School inclusion is currently one of the main guidelines for European and international educational policy-making. However, inclusion is a complex process for pupils with behavioral difficulties (Coleman, Webber, & Algozzine, 2008). Even though many actors take part in the decision of placing these pupils in the regular classroom or in a special education setting, teachers have a great influence in the decisional process (UNESCO, 2009). Yet, most research results show the predominance of teachers’ negative perceptions and attitudes with regard to pupils with behavioral problems (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Coleman et al., 2008). Indeed, the inclusion of these pupils may entail negative consequences for teachers. For instance, deviant behavior might increase stress levels and thus represent a risk factor for teacher burnout  (Kokkinos, 2007). The exclusion of these pupils from the class may then be understood as a situation wherein teachers protect themselves from stressful situations (Doudin, Curchod-Ruedi, & Baumberger, 2009). Consequently, these pupils are often excluded from the regular classroom, which may result in the exacerbation of their academic and social difficulties (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008).

Nevertheless, some teachers are known to have greater tolerance for disruptive behavior and to be more favorable to the inclusion of these pupils than others (Archambault & Chouinard, 2009). What elements influence these tendencies? It has been shown that teachers apprehend behavior differently depending on the nature of their attitudes (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002), their attributional style (Dutton Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Smith Collins, 2009; Weiner, 2003), their emotion-regulation abilities (Doudin, Curchod-Ruedi, Meylan, & Moreau, 2011; Poulou & Norwich, 2002), their self-efficacy (Almog & Shechtman, 2007) and their burnout risk (Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005; McCarthy, Lambert, O’Donnell, & Melendres, 2009).  Pupil’s characteristics are also known to have an influence on the way the behavior is going to be appraised (Doudin et al., 2011). Hence, the way in which teachers apprehend their pupils’ behavior is likely to influence their practice and their educational strategies (Dutton Tillery et al., 2009; Soles, Bloom, Heath, & Karagiannakis, 2008), including the decision to exclude them from their classroom.

We may also hypothesize that teachers’ education and experience are likely to modify these perceptions over time. With the aim of understanding the elements that may influence the tendencies to include or to exclude a pupil with behavioral problems, our study focuses on student teachers’ and the impact that teacher education may have on these tendencies. Our results will hopefully provide a better understanding of the processes influencing these pupils’ schooling and may have implications for teacher education.

In this paper, we present the results of the first part of our study. First-year student teachers’ tendencies to include or to exclude a fictitious pupil are analyzed in the light of the above-mentioned characteristics. As first-year students are likely to possess a background based on naïve representations about their job, it seems interesting to study these representations before being exposed to teacher education. 

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration / inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. Bradley, R., Doolittle, J., & Bartolotta, R. (2008). Building on the Data and Adding to the Discussion: The Experiences and Outcomes of Students with Emotional Disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(1), 4–23. Coleman, M., Webber, J., & Algozzine, B. (2008). Inclusion and Students with Emotional / Behavioral Disorders. Special Services in the Schools, 15(1-2), 25–47. Doudin, P.-A., Curchod-Ruedi, D., & Baumberger, B. (2009). Inclure ou exclure des élèves en difficulté : quelles conséquences pour les enseignantes et les enseignants ? Formation et Pratiques D’enseignement En Questions, 9, 11–31. Doudin, P.-A., Curchod-Ruedi, D., Meylan, N., & Moreau, J. (2011). Troubles internalisées et externalisés de l’élève et risque de manque d'équité à l'école. In D. Curchod-Ruedi, P.-A. Doudin, L. Lafortune, & N. Lafranchise (Eds.), La santé psychosociale des élèves (pp. 14–30). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Dutton Tillery, A., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Smith Collins, A. (2009). General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Behavior Management and Intervention Strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 86–102. Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher Efficacy in Classroom Management and Discipline. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 755–765. Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 79–89. MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46–52. Poulou, M., & Norwich, B. (2002). Cognitive, Emotional and Behavioural Responses to Students with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: A model of decision-making. British Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 111–138. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, a. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, a. B. (2002). Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481. Soles, T., Bloom, E. L., Heath, N. L., & Karagiannakis, A. (2008). An exploration of teachers’ current perceptions of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 13(4), 275–290. Weiner, B. (2003). The classroom as a courtroom. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 3–15.