine competences. After the third survey, we analysed whether the panel reached consensus on the working definition and the competence profile, or whether an additional round of adjustments would be needed. We set the following criteria for determining consensus scores:

• at least 80% of participants indicates that they agreed with this definition, or competence profile to a great extent, or completely (on a five point Likert scale).

• a median of 1, or 2 (on five point Likert scale, reaching from 1 = completely agree to 5 = completely disagree)

Findings

Defining the international classroom as an inclusive educational approach

In the first round of the Delphi, we presented the respondents with the following definition of the international classroom, framed as an outcomes-based approach that aligns with current discourse and practice in Dutch UASes to education and the discourse on Internationalisation of the Curriculum.

‘The international classroom is an educational unit in which a culturally diverse student body is intentionally created, accommodated, and leveraged to achieve intended international, or intercultural learning outcomes.’

After analysing and synthesising their reactions, we summarised the proposed adjustments in Table 4.

Table 4. Suggested adjustments to working definition.

Suggested adjustments (N = 17)	Density
(1) Culturally diverse student body does not have to be created intentionally	5
(2) Explicitly add ‘international students’	2
(3) Make the role(s) of the lecturer explicit	2
(4) Adjust the phrase educational unit	1
(5) Make it explicit that there are different dimensions of (cultural) diversity	1
(6) Broaden the outcome of the international classroom beyond the achievement of IILOs	1
(7) None	1

Analysing the data, only lecturers from English taught programmes suggested that a ‘cultural diverse student body does not have to be created intentionally’ and to ‘broaden the outcome of the international classroom beyond the achievement of IILOs’. By contrast, only lecturers from Dutch medium programmes and one policy advisor suggested to ‘explicitly add ‘international students’ and to ‘make it explicit that there are different dimensions of (cultural) diversity’. Only lecturers proposed to adjust the term ‘educational unit.’ Based on this input, the working definition we adjusted the working definition (underlining the adjustments):

The international classroom is an educational approach in which the national, cultural and cognitive diversity of a mixed student body, including students from different national and educational backgrounds, is recognised, accommodated, and leveraged in the design and facilitation of an educational unit (e.g. module, course, or project) to enhance the achievement of international and intercultural learning outcomes for all students.

Upon analysing the panel’s new input, we adjusted the definition again based on suggestions made by more than one respondent. This meant that we changed the word ‘cognitive’ as suggested by the panel.

In the third survey, we presented the following definition:

The international classroom is an educational approach in which the diversity of a mixed student body, including students from different national, cultural, and educational backgrounds, is purposefully recognised, accommodated, and leveraged in the design and facilitation of education to enhance the achievement of international and intercultural learning outcomes for all students.

86% of the respondents agreed with this definition completely, or to a great extent and seeing that the median was 2 on a five-point Likert scale, reaching from 1 = completely agree to 5 = completely disagree. Following the criteria we set for this study, we reached consensus on this definition of the international classroom.

Lecturer competences for centralising diversity across the student body in purposeful international classrooms

In the course of our delphi study, a worked towards a profile of competences that UAS lecturers need to recognise, accommodate and leverage the multi-faceted diversity across their mixed student body in the purposeful design and facilitation of their international classrooms. Based on the input and iterative adjustments of our panel of expert professionals nine interconnected competences emerged, including three competences related to purposeful design and facilitation and three competences related to flexible implementation and two underlying foundational competences emerged.

Purposeful design and facilitation competences

Three competences that the panel agreed on are competences related to the purposeful design and facilitation of international classrooms.

1. Ability to design inclusive curriculum, incorporating multiple perspectives:

   design curriculum that explicitly provides and explores examples, cases, literature, and assignments from multiple national and cultural perspectives, including non-western ones, intentionally exploring students’, lecturers’ and other stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences.

2. Ability to create a safe learning environment

   create a safe and inclusive learning environment, intentionally building common understanding and connections with and between students to create a learning community where all students feel they can belong, participate and learn.

3. Ability to facilitate intercultural interaction, dialogue, and collaboration

   facilitate constructive intercultural interaction, dialogue, and collaboration by designing, managing, and supporting intercultural group processes to stimulate intercultural exchange, awareness and perspective taking in mixed pair and group work.

