Understanding diversity: a Dutch case study on teachers’ attitudes towards their diverse student population
Middelkoop et al. Empirical Res Voc Ed Train
Understanding diversity: a Dutch case study on teachers' attitudes towards their diverse student population
Daniel van Middelkoop
Background: In the Netherlands, there has been a strong increase in diversity among students in recent decades. Even though access for previously underrepresented groups based on economic status, ethnicity or culture has been realised to a certain extent, differences in student performance between groups persist. Research shows that teacher performance influences student achievement and that this influence is more pronounced for 'non-western students'. This creates a need for reflection on the way teachers cope with their increasingly diverse student population. This paper explores the attitudes of Dutch teachers in higher vocational education towards their diverse student population and the translation of these attitudes into teaching practice. Methods: Twenty-five teacher teams at two universities of applied sciences participated in this research. The teams came from a broad range of programmes that educate students for different future professions. A mixed method methodology was used to gather data, in which the qualitative method was most substantial. Focus group interviews on diversity and student achievement were held with each teacher team. Additionally, a questionnaire was distributed to all 274 participants, which was completed by 215 teachers. Data from the questionnaire were analysed using SPSS. In order to analyse the qualitative data we used AtlasTI. Because we applied a grounded approach, allowing teachers to form their own ideas on both diversity and student achievement, we used a similar approach in the first analytical phase. In a second phase, we compared the concepts arising from the grounded theory approach with concepts from the literature. Results and conclusions: Around 40% of the teachers repudiated the influence of diversity on student achievement and did not take student diversity into account in their teaching practice. Problems regarding the student achievement of students or groups thereof are considered as something that the students, the educational institution or society at large should cope with, not teachers themselves. Of the teachers, 60% recognised diversity among students, but mainly based on students' shortcomings and perceived problems. A minority of this 60% not only recognised but also understood diversity's effect on student achievement. Teachers do not always translate this understanding into their teaching practice. They feel they lack the skills, knowledge or time to do so. Teachers seemingly translate their understanding of diversity into their didactic and pedagogical approaches only when these conditions are met.
Diversity; Student achievement; Higher education; Teachers; Attitudes
The number of students enrolled in higher vocational education in the Netherlands
has grown significantly in recent decades, from approximately 200,000 in 1978 to over
400,000 in 2010 (CBS 2013), mirroring a European and arguably a global trend towards
‘massification’ in higher education (Altbach et al. 2009). In their UNESCO report,
Altbach et al. (2009, p. 7) state that ‘without question, the coming period will be dominated
by the implications of mass access. Massification of higher education leads to pressures
on both the affordability and quality of education’.
Another implication of massification is the diversification of the student population. In
the Netherlands, there has been a strong increase in diversity among students in recent
decades. In the 1970s, there was a strong increase in the number of female students and
students from the lower socioeconomic classes (Beerkens-Soo and Vossensteyn 2009).
Since the 1980s, the number of students of a non-western ethnicity1 has increased
(Middelkoop and Meerman 2014; Jong 2014; Wolff 2013). There has been an increase not
only in ethnic and cultural diversity, but also in terms of socioeconomic status and
educational background (CBS 2013; Wolff 2013).
Even though access for previously underrepresented groups based on economic status,
ethnicity or culture has been realised to a certain extent, differences in student
performance between groups persist. Mirroring trends in other western countries (Carey 2008;
Shavit, Arum and Gamoran 2007; Meeuwisse 2012), the performance gap between
different ethnic/cultural groups seems to be widening rather than narrowing (Wolff 2013;
Zijlstra et al. 2013). Recent government-funded programmes to improve the
achievement of previously underrepresented student groups have proven to be ineffective,
because the role of the teacher has been largely overlooked (Middelkoop and Meerman
2014; Zijlstra et al. 2013).
Research shows that teacher performance influences student achievement.2 Two
meta-studies (Hattie 2009; Marzano 2003) have shown that the influence of the teacher
is significant, even though the exact amount of influence is part of an ongoing scientific
and educational debate (Snook et al. 2009, 93). Research in the Netherlands indicates
that the influence of the teacher is even more pronounced for non-western students
(Severiens 2011; Jong 2014). This creates a need for reflection on the way teachers cope
with their increasingly diverse student population. In this paper, the way teachers think
of and deal with increased diversity among students is discussed.
The following research questions are central to this paper:
(1) What are the prevalent attitudes among teachers towards diversity in the student
(2) To what extent are teachers’ attitudes towards diversity in the student population
translated into their teaching practices?
1 In the Netherlands, the terms autochthonous and allochthonous residents are commonly used. Allochthonous (in
Dutch: allochtoon) refers to migrants: they or at least one of their parents were born in another country. It is most
commonly used to refer specifically to non-western migrants. Autochthonous refers to the ‘ethnic Dutch’ population.
2 Of course this is dependent on one’s definition of student achievement or study success. Definitions of study success
given by teachers in our research will be presented in a different paper.
Diversity and student achievement
Although in its most literal form diversity simply means ‘variety’, there are different
forms of variety (Roberson 2006, 212–236). A distinction can be made between
diversity in observable or readily detectable attributes—such as race or ethnic background,
age or gender—and diversity with respect to non-observable or underlying attributes,
such as education, technical abilities, functional background, tenure in the organisation,
socioeconomic background, personality characteristics, intelligence or values
(Cummings et al. 1993; Jackson et al. 1995, 204–261; Tsui, Egan and O’Reilly 1992, 549–579;
Milliken and Martins 1996, 402–433). Observable and non-observable attributes can
overlap: the majority of an ethnic group can have a certain socioeconomic background
or a certain set of perceived values. Furthermore, the difference between observable and
non-observable attributes is not always very clear-cut.
In the Dutch context, differences between groups based on both observable and
nonobservable attributes can be noted. Most often diversity is related to observable ethnic
differences, focusing on differences between ethnic Dutch and non-western groups
(Wolff 2013; Zijlstra et al. 2013; Jong 2014). The debate on ethnic differences in the
Netherlands tends to focus on deviations from the norm, creating a tendency to distinguish
between the ethnic Dutch population and the mainly non-western minorities (Gorashi
2006), thus ignoring differences between ethnic minority groups as well as individual
differences within these groups. There is also a tendency in the debate to attribute a
socioeconomic disadvantage to all minority groups. Both these tendencies lead to
categorical thinking when it comes to diversity in the Netherlands (Gorashi 2006).
