Education in Morocco: High Territorial Disparities and Severe Inequalities Constituting a Roadblock for Sustainable Development and Human Development

This article is part of my doctoral study, we explore the nature and diversity of teaching practices implemented by Haitian teachers in primary and secondary education, when they welcome students with special educational needs. Based on data collected from in situ observations of the teaching practices of 15 teachers from different sectors. The study reveals a predominance of so-called “traditional” teaching methods, characterized by a teacher-centered approach. These practices mainly involve particular teaching techniques where the teacher plays a leading role, often limiting student interaction. However, despite this predominance, observations also show that after training, some teachers mobilize a certain variety in teaching practices, demonstrating adaptations and relative flexibility on the part of some of them according to the specific needs of their students.

Inclusive education poses new challenges, including changes in teachers’ practices to meet curriculum requirements while managing an increasing diversity of students within their classes [1]. The teaching method therefore becomes central to the success of inclusive education (Unesco, 2009). Many factors influence this inclusive approach, such as taking diversity into account, group management, and space organization. Previous research has explored the issues encountered by teachers in this context, including the work of Desinor [2], which highlights the challenges of the everyday professional life of the ordinary teacher. Doudin and Lafortune [3] emphasize that a keyway to support teachers in ordinary classes is to offer them adequate training. This choice to offer training responds to a crucial need for transformation and support. Indeed, years of experience in the Haitian education system show that teachers experience significant difficulties in welcoming and supervising these students. These difficulties are accentuated by the limited number of teachers and their lack of specific training, which hinders their ability to meet the diverse needs of BEP students.

In Haiti, this situation has serious consequences, including a high rate of repeating, wastage, and school dropout [4]. Inspired by the work of Cèbe and Goigoux (2018), following observations, we chose to initiate a training program for teachers at the primary and secondary levels who welcome special educational needs. This training aims to help them better understand the challenges their students face and to provide them with the skills to adopt new teaching methods. In short, this training represents an essential contribution to encouraging teachers to implement inclusive and adapted practices, thus meeting the specific needs of each student. This training focuses, on the one hand, on the notion of disability in general, and on the other hand, on professional gestures and adaptations to be mobilized to promote the accessibility of course content.

For Altet [5], teaching practices can be studied with the aim of “ acting and transforming them, to analyze them and train teachers, to evaluate them and respond to social demand or to understand how they work and produce knowledge and theoretical models.” Thirion [6] emphasizes that in the field of education, the aims of action can be grouped around two trends, one situating action as change as in the framework of this research for example of a problematic situation experienced by teachers in their class, and on the other hand as a social change. This second phase of our research falls within a research-action framework. Thus, this research aims to reflect on the implementation of innovative actions and to produce documents that can constitute a contribution for the teacher, both on the disciplinary level and for his pedagogical practice (ibid., p.10).

Teacher practice: A key point for the success of all students

Teachers’ classroom practices are practically at the heart of any study of teaching and learning [7]. Teaching practice can be defined as “actions, interactions and transactions in a situation” Altet [8]. It is a person’s unique way of doing things, their real, specific way of carrying out a professional activity: teaching” (ibid., p.86). For Clanet [7], teaching practice refers to all the activities undertaken or deployed by a teacher as part of their professional activities. On the other hand, Altet [9] defines teaching practices as “what teachers do in the classroom when they are in the presence of students”. For the author, teaching practice is not limited to teaching-learning practices or face-to-face teaching in the classroom, but also refers to other practices such as: “practices of preparing a course, practices of presenting a course (oral, audio-visual, multimedia), practices of material organization of the classroom, practices of maintaining order in the classroom, practices of supervising students’ work, assessment practices, practices of working in a teaching team, practices of meetings with parents of students” (ibid.).

Teaching practices: A multidimensional concept

According to OECD (2018, p.54) it would be difficult for many to identify exactly the exact factors that make teaching good or bad. Even if the quality of teaching is often difficult to measure, but “it can be deduced, based on observable indicators, such as the demonstration of an improvement in motivation or student learning gains, the implementation of quality processes or the perception of teacher self-efficacy”. In short, we retain that teaching practices are of multiple dimensions depending on the context in which they are placed [10]. They refer to multiple actions that teachers mobilize outside and, in their classroom, to enable them to jointly manage student learning and class management [11]. In this regard, Altet [9] speaks to us of multiple dimensions of teaching practice: - a main finalized, instrumental dimension: the learning of students and their socialization; - a technical dimension, the specific knowhow and professional gestures of the teacher; - an interactive, relational dimension: interactive human profession, linked to interactions with students and other actors mediated by language, communication, exchanges; - a contextualized, situated dimension, linked to the situation, to the organizational structure; - a temporal dimension, articulated to the evolution of the process; - a cognitive but also affective, emotional dimension, which takes into account the involvement of the actors, their motivation, their personality; - a psychosocial dimension linked to the nature of work in a human society.