The combination of these three competences enable lecturers to purposefully create conditions for purposeful interaction and eliciting and exploring diverse perspectives across the classroom. Firstly, the panel stress the need to intentionally design curriculum that approaches content, examples and cases from different cultural perspectives. One respondents adds that these perspectives should include ‘different paradigms: western/non-western.’ Another repondent suggests that ‘we can also use the teachers’ or the clients’ perspectives and experiences as resources. However, we must be careful to not have students singled out as examples.’ The integration of clients’ perspectives underlines that international classrooms within UASes may incorporate experiences and voices beyond academia, through practice-oriented pedagogies, such as real-life projects, or work integrated learning trajectories. One respondent proposes that this may require lecturers to broaden their own scope and ‘ research for examples. I saw a student super motivated when he could work for a company from Sudan, that totally changed his attitude.’ A second competence that emerged from the delphi, is the ability to create a safe learning environment. This competence is positioned by a participant as ‘the first and foremost requirement for people to learn’. One respondent remarks that this ability does not only entail selecting ‘a range of activities, but creating a culture of respect, taking time, allowing for flexibility and discussion’. Another suggests to ‘openly discuss the importance of a safe learning environment to really be able to open up and create common understanding,’ stressing the need to be intentional and explicit about creating connections with and between students and creating space for dialogue to lay the groundwork for inclusive participation. Thirdly, the panel selected the competence to facilitate intercultural interaction, dialogue and collaboration. Multiple respondents identified the need to make the benefit and purpose of any interaction explicit. One respondent remarks that purposeful interaction could be aimed at ‘exchange of ideas and approaches and perspective taking, but also cooperating toward a common goal.’ Another respondents underlines that ‘the design phase of assignments meant for intercultural groups is key in making sure everybody's contribution is going to be needed’, highlighting the interplay between purposeful design and facilitation in the purposeful implementation of pedagogies that foster interaction across differences.

Flexible implementation competences

Another set of interrelated competences is connected to the need to flexibly adjust pedagogical choices and communication, enabling students across the international classroom to participate and learn from the diverse perspectives in the learning environment.

(4)	Ability to adjust pedagogy to cultural diversity adjust their pedagogy to accommodate and leverage cultural diversity in the student population by carefully structuring and scaffolding learning activities and flexibly applying a variety of learning formats, recognising different learning preferences and approaches to learning.
(5)	Ability to adjust pedagogy to accommodate linguistic diversity adjust pedagogy to accommodate students’ linguistic diversity by offering structured, explicit, and multimodal input, addressing cultural connotations, cycling key vocabulary, and including a variety of learning activities.
(6)	Ability to adjust communication to accommodate linguistic diversity communicate instructions and expectations clearly and explicitly, check for understanding and flexibly adjust communication to accommodate students’ needs.

Considering the diverse learning needs and preferences that may emerge across the international classroom, the ability to flexibly, yet purposefully adjust pedagogical choices is deemed important by the panel ‘to make sure all students talents are recognized and being used’. Moreover, a respondent highlights this process as an opportunity to model intercultural awareness, suggesting to ‘make all class members aware of the influence of backgrounds on the reaction to pedagogical choices’. In a similar way, the ability to adjust pedagogical choices and communication to linguistic diversity emphasises the need to intentionally explore and accommodate diverse linguistic learning needs to enable inclusive participation. According to one respondent realising that ‘most people are functioning using a second or third language and thus be aware of information being lost in translation’ is a key to this ability. In order to take this into account, respondents suggest to offer students a ‘variety in input (read, listen, video) to acquire new vocabulary’, ‘adapt language (vocabulary, repetitions, etc.) to allow students to process information’ and ‘structuring and scaffolding’ learning activities. On top of that, a respondent remarks that international classroom lecturers should ‘not only have a good command of English, but also understand how his English is ‘culturally’ informed. For instance when teaching international law, Dutch students often think that the English word ‘lawyer’ means an advocaat (a law graduate who has the right to litigate in court), whereas ‘lawyer’ means jurist (anyone with a law degree).’ Together, these three competences highlight that flexible and interculturally sensitive implementation is an essential part of the purposeful design and facilitation of international classrooms.

Foundational competences

Lastly, two interconnected foundational competences emerged from the delphi that are at the basis of the other six competences and at the core of the competence profile that emerges.

Intercultural sensitivity: lecturers can model and stimulate intercultural sensitivity by recognising the complexities of the international classroom, anticipating and managing intercultural incidents and use them as a resource for learning.

Flexibility: Lecturers adjust their behaviour and choices flexibly to accommodate students’ needs, interests, motivation and learning process if required by context and situation.

According to its descriptor, the competence ‘Intercultural sensitivity’ does not only require lecturers to recognise the complex dynamics within the international classroom. It also requires lecturers to intentionally model intercultural sensitivity in the design and facilitation of their modules. One respondent highlights the importance of making ‘them aware of the cultural diversity and its merits,’ while another respondent stresses that ‘it is important to make others aware how to use this for their learning processes.’ Based on this sensitivity, international classroom lecturers should be able to adjust and choices to their students’ differentiated needs and interests, following the descriptor of the competence ‘Flexibility.’ One participant empathically stresses the importance to ‘LISTEN to students with an open mind’ and ‘switch to other teaching strategies when the ‘common’ one does not seem to work’. ‘Getting to know the students (who are they, where do they come from, what are their personal goals and motivations, their learning (dis)abilities, etc.)’ as well as critically considering ‘their own behaviour, reflect on that and adjust if necessary (dealing with feedback is part of this)’ are seen as essential parts of this process. Based on their descriptors, the foundational competences are framed as professional skills, rather than attitudes, or personal qualities.