More recently, gender diversity has received renewed attention in the educational
debate: female participation and success rates in education seem to have surpassed those
of males, and male students are perceived to lag behind where educational achievement
Invisible or less visible attributes are also important in the Dutch context, even though
they often overlap with visible characteristics. Socioeconomic background is considered
to influence students’ chances of success in higher education. Differences in performance
can also be perceived between students whose parents have studied and students who
can be considered ‘first-generation students’. Educational background (prior to higher
education) can also impact student achievement: especially students coming from
institutions of intermediate vocational education have higher dropout rates. And the groups
overlap: many of these students are also from non-western ethnic backgrounds (Zijlstra
et al. 2013; CBS 2013).
Diversity and education
Thus, student achievement differs between groups of students: diversity matters. But
should the educational system take these differences into account? When applying a
meritocratic line of thought, this question is most commonly answered negatively. The
meritocratic approach is based on the idea that talent, motivation and effort determine
the measure of success students can attain (Verhaeghe 2011, 4–22; Pels 2007). All
students are offered the same opportunities, and it is up to them to take advantage of these
opportunities. However, a meritocracy only functions as such when all students have the
same capital. This is often ignored in both the theoretical debate and the educational
practice (Verhaeghe 2011, 4–22; Nussbaum 2011). Students have different interests,
learning needs and talents, due to their specific backgrounds, experiences and social
contexts (Waslander 2006). The starting positions of students differ, with some students
better adapted to the mainstream teaching practice in higher education than others
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1990; Bowles and Gintis 2002, 3–30; Bowles et al. 2009). A
uniform meritocratic approach does not take these differences into account and as a result
these differences are often sustained or enlarged (Broek 2009; Bourdieu and Passeron
1990; Meerman et al. 2009). Not acknowledging differences means that those students
who do not belong to the ‘normal’ group will have to adapt or face the consequences.
Students’ talents that do not easily fit in the dominant discourse are not recognised or
rewarded. These students are therefore at risk of underperforming or dropping out.
Diversity is thus not a neutral term, used only to describe either observable or
nonobservable differences between groups. It holds within its definition issues of power and
social inequality (Andersen and Collins 1995; Snowden 2004, 291–303; Zepke and Leach
An approach that takes these issues of power and social inequality into account is the
capabilities approach. In her book Creating Capabilities, Martha Nussbaum states that
the capability approach ‘takes each person as an end, asking about the opportunities
available to each person. It is focused on the choice of freedom’ (Nussbaum 2011, 18).
Nussbaum describes capabilities as the ability to use opportunities and choose which
ones to use. She describes ten key capabilities (ibid., 33–34) and states that ‘an ample
threshold of ten central capabilities is required’ (ibid., 32).
Following this line of reasoning, the educational system should take into account
differences between students or groups thereof into account. All students entering higher
education should be enabled to lift themselves above the threshold of development for
their capabilities. Central to this approach is the notion of fair inegalitarianism, as a form
of equality that includes the notion of fairness in the sense that it implies special
provisions for the least advantaged members of society (Vouyoukas 2002). When considering
the wide range of existing capabilities in a student population, it is up to the school and
the teachers to recognise and act upon these differences in order to enable students to
develop their capabilities.
Teachers and student achievement
Following the line of reasoning from Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach, diversity
should be taken into account in the educational system. But how? To find an answer
to that question, we look at what determines student achievement, using the work of
Robert Marzano (2003). In a meta-analysis on the results of 35 years of research he
gives an overview of what determines student achievement in the American educational
1. School-level factors: factors that are ‘under the jurisdiction of the school as a whole’. Changes in these factors are usually a result of formal or informal policy decisions (Marzano 2003, 15).
2. Student-level factors: accounts for the lion’s share of variance in student achievement. But effects can be overcome by actions at the level of the school or the teacher (ibid., 125).
3. Teacher-level factors: the most influential category, comprised of factors determined by the impact that a teacher can have on student achievement (ibid., 71). Marzano identifies instructional strategies, classroom management and classroom curriculum design as teacher-level factors.
In an even more extensive meta-study, John Hattie (2009) also concludes that teachers
strongly influence student achievement.3 Both Hattie and Marzano describe in-school
factors. Student achievement is also strongly influenced by factors outside the influence
sphere of the school. Marzano states, however, that outside influences ‘can be mediated
by school-based interventions’ (Marzano 2003, 123). The potential influence of the
school is therefore substantial, presumably especially so for those students who lack a
certain threshold of capabilities when starting in higher education.
Teachers’ attitudes towards diversity
Research shows that teaching practices reflect teachers’ attitudes, which in turn reflect
teachers’ own experiences and backgrounds (Cabello and Burstein 1995, 285–294).
Teachers have a big influence on student achievement. This implies that student
achievement is influenced when teachers do or do not take diversity into account in their
We consider attitudes as ‘manifestations of unconsciously held views of expressions of
verbal commitments to abstract ideas that may be thought of as part of a general
ideology of teaching’ (Thompson 1984, 105–127). An attitude in education can be seen as a
source of ideology, knowledge and values that guide teachers in their teaching practice.
Research suggests that teachers’ attitudes affect both their judgments of students and
their behaviour in the classroom (Ashton and Webb 1986; Pajares 1992, 307–32; Yang
and Montgomery 2013, 27–37; Gay 2013, 48–70).
In order to further specify teachers’ attitudes towards diversity, we build upon the
theoretical notions of Helms (1990), Cox (2001) and Meerman et al. (2009). Based on these
notions, three types of attitudes towards diversity can be identified:
1. Repudiation of the influence of diversity on student achievement.
2. Recognition of the influence of diversity on student achievement.
3 The importance of the role of the teacher can be seen not only when looking at success, but also when looking at stu
dents not achieving success. Zepke and Leach 2007, 655–668) state that teachers and teaching are key factors in student
3. Understanding the effects of diversity and their attitude towards diversity on student
Earlier research suggests the first attitude is most prevalent among teachers in the
Netherlands (Meerman et al. 2009). This ‘cultural blindness’ (Cabello and Burstein 1995,
285–294) might be due to the emphasis on equal worth and equal treatment in Dutch
education, which seems to stem from a predominantly meritocratic view on education.5
This focus on equal treatment originates from a liberal view of egalitarianism, which is
closely linked to the notion of meritocracy in the sense that opportunities are given to all
in order that they may ‘advance’ in society (Vouyoukas 2002).