Purposeful international classrooms competences

With an indication from 93% percent of the respondents that they agreed completely, or to a great extent with the competence profile and a median of 1 on a 5-point Likert scale, our expert panel reached consensus on the following competences profile enabling lecturers to capitalise on students’ cultural diversity on international classrooms in Dutch, urban UASes, translating a multiculturalist diversity approach to concrete lecturer behaviour in the context of IaH. The figure below visualises the Purposeful International Classroom Competences in a way that centralises the international classroom approach at the core of the profile Figure 1.

Figure 1. Purposeful international classroom competences.

Discussion

This study aimed to rethink the international classroom as a purposeful and inclusive IaH strategy, incorporating the collective judgement of expert lecturers and policy makers in five comprehensive UASes in the Dutch Randstad area. The panel reached consensus on a new definition of the international classroom and a profile of lecturer competences to support implementation within and beyond Dutch, urban UASes.

How do these results relate to earlier definitions and lecturer profiles for international classrooms?

Our panel defined the international classroom as an educational approach, combining student characteristics, and pedagogical characteristics. The mixed student population reflected in the definition explicitly, yet not exclusively, holds students from different national, cultural, and educational backgrounds. This characterisation expands the focus on national diversity reflected in some definitions (e.g. Safipour, Wenneberg, and Hadziabdic 2018; Teekens 2003) and moving past the dichotomy between local and international students that overlooks the heterogeneity across both groups (Bijsmans et al. 2021; Madriaga and McCaig 2022) and does not do justice to the diverse cultural perspectives students across a diverse student body can bring into the learning environment (Poort 2021). The definition’s pedagogical characteristics reflect an outcome-based student-centred approach that positions recognising, accommodating and leveraging students’ multifaceted diversity as key teaching and learning strategy, echoing other pedagogies reflecting a multicultural diversity approach, such as culturally responsive and multicultural education (Banks 1997; Saint-Hillaire 2014). However, unlike these pedagogies, the international classroom approach that emerged from our Delphi does not include an explicit equity rationale. In line with Beelen and Jones’ definition of IaH (2015), it leaves the rationale to be unpacked in context of specific programmes. Moving past recurrent deficit narratives associated with international and intercultural student bodies (Mittelmeier and Yang 2022), our definition positions students across the diverse student body as knowledge agents and internationalised teaching, learning and curriculum design as a flexible, dialogical process grounded in an explicitly multiculturalist diversity approach.

The Purposeful International Classroom Competences that emerged from our study clearly reflect this purposeful, dialogical process. Comparing the Purposeful International Classroom Competences with existing lecturers profiles for international, intercultural and global classrooms, the competences in the profiles overlap to a great extent. The profiles’ foundational competences Intercultural Sensitivity and Flexibility and echo the intercultural competences (Deardorff 2006) that are incorporated in Dimitrov and Haque’s Intercultural Teaching Competence profile (2016), Tichnor-Wagner’s Globally Competent Teaching Continuum (2019), Van der Werff’s International Competence Matrix (2012; 2015; 2017) and the EQUIIP profile (EQUIIP 2019). The profile resonates with the Intercultural Teaching Competence’s and EQUIIP’s focus on the purposeful design and facilitation of student-centered, intercultural learning experiences, recognising and accommodating cultural and linguistic diversity across the student body. To some extent, it also reflects the International Competence Matrix’ focus on the world of work and the Globally Competent Teaching Continuum’s integration of real-life, practice-oriented learning experiences, engaging non academic stakeholders. However, the specific contribution of the Purposeful International Competence Profile is that it centralises the multi-faceted diversity across the international classroom as the most important starting point in the implementation of student-centered pedagogies, leaving the rationale for doing so open for translation in context. Unlike the other four profiles recognising, accommodating and leveraging diversity across the international classroom is more than a strategy to achieve another outcome, such as intercultural competence development (Dimitrov and Haque 2016), or the implementation of education for equity and societal responsibility (Tichnor-Wagner et al. 2019). Instead, the Purposeful International Classroom Competences profile underlines that the multi-faceted diversity across the student body is the international classroom’s defining asset, grounding it in a multiculturalist diversity approach (Celeste et al. 2019). All in all, the profile highlights that, in the perspective of expert lecturers in Dutch UASes, lecturers’ key role in the international classroom is shaping conditions for all students to explore their own and each other’s perspectives through purposeful designed and flexibly implementation of student-centered pedagogies.

How can the results of this study inform the implementation of international classrooms within contexts like Dutch UASes in the Randstad area?