Research also shows that a large percentage of teachers adhere to the second attitude
(Meerman et al. 2009). These teachers acknowledge the influence of diversity on
student achievement, but have limited knowledge of its effect. They can be said to ‘accept
the general idea of culturally responsive teaching but may not know what it means for
practical application’ (Gay 2013, 48–70). Research suggests that teachers who adhere to
the second attitude might be prone to stereotyping by neglecting the significance of
individual differences within cultural or ethnic groups (Meerman et al. 2013; Nieto 1992).
Teachers with the third attitude towards diversity are a minority in most teacher teams
(Meerman et al. 2009, 2013). These teachers can be said to have an understanding of
students’ backgrounds and characteristics (Gay 2002, 106–116),6 without stereotyping
students according to their backgrounds or characteristics. They acknowledge the many
different capabilities of students and the need to take those capabilities into account in
With attitudes of the first type, it is very unlikely teachers act upon the diversity in the
student population, as this attitude ignores questions of social inequality and power
between students. This in turn leads to a uniform approach to all students. However,
teachers’ attitudes of the second and third types do not automatically lead to
teachers acting upon their recognition or understanding of diversity (Meerman et al. 2009).
When they do translate their attitude into their teaching practice, however, we can
classify those actions using the teacher-level factors formulated by Marzano.
Using instructional strategies, a teacher enables students to gain knowledge and skills.
(Marzano 2003). Student diversity influences the effective use of instructional strategies
4 In earlier research we found the typology to be useful as a theoretical construct that provided a framework to make
sense of teachers’ attitudes towards diversity (Meerman et al. 2009). The typology has been widely used to structure
attitudes towards diversity (e.g. Thompson and Carter 1997; Roberson 2013). We chose not to question the typology as such
in this paper. We focused on enriching the knowledge about these three types of attitudes, underlying rationales for the
attitudes as expressed by teachers as well as consequences for teaching practice.
5 For an extensive discussion on equity egalitarianism and fair inegalitarianism, see Vouyoukas (2002) and Muhammad
(2015). For an insight into similar prevalent attitudes in other countries, see e.g. Gay (2010, 143–152), Yang and
Montgomery (2013, 27–37), Zepke and Leach (2007), 655–668).
6 Geneva Gay, among others, mainly refers to cultural and ethnic diversity in her work; attention to other types of diver
sity, such as gender or social class, can however be assumed to require a similar understanding of the background and
characteristics of students.
of teachers in a number of ways. One of the strategies, for instance, is the way that
cooperative learning is organised. Cooperation can be less effective in mixed groups, but
working in mixed groups can also enrich the learning experience, as students learn to
identify and communicate with ‘Others’. Diversity influences more categories of
instructional strategies, such as non-linguistic representation, setting objectives and providing
feedback, or reinforcing effort and providing recognition (Middelkoop and Meerman
Differences between students lead to students having different needs, which influences
the demands made on teachers’ effective classroom management. Taking diversity into
account therefore matters also when it comes to classroom management.7 Differences
between students create the need for different forms of interaction between teacher and
student, as well as for the ability to act upon differences in intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, use of language, forms of interaction, learning styles, etc. (Middelkoop and
Classroom curriculum design
An increasingly diverse student population creates the need for critical reflection on the
curriculum. Different starting positions and learning styles can create the need for
changes to the structure in which content is presented to students.8 But a critical
reflection on the curriculum can also stem from changes in the profession for which students
are being prepared. When dealing with diversity is a key aspect of the future profession
of the student, this impacts the curriculum, for instance through the cases that are being
used or through specific courses such as intercultural communication. Societal changes
can also be a catalyst for changes to the curriculum. Through the curriculum, teachers
can address issues like societal inequality or discrimination (Middelkoop and Meerman
The data used in this study are derived from a wider study on diversity and student
achievement (Middelkoop and Meerman 2014, 2015). From December 2010 to October
2012, 274 teachers in 25 teacher teams at two universities of applied sciences in major
cities in the Netherlands were followed. These cities can be characterised as
‘majorityminority cities’ (Crul et al. 2013), in which the ethnic Dutch population is a minority.
This is mirrored in the student populations, with around 50 percent of students at these
universities being of non-Dutch ethnic origin (CBS 2016).
The teams chose to participate in this research; the teachers and/or the team manager
wanted to discuss diversity in relation to student achievement. The teams came from a
broad range of programmes that educate students for different future professions. Some
7 Marzano states that ‘different classrooms will have different rules and procedures depending on the needs and disposi
8 This does not mean that the expected level of achievement is lowered—the curriculum is structured differently; the
teams actively asked to be part of this research, whereas others were invited to
participate by their institution’s management. The teams comprised on average 11 teachers. As
we chose to interview existing teams, we had no influence on their composition
regarding age, sex, professional status, etc. A mixed method methodology was used to gather
data, in which the qualitative method was most substantial.
The methodology builds upon the earlier research and methodological experiences of
the research group HRM and Diversity (Meerman et al. 2009). One of the conclusions of
this research was the lack of urgency to take into account diversity in the student
population and in teacher teams. By connecting diversity to the primary process, in this case
student achievement, we sought to overcome this experienced lack of urgency.
A focus group interview on diversity and student achievement was held with each
teacher team; the interviews lasted for an average of 2 h. We conducted a second focus
group interview with the teams after 6–12 months. Due to time and organisational
constraints experienced by the teams, only 18 of the 25 teams could be interviewed a second
time. The transcripts of the group interviews are the main sources of data on which the
results of this paper are based. A questionnaire was also distributed to all 274
participants prior to the first group interview. The questionnaire was completed by 215
teachers. The main aim of the questionnaire was to gain input from the participants which
was used during the focus groups interviews. Additionally, the questionnaire provided
us with data that yielded useful insights in the attitudes towards diversity of the
participants. The results of the questionnaire can not be generalised to the target population
because the teachers opted-in for the research. This makes the sample a ‘non-probability
sample which questions the generalisability of the quantitative findings’ (see e.g.,
Beulens et al. 2015, 7).
Each group interview was unique, taking as a starting point the situation of each
teacher team. Using that situation, we discussed dilemmas, problems and observed
practices regarding diversity and student achievement. As researchers we thus did not
observe from outside the teacher teams, but tried to find solutions and contributions
together with them. The researchers functioned both as enablers of this process and as
experts in diversity and student achievement.
Data from the questionnaire were analysed using SPSS. In order to analyse the
qualitative data we used AtlasTI. Because we applied a grounded approach, allowing teachers
to form their own ideas on both diversity and student achievement, we used a similar
approach in the first analytical phase. In a second phase, we compared the concepts
arising from the grounded theory approach with concepts from the literature.
Quotations used in this paper were chosen because we consider them to be exemplary
of the general picture that arose from the data. As we wanted the participating teachers
to talk freely, we processed the information we gathered from teacher teams or
individual teachers anonymously.
Findings: teachers’ attitudes towards and teaching practices for diversity
In the first part of this section, we discuss the attitudes of the teachers in the 25 teams. In
the second part, we focus on the teaching practices teachers use for diversity.
Teachers’ attitudes towards diversity
When asked in the questionnaire whether they distinguished between normal and
atrisk students, 59% of the teachers said that they do make this distinction. Although this
is the majority of the teachers participating in our research, it also means that a sizeable
minority (41%) do not make distinctions between normal and at-risk students. Female
teachers make a distinction more often than male teachers (63 and 58%, respectively).
We did not find meaningful differences based on age, years of teaching experience or
type of contract.
Those teachers who did distinguish between normal and at-risk students were asked
how they recognised the latter. Up to three identifying characteristics could be selected
by the teachers. The teachers’ responses were categorised in one of eight overarching
characteristics, which accounted for approximately 80% of the answers. The other 20%
were so diverse they could not be categorised in an overarching characteristic. The eight
1. Motivation to study
2. Personal problems
3. Poor linguistic skills
4. Ability to study
5. Study credits
7. Cultural & ethnic differences
8. Starting level (the level of skills students possess when starting their study).
The characteristics are ordered by the number of times they were mentioned by
teachers. Over one-third of the teachers mentioned motivation; this was 2.5 times more often
than the second most mentioned characteristic, namely personal problems. Motivation,
personal problems, language problems and study skills made up just over two-thirds of
the answers. Cultural & ethnic differences and starting level accounted for less than 5%
of the answers. Based on these characteristics, one might conclude that teachers who do
distinguish between normal and at-risk students, do not do so on observable
characteristics like ethnicity.9 Students are identified on the basis of non-observable or hardly
observable characteristics, such as motivation or personal situation.
However, when we look at the dilemmas and problems the teachers mentioned in
the questionnaire, a different picture emerges. Again, many dilemmas and problems
observed by the teachers are related to non-observable characteristics, such as
motivational problems, language problems, a lack of study skills and the cognitive capabilities
of students. However, some of these general problems are considered to be more
present in certain student groups distinguished on the basis of observable characteristics.
Approximately 16% of the dilemmas around student achievement experienced by
teachers can be classified as related to specific groups of students.
9 As already mentioned in the methodology section, the student population at the universities of applied sciences in
which these teachers work is highly diverse, with around 50% of students being of non-Dutch ethnic origin. The
institutes do not register ethnic diversity on the level of studies, so no specific information regarding student diversity can be
given per teacher team.
One problem is the educational background of certain groups of students. Many
teachers feel that students are ill prepared for higher vocational education. This problem
is mainly related to students who do not go directly from secondary education to higher
vocational education, but who first follow a programme in intermediate vocational
education. These students are thought to be ill prepared for studying independently
(selfstudy, without guidance from the teacher) and have trouble with theoretical courses,
even though they can sometimes benefit from their more practical approach in some
courses. Language problems are also more often ascribed to this group. Another
problem concerning student achievement mentioned by many teacher teams concerns the
problematic personal situation of some students. The teachers almost always related this
to non-western students, who are often first-generation students; that is, their parents
have no experience of studying and teachers feel that these parents are less enabled to
support their children. But teachers also mentioned problems with students who, due to
family circumstances and responsibilities, cannot give priority to their study.
Having used the quantitative data to provide a general picture, we now use the
qualitative data to paint a richer picture of the different attitudes of teachers towards diversity.
We do so using the three types of attitudes towards diversity introduced in the
Repudiation of the importance of diversity
The quantitative data show that a large percentage (over 40%) of the teachers did not
make a distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘at risk’ students. Does this mean these teachers
repudiate the influence of diversity on student achievement? The findings from the
qualitative analysis do seem to point to that conclusion. In the group interviews, all
teachers recognised the presence of diversity among students, but many teachers found this
diversity should not be taken into account in day to day teaching. According to these
teachers, the diversity among students did not—or should not—have an influence on
student achievement and the way teachers acted. This attitude of repudiating diversity was
found among teachers in all teams that participated in the research. This is remarkable,
as only teams that were interested in discussing diversity participated in the research; it
seems plausible that in other teams, even more teachers will have this attitude.
When diversity and its influence on student achievement was discussed during the
team interviews, teachers often related the recognition of diversity to loss of quality
(related to educational standards), stigmatisation and discrimination, and the loss of
western values. There was noticeable hesitance to discuss diversity related issues, and
the discussions we had in the teacher teams were often emotionally charged and
sometimes led to tension between the participants. An example comes from one of the team
interviews, when in the last 10 min of a 2 h interview a teacher made the following
statement, only to be immediately corrected by a colleague:
Teacher 1: It is terrible, but when looking at the list of new students, I can see who
will make it and who will not. Just look if the last name is of non-western origin (…)
9 out of 10 of those will either not show up or drop out.
Teacher 2: I think this is something we cannot change (…). We try to make them feel
welcome, I do not feel we are prejudiced.
This hesitance occurred almost exclusively when debating ethnic or cultural
diversity. Differences based on gender or the earlier educational trajectories of students were
easier to discuss, and teachers seemed more willing to change their teaching practice
according to, for instance, the needs of male or female students.