The redefinition of the international classroom as a purposeful educational approach and the Purposeful International Classroom Competence profile that emerged from this study may inform the implementation of international classrooms in higher education institutes in superdiverse contexts, like Dutch UASes in the Randstad area. Firstly, they underline that, to realise the potential of the international classroom, programmes and lecturers should approach the national, cultural and academic diversity as an asset, not as a barrier for study success. Secondly, both the definition and the competences provide a multiculturalist lens to rethink the implementation of student-centered, potentially practice-oriented pedagogies in the context of IaH. Considering a clear rationale for capitalising on diverse cultural perspectives across their particular international classrooms, grounded in their programmes’ graduate attributes and specific demands of the local and global labour market will be an important prerequisite for this process. In the context of some programmes this may result in capitalising on diverse perspectives across the current diverse student body more intentionally, while in other programmes it may result in attracting additional students with different profiles, or forging collaborations with partners within, or beyond the university to enhance the international classroom’s diversity. Either way, we recommend programmes to create space in their curricula and personal planning to enable lecturers to invest in relationships with students across their international, or diverse classrooms to renegotiate educational practices based on emerging learning needs and opportunities to leverage cultural diversity, effectively enhancing learning for all. Recognising that this process does not only require competences, but also time, brainspace and individual and collective reflection, we recommend integrating this process systematically in curriculum (re)design and professional development processes, such as the Basic Didactic Foundation Course, that is mandatory for all Dutch UAS lecturers.

What are limitations and opportunities for further research?

In our perspective, this study has several limitations. Firstly, the strict selection criteria for the experts in the Delphi panel may have caused a selection bias. Considering the criteria, many respondents are likely to strongly value diversity and internationalisation, read the same literature, participate in the same professionalisation activities, and move in the same professional circles. Taking this into account, in-group thinking may have played a role in obtaining a high degree of consensus quickly. Additionally, we recognise that the panel reached consensus on relatively broad competences and descriptors. Specific academic disciplines contexts may place more, or less emphasis on the competences agreed on in this study and may focus on discipline specific learning outcomes, or rationales and highlight specific pedagogies. Moreover, the results of this study only reflect lecturers and policymakers’ perceptions and do not include perspectives by students, or other stakeholders in education, any measured impact of lecturer behaviour on student outcomes, or external factors that may impact lecturers’ choices and behaviour.

Future research could incorporate the perspectives of a wider range of stakeholders in universities of applied sciences, including students and a less specialised representation of lecturers and educational advisors. Additionally, it should examine the implementation of international classroom approaches in the context of specific programmes more closely to move past broad generalisations, explore how lecturers enact a multiculturalist diversity approach in different phases of curriculum implementation and how students experience this behaviour in the light of inclusive internationalisation of the curriculum. Finally, further research should explore how institutions like Dutch universities of applied sciences can equip lecturers to rethink their international classrooms in dialogue with their students. This process will not only enable them to enhance the quality and accessibility of their education by integrating perspectives across the student body, but, ultimately, to equip a new generation of professionals to impact and thrive in culturally diverse and internationally connected labour markets in the Netherlands and beyond.

Acknowledgements

This study has been conducted as part of a PhD project supervised by Dr. C.F. van den Berg, Campus Fryslan, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Disclosure statement

This article has been published under the Journal’s transparent peer review policy. Anonymised peer review reports of the submitted manuscript can be accessed under supplemental material online at (https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2024.2347533).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

M. V. Ambagts-van Rooijen

M. V. Ambagts – van Rooijen MA is a PhD candidate at the University of Groningen’s Centre for Internationalisation of Education as well as a Senior Lecturer Internationalisation and Innovation, a researcher and an educational developer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. She has been working with intercultural groups throughout the educational landscape since 2005, including academic staff within intercultural and international education in vocational and higher education across the Netherlands, Europe, Colombia and Chile. She specialises in staff professionalisation and inclusive curriculum innovation in the context of internationalised curricula.

J. M. H. J. Beelen

J. M. H. J. Beelen is Professor of Global Learning at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands as well as Visiting Professor at the Centre for Global Learning at Coventry University in England. He has facilitated workshops and coached academic staff in internationalising academic programmes at universities in the Netherlands and across Europe, as well as in Colombia, Brazil, South Africa and Australia. He edited the EAIE’s Toolkit publication Implementing Internationalisation at Home (2007) and has since written a range of articles on the same topic, often co-authored with researchers from Europe and Australia.

R. J. Coelen

R. J. Coelen, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Internationalisation of Higher Education at NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. He is Director of the Centre for Internationalisation of Education at the University of Groningen and is visiting professor at East China Normal University. He regularly reviews the internationalisation programmes of universities in Europe as part of auditing panels and publishes widely on topic. He is Associate Editor for the Journal of International Students and regularly reviews manuscripts for other journals in the field of education.