Teachers often repudiate the importance of diversity because they adhere to the ideal
of equality. The content of the curriculum or the style of teaching is non-debatable,
according to the teachers. They argue that it is up to students to master the content, by
using their intelligence and making an effort. The different sets and levels of capabilities
of students starting out in higher education are not recognised by these teachers. They
value the equal worth of students and translate this into the need for equal treatment, or
as one of the teachers put it:
I feel we are discriminating a bit, when we focus too much on the differences between
non-western and Dutch students. I don’t care whether they are non-western or
Dutch (…) I’m not going to treat them differently. You either pay attention [in the
classroom] or you do not. We have our norms and values here, you are here, you will
have to adapt. End of story.
Other teachers did not recognise the influence of diversity on student achievement as
a result of their vision on the role of the teacher. These teachers acknowledged that there
are differences between students, but said that they feel it is not up to them to act upon
those differences. These teachers seemed to have a quite specific and somewhat
traditional ideas about what teaching entails and what the future profession of the students
entails—there is one way to function in that profession, and there is also only one way to
teach this correctly. If students cannot master that way of functioning, they do not
belong in higher education, according to those teachers. Within this group we can again
recognise a meritocratic way of thinking, where the threshold is set at a certain level—
based on the needs of the labour market—and those students who possess the ‘right’
qualities will make it.10
We conclude that a considerable number of teachers repudiate the influence of
diversity on student achievement, because they adhere to a liberal egalitarian/meritocratic
educational ideal. If there is a problem regarding the student achievement of certain
groups of students, they consider it to be the problem of the students, the educational
institution or society at large, not the teachers themselves. According to these teachers,
students who lag behind or drop out do so because they do not have the capabilities to
finish a study in higher education. Many of these teachers advocate stronger selection ‘at
the gate’, that is, they favour admitting only students who meet the ‘necessary’ criteria,
namely the capabilities that are rewarded in the dominant culture in the educational
system and labour market.
Recognising the influence of diversity
The 60% of teachers who made a distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘at risk’ students,
mainly related problems and dilemmas leading to lower student achievement to
three groups: boys, non-western students and students coming from institutions of
10 Although these teachers seemed to view this threshold as quite ‘absolute’, it often remained unclear what the
threshold consisted of and what criteria determined it.
intermediate vocational education. The same picture arises from the group interviews.
All groups are perceived by teachers to have their specific set of problems. The lower
student achievement of boys, for instance, is perceived to be caused by a lack of intrinsic
motivation and planning skills, leading to a low and ineffective study effort. According to
these teachers, boys’ brains are not ready for studying, as opposed to those of girls.
The lower student achievement of boys is often linked to the lower student
achievement of non-western students. Especially non-western boys are perceived to have lower
achievement. The group of non-western students is most often seen to be
underachieving, even though many teachers stressed the need for a broad (i.e. not only an ethnic)
definition of diversity. The non-western students were sometimes perceived as one
group, but more often the teachers differentiated between, for instance, non-western
students of Moroccan or Turkish origin and students from the Netherlands Antilles.
These non-western students are perceived to have many problems, for example
regarding their mastery of the Dutch language and their lack of studying skills. Knowing
how to use and deal with feedback was the most frequently mentioned problem. But the
motivation of this group is also often perceived as low. They are supposedly extrinsically
motivated, leading to an ‘unproductive’ attitude, according to one of the teachers:
These [non-western] students show a different behaviour compared to what we are
used to. They are less direct, do not dress correctly, do not turn in their homework on
time and when confronted with the consequences, they try to negotiate.
The third and last group that teachers distinguished consists of students coming from
institutions of intermediate vocational education. The problems the teachers related to
this group are broadly the same as those related to non-western students. In a number
of interviews, teachers stressed that these groups overlap. Many non-western students
come from intermediate vocational education before moving on to higher vocational
education. Problems related to this group of students, however, are more often linked to
a lack of studying skills and less often to motivational problems.
Understanding the influence of diversity
A minority of the teachers said that they understand the influence of diversity on student
achievement. They did not see diversity as something ‘extra’, but as an intrinsic part of
teaching. According these teachers, a seeming lack of motivation among, for instance,
Dutch-Moroccan male students can be caused by the fact that they do not know how
to study. They feel insecure and, as a result, are indifferent and unmotivated. Moreover,
these teachers did not focus on the problems of certain groups of students, but also
identified the opportunities that a diverse student body has to offer. They did not
automatically presume that minority groups are at a disadvantage. Students are not less motivated
or talented, but possess other talents or can be motivated in different ways. There are, in
short, different ways to develop the capabilities needed to study successfully.
Teachers who understand the influence of diversity were often the ones who stressed
that taking diversity into account is not the same as stigmatising groups, or favouring
certain groups. They said they were aware of cultural differences between groups or
differences in the home situation, without resorting to stereotypes. By taking diversity into
account, teachers argued that students can be given the opportunity to be successful,
using their unique characteristics and talents. This does not lead to a lower educational
quality, as one of the teachers explained:
The level students have to reach remains the same, and all the things we teach them
also remain the same. But [we as teachers] will have to guide people with different
backgrounds to this level in different ways.
Teachers who understand the influence of diversity could be said to use a capabilities
approach. They have insight into the individual capabilities that students have and know
how to develop these capabilities, while keeping in mind the characteristics of groups of
students. These teachers were a minority in all the teacher teams that participated in the
research. This minority can, however, act as a catalyst for increased attention to diversity
among other teachers. As one teacher explained:
My two colleagues are now being asked for their expertise when there is a problem,
for instance regarding certain Moroccan male students. (…) The tendency in the
team to solve these kind of problems on one’s own seems to have lessened.
This was not always the case. It became clear during the interviews that the debate on
diversity was often an ideological one. When other teachers in the team spoke out clearly
against the idea of taking diversity into account, based on their belief that this was
necessary to provide all students with equal opportunities, the debate often became quite
heated, with both parties unwilling to question their own beliefs.11
Teaching practices for diversity
Having gained insight into the attitudes of teachers towards their diverse student
population, we now focus on whether teachers act upon these attitudes in their teaching practice.
For obvious reasons, the group of teachers who did not recognise the influence of
diversity on student achievement, did not use this in their teaching. However, also
teachers who did recognise or understand the influence of diversity, did not always translate
this into their teaching practice. Some of these teachers said that they feel they should
take diversity among students into account, but do not have the didactic or
pedagogical skills to do so. Other teachers said that it is hard to judge what influence aspects of
diversity have, let alone know how to act on the perceived differences among students.
Many teachers mentioned the question of whether to mix groups of students during
assignments, and said that they did not know whether or not this benefits students, or
under what conditions. As they feel they do not have the capacity to deal with diversity
in their teaching practice, they resort to a uniform, often content-driven approach to
Other teachers said that they feel they do not have time to use diversity in their
teaching practice. This can be related to using a differentiated approach in the classroom, but
also for instance to providing extra assistance to students who need it. In most of the
team interviews, teachers emphasised the limits of what they can offer students: ‘We do
not have the possibilities to give the weaker students extra guidance, or to offer different
teaching methods. There is no time for that.’
11 Whether teachers who understand diversity get a chance to act as catalysts and be heard by their colleagues is likely to
be influenced by the internal power relations in the team and the status of the teachers in the group.
This barrier to using diversity is related not only to time, but also to the authority to
make decisions about how to teach. Many teachers said they feel that they have an
increasingly limited say about how they organise their own teaching.12 In this case,
attention to diversity remains fragile and is easily ‘forgotten’ when faced by seemingly
more pressing issues.
Finally, we focus on the teachers that do take diversity into account in their teaching
practice. At the individual level, the attitude of teachers towards diversity can translate
into the didactic and pedagogical practices of teachers. Some teachers who understand
diversity among students emphasised the need for a differentiated approach towards
students. These teachers try to anticipate the diverse range of capabilities of their
students, without resorting to stereotyping regarding certain groups, that is, assuming that
students have certain problems because they belong to a certain ethnic group.
Concerning pedagogy, stimulating social cohesion among students is seen as important by these
teachers. They see a need for students to get to know each other’s backgrounds and
cultures. They deem this important because of the professional context in which the
students will be working in their future careers; for many professions, coping with a diverse
environment is part of the job.13 But the societal need is also stressed: in a society in
which tensions between different groups seem to be increasing, there is a need to
understand the ‘Other’. Some teachers try to achieve this by stimulating students to get to
know each other through either classroom-related or extracurricular activities. Using
role models for different groups of students – namely for groups of non-western
students, as well as for boys or girls—is also seen as important. For these role models to be
present, a diverse teacher team seems a necessity.
Regarding the curriculum, some teachers questioned its dominant (western) frame of
reference, and advocated the need to include different frames in the curriculum. This
was often accompanied by stressing the need for attention in the curriculum to
intercultural communication. It was argued during the interviews that providing different
frames of references has two benefits. First, the presence of different frames provides a
more level playing field for students. A predominantly western frame can, for instance,
put non-western students at a disadvantage because they identify with this frame to a
lesser extent. Second, attention to different frames of reference in the curriculum also
contributes to better qualified professionals in the long run, as the work field is also
becoming more diverse:
I notice that as a teacher, I’m becoming more humble. I wonder whether the way
we train [our students], focused on the white middle-class, really helps Turkish and
Moroccan boys, because they have a different way of working. And I think Dutch
companies will have to adapt to their way of working in the coming 10–15 years. (…)
It would be interesting to see if we could critically look at our frame of reference and
see if we can use other frames.
12 This lack of experienced professional authority or teacher agency was an extensive part of our wider research, and will
be discussed in another paper.
13 This seemed to differ depending on the orientation of the study: teachers in social or medical studies stressed this
aspect more often than their colleagues in technical or economic studies.
However, most teams did not want to make changes in this regard. It often came up
during the interviews, with a small number of teachers being in favour of changing the
curriculum, but most team members opposing it.
A sizeable share (40%) of the teachers participating in the research choose not to make
a distinction between ‘norm’ and ‘at risk’ students. Findings from the group interviews
suggest many of them do so because they repudiate the importance of diversity. They
adhere to a liberal egalitarian/meritocratic educational ideal. As a result, they did not
feel the need to take differences among their students into account in their teaching
practice. Differences in the development of capacities as described by Nussbaum were
not taken into account by those teachers.
A majority of the teachers (60%) did choose to make distinctions between students.
Based on the qualitative data it can be said they recognise the influence of diversity.
However, many of them perceived those groups of students that are different from the
normal students as being in need of assistance. Their shortcomings related to
cognitive and motivational issues need to be remedied. These teachers did not focus on the
potential added value of diversity or the capabilities these students might have that
normal students do not possess. Only a small amount of teachers understands the
influence of diversity. They feel they recognise the capabilities students have and know how
to develop these capabilities, using the individuality of students, but keeping in mind the
characteristics of groups of students.
In most teams we encountered a combination of the three attitudes of teachers
towards diversity. During the discussions we could therefore clearly observe the tension
in teacher teams between the wish to adhere to a liberal egalitarian/meritocratic ideal
of equal opportunities, and the wish to give a diverse student population the means to
study successfully by taking into account the differences in capabilities among students.
Looking at the translation of teachers’ attitudes into teaching practice, it is obvious that
teachers who repudiate the importance of diversity do not take diversity into account
in their teaching practice. However, also teachers who do recognise or understand the
influence of diversity, do not always translate this into their teaching practice. According
to the teachers, this is because of a lack of skills, knowledge or time to do so. If this is not
remedied, it will be hard for teachers to translate their understanding of diversity into
their didactic and pedagogical approaches. This might be one of the reasons why such
a limited number of teachers in the study seemed to effectively use their understanding
of diversity in their teaching practice. Further research on these conditions, however,
seems to be necessary to fully understand their influence on teacher practice. Allowing
teachers to use that understanding is important, as these teachers, although relatively
few in number, could act as catalysts in teacher teams to initiate or strengthen the
attention paid to diversity.
This study provided valuable insights in attitudes of Dutch teachers towards diversity.
There are however some limitations of this study. We look more closely to three
limitations of this study, because we feel they should be taken into account in further research.
First, it is worth noting that we focused on group interviews and discussed teacher
attitudes in these group discussions. Although this provided us with a rich set of data,
the approach used does have its limitations. Discussing a sensitive topic such as
diversity brings with it issues regarding both formal and informal power relations between
teachers in the teams. Some teaches might not have felt ‘save’ enough to express their
opinions openly, others might have stayed away for the same reason. Combining group
interviews with individual interviews (rather than a questionnaire) might help remedy
this limitation in future research.
Second, we discussed teacher attitudes and the translation of these attitudes into
teaching practice. The attitudes and account of their teaching practice teachers
‘presented’ during the group interviews might not always correspond with reality. Future
research might benefit from combining individual and group interviews with
observation of teaching practice.
Third, the study is quite context specific, not only for the Netherlands, but for the
urban areas of the Netherlands. Although more recent work (in progress) of our own
research group and findings from earlier research in other countries, as described in
the theoretical framework, suggest that the issues and dilemmas regarding dealing with
diversity in higher education transcend the Dutch and urban context, we cannot—on the
basis of our data—generalise to other contexts. Further and broader research allowing
for comparisons between these contexts is recommended.
It seems quintessential to stimulate the debate about diversity in teacher teams if the
need for teachers to take diversity into account is acknowledged. Only by discussing
the relevance of diversity with colleagues and learning first-hand from colleagues can
teachers start to recognise and understand the influence that diversity has on student
achievement. But not all discussion or debate leads to the recognition of diversity. It is
possible, as we observed during the team interviews, that teachers become mired in an
ideological debate, in which the rhetorical skills of the participants determine whether
the meritocratic arguments or the arguments based on a capabilities approach are more
convincing. Teachers need to be able to discuss issues regarding diversity on the basis of
correct information about student achievement, something which was often lacking in
the teams we interviewed. Reliable information enables teachers to see which students
underperform, and can consequently hold an informed discussion about both the causes
of and the solutions to the situation. As this is often context-specific information,
teachers and managers should be provided with detailed information by the institution, and
be given the opportunity to decide on possible teaching practices.
Debate or discussion in teacher teams is essential, but as a beginning, not an end in
itself. The debate should be followed by actions—preferably initiated by the teachers
themselves—that enable teachers to translate their understanding of diversity into their
teaching practice. Teachers who are unable to make this translation because they lack
the relevant knowledge should be given access to knowledge and established practices in
dealing with diversity in teaching practice. The examples we described of teachers who
understand diversity and use that understanding accordingly, can act as inspiration, but
it is important to note that there is no ‘one size fits all’ or ‘best’ way for teachers to deal
with diversity. Teachers need time and professional autonomy to come up with ways of
dealing with diversity that do justice to the diversity among students and fit the context
in which the teacher team and students operate. Both time and professional autonomy
therefore seem to be preconditions for making the translation into teaching practice.
DM and MM designed the research project in collaboration; DM conducted the interviews, MM and HB were present at a
number of interviews in an observer role. All three authors analyzed the data, with DM and MM focusing on the
qualitative analysis and HB on the quantitative analysis. DM wrote the first draft of the paper; all three authors added to and
edited subsequent versions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Daniel van Middelkoop and Hafid Ballafkih are both senior researchers at the research group HRM at the University of
Applied Sciences in Amsterdam. They also teach at the UAS Amsterdam in the faculty of Business and Economics. Martha
Meerman is the head and founder of the research group HRM at the University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam. Study
succes and diversity have been research topics pursued by the authors and the research group for a long time.
Availability of data and materials
All materials described in the manuscript, including all raw data, are freely available to any scientist wishing to use them
for non-commercial purposes, as long as participant confidentiality/anonimity is not breached. Data is available throuh
CAREM () or by contacting the main author of the journal (). The need for
maintaining anonimity of both individuals and teachers teams means the data can not be deposited in a publicly
The research has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The utmost care was taken by the
researchers to make ensure this. The anonymity and well-being of the research subjects was respected at all times. At
the time of research, our University of Applied Sciences did not have an ethical committee for research—instead the
research, including its ethical implications, has been discussed and approved prior to the research by the professors of
CAREM—the Center for Applied Research on Economics and Management. More information on CAREM can be found
at http://www.amsterdamuas.com/carem. For more information about the ethical approval, Lucy Kerstens, coordinator
of CAREM, can be contacted:
Altbach PG , Liz L , Reisberg LE ( 2009 ) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference on higher education . Boston College Center for International Higher Education Chestnut Hill, Boston
Andersen ML , Collins PH ( 1995 ) Race, class, and gender: an anthology, 6th edn . Wadsworth, New York
Ashton PT , Webb RB ( 1986 ) Making a difference: teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement . Longman Group United Kingdom , New York
Beerkens-Soo M , Vossensteyn H ( 2009 ) Higher education issues and trends from an international perspective: report prepared for the veerman committee . Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, The Netherlands
Beulens B , Burger J , van den Brakel J ( 2015 ) Predictive inference for non-probability samples: a simulation study . Discussion paper 2015 - 2013 . Heerlen, CBS
Bourdieu P , Passeron JC ( 1990 ) Reproduction in education, society and culture, 2nd edn . Sage, London
Bowles S , Gintis H ( 2002 ) The inheritance of inequality . J Econ Perspect 16 ( 3 ): 3 - 30
Bowles S , Gintis H , Groves MO ( 2009 ) Unequal chances: family background and economic success . Princeton University Press, Princeton
Cabello B , Burstein ND ( 1995 ) Examining teachers' beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms . J Teach Educ 46 ( 4 ): 285 - 294
Carey Kevin ( 2008 ) Graduation rate watch: making minority student success a priority . Education Sector Reports, Washington
CBS ( 2013 ) Statline, Kerncijfers Hoger Onderwijs . Internet: http://www.cbs.nl
CBS ( 2016 ) Statline, Kerncijfers Hoger Onderwijs . Internet: http://www.cbs.nl
Cox T ( 2001 ) Creating the multicultural organization: a strategy for capturing the power of diversity . Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Crul MRJ , Schneider J , Lelie F ( 2013 ) Super-diversity-a new perspective on integration . VU University Press, Amsterdam
Cummings A , Zhou J , Oldham GR ( 1993 ) Demographic differences and employee work outcomes: effects on multiple comparison groups . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the academy of management , Atlanta
de Jong M ( 2014 ) Diversiteit in het hoger onderwijs-over allochtoon en autochtoon . Noordhoff, Houten
Gay G ( 2002 ) Preparing for culturally responsive teaching . J Teach Educ 53 ( 2 ): 106 - 116
Gay G ( 2010 ) Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity . J Teach Educ 61 ( 1-2 ): 143 - 152
Gay G ( 2013 ) Teaching to and through cultural diversity . Curric Inq 43 ( 1 ): 48 - 70
Gorashi H ( 2006 ) Paradoxen van culturele erkenning-management van diversiteit in Nieuw Nederland . Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies 2006 - 4 : 42 - 53
Hattie JAC ( 2009 ) Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Routledge, London
Helms JE ( 1990 ) Black and white racial identity: theory , research, and practice. Greenwood Press, New York
Jackson SE , May KE , Whitney K ( 1995 ) Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision making teams . In: Guzzo RA, Salas E (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, pp 204 - 261
Marzano RJ ( 2003 ) What works in schools: translating research into action, 1st edn . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development, Alexandria
Meerman M , Spierings J , Segers J , Bay N ( 2009 ) Een Ontwikkeling in Kleur. Docenten leren op de werkplek omgaan met het multiculturele beroepsonderwijs Hogeschool van Amsterdam: Economie en Management/HES
Meerman M , Gründemann R , Binkhorst J , Çelik G , Hunkar A , Jong M , Middelkoop D , Vos M , Vries S ( 2013 ) Etnische Diversiteit in Docententeams in Het Hbo . Hogeschool van Amsterdam/Hogeschool Utrecht/Hogeschool Inholland/ Hogeschool Windesheim, Amsterdam
Meeuwisse M ( 2012 ) Being smart is not enough: the role of psychological factors in study success of ethnic minority and ethnic majority students . Erasmus University, Rotterdam
Milliken FJ , Martins LL ( 1996 ) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups . Acad Manag Rev 21 ( 2 ): 402 - 433
Muhammad A ( 2015 ) Overcoming the achievement gap trap: liberating mindsets to effect change . Solution Tree, Bloomington
Nieto S ( 1992 ) Affirming diversity: the socio-political context of multicultural education . Longman, New York
Nussbaum MC ( 2011 ) Creating capabilities . Harvard University Press, Harvard
Pajares MF ( 1992 ) Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct . Rev Educ Res 62 ( 3 ): 307 - 332
Pels D ( 2007 ) De Economie Van De Eer. Een Nieuwe Visie Op Verdienste En Beloning. Ambo, Amsterdam
Roberson QM ( 2006 ) Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations . Group Organ Manag 31 ( 2 ): 212 - 236
Roberson QM (ed) ( 2013 ) Oxford handbook of diversity and work . Oxford University Press, New York
Severiens S ( 2011 ) Studiesucces in De Bachelor: Drie Onderzoeken Naar Factoren Die Studiesucces in De Bachelor Verklaren . Risbo, Rotterdam
Shavit Y , Arum R , Gamoran A ( 2007 ) Stratification in higher education: a comparative study . Stanford University Press, Redwood
Snook I , O'Neill J , Clark J , O'Neill AM , Openshaw R ( 2009 ) Invisible learnings?: a commentary on john hattie's book-'visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement' . N Z J Educ Stud 44 ( 1 ): 93
Snowden M ( 2004 ) Learning communities as transformative pedagogy: centering diversity in introductory sociology . Teach Sociol 32 ( 3 ): 291 - 303
Thompson AG ( 1984 ) The relationship of teachers' conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice . Educ Stud Math 15 ( 2 ): 105 - 127
Thompson CE , Carter RT (eds) ( 1997 ) Racial identity development theory: applications to individual, group and organizations . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
Tsui AS , Egan TD , O'Reilly CA ( 1992 ) Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment . Adm Sci Q 37 : 549 - 579
van den Broek LM ( 2009 ) De Ironie Van Gelijkheid-Over Etnische Diversiteit Op De Werkvloer . Ridderprint, Tilburg
van Middelkoop D , Meerman M ( 2014 ) Studiesucces En Diversiteit-En Wat HBO Docenten Daarmee Te Maken Hebben. HvA-CAREM , Amsterdam
van Middelkoop D , Meerman M ( 2015 ) Coping with international migration and diversity-how do teacher teams in dutch higher vocational education relate to their diverse student population? In how global migration changes the workforce equation . Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge
Verhaeghe P ( 2011 ) De Effecten Van Een Neoliberale Meritocratie Op Identiteit En Interpersoonlijke Verhoudingen . Oikos 56 ( 1 ): 4 - 22
Vouyoukas CA ( 2002 ) Teachers' attitudes towards educational equality and the relationship between these attitudes and their classroom behaviour: a Greek study . Institute of Education , University of London, London
Waslander S ( 2006 ) Het Onderwijs: Over Kansen En Kiezen . In: de Beer P , van der Meer J , Pekelharing P (eds) Gelijk! Over De Noodzakelijke Terugkeer Van Een Klassiek Ideaal . van Gennip/De Balie, Amsterdam
Wolff RP ( 2013 ) Presteren Op Vreemde Bodem: Een Onderzoek Naar Sociale Hulpbronnen En De Leeromgeving Als Studiesuccesfactoren Voor Niet-Westerse Allochtone Studenten in Het Nederlandse Hoger Onderwijs ( 1997 - 2010 ). Risbo, Rotterdam
Yang Y , Montgomery D ( 2013 ) Gaps or bridges in multicultural teacher education: a Q study of attitudes toward student diversity . Teach Teach Educ 30 : 27 - 37
Zepke N , Leach L ( 2007 ) Improving student outcomes in higher education: New Zealand teachers' views on teaching students from diverse backgrounds . Teach High Educ 12 ( 5-6 ): 655 - 668
Zijlstra W , Hendril A , Ahlam A , Mary TW ( 2013 ) Generiek is Divers-Sturen Op Studiesucces in Een Grootstedelijke Context Internet : http://universonline.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RapportG5evaluatie2013.pdf