According to Altet and Vinatier (2008, p.12) these “multiple dimensions, epistemic, pedagogical, didactic, psychological and social which the teaching practice, interact with each other to allow the teacher to adapt to the professional situation and to jointly manage the learning of the students and the conduct of the class. In the framework of this research, we are attached to explore more particularly the dimension interested in the technical dimension, the specific know-how and professional gestures of the teacher.

Inclusive education: What about teachers’ teaching practices?

Inclusive education involves a “paradigmatic shift” where changes in teaching practices are important to promote this inclusion in order to help students overcome the difficulties that hinder their learning [12,13]. This change offers the possibility of rethinking the school by implementing academic success mechanisms in the sense that the lessons offered to students correspond to their needs [12]. In this specific case, the teacher will play an important role in achieving this objective. Pelgrims and Perez [14] emphasize that in terms of inclusion, the role of teachers is to implement differentiated teaching practices while using diversity as a lever for learning that benefits the entire class. These teaching practices, in addition to being adjusted, must also be able to compensate for the student’s disability [15]. Thus, “pedagogical practice” is the set of actions implemented by the teacher during lessons, more or less consciously, with a view to making students acquire knowledge [10]. These are the activities that the teacher mobilizes, they aim at “the development by the learner of specific skills and the acquisition of knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills defined by the study programs “ These activities are carried out through teaching methods and didactic tools, the choice and nature of which depend on the teacher [15]. Silva [16] for his part describes pedagogical practice as the union of theory and practice in the exercise of teaching and the understanding of knowledge, in pedagogical action. These practices involve the entire educational process and all the tools that a teacher mobilizes to achieve their objective.

Thus, rethinking your course using an inclusive approach means diversifying your teaching and learning methods, varying your assessment strategies, revisiting your course site, or adapting your teaching, while respecting the pedagogical intentions of the course and without reducing the level of requirement. Bergeron and his colleagues [1] refer to “instructional design” which refers to the implementation of various teaching-learning activities aimed at achieving goals. These activities vary according to “the diversification of audiences and teaching contexts, emergence of a demand for social participation” [17]. Hence, it is therefore a question of reflecting on teaching in order to offer support likely to support learners according to their needs (ibid., p.96).

Inclusive education therefore invites us to see school from another angle. It requires taking into account the particularities and learning difficulties of each student [12]. Thus, inclusive education refers to a key strategy for achieving education that meets the needs of everyone. This openness concerns all students, especially those in a specific situation or who experience special needs that require adaptation, adjustments to the schooling method or the school environment. From then on, it is understood that each learner being unique, schools and the teaching-learning process must be structured so that each student receives an education adapted to their personal characteristics and their particular needs [18].

Training to support teachers

In the context of an inclusive school, the teacher is in a transitional stage from his traditional role designed on the transmission of knowledge to that of a teacher who is called upon to become a mediator, a support worker, etc. This is a role that requires, to a certain extent, the necessary diversity in the teacher to respond to the particularities of the students and to establish in his class a teaching/learning environment favorable to all. It must be admitted that some teachers experience difficulties in welcoming students with a special educational need into their class (Ibid.). New challenges also for teacher training: “ that of preparing and supporting teachers capable of supporting students in the actualization of their own learning potential “ (op. cit., p.3). During their training, teachers must acquire the necessary knowledge to effectively meet the different needs of all students. For example, a teacher who, from his initial training, had not received all the concepts and who receives a student with a particular need in his class will need the pedagogical approaches to implement to respond to the diversity of his class. With this in mind, for the teacher to be able to properly carry out his daily tasks, it is necessary to adapt or strengthen training programs in relation to new contexts in order to improve the quality of learning for all students. In this sense, authors propose training teachers [17] UNESCO (2020). Brun and his colleagues (2020 cited in Dintrich et al., 2022, p. 4) emphasize the importance of taking better consideration of the characteristics of these training courses in terms of content and duration, which have an impact on the evolution of teachers’ professional actions in the classroom.

For teachers to meet these requirements, this issue should be addressed from the ground up. Achieving this goal requires the implementation of training for teachers [17]. Bucheton, (2015) emphasizes that the profession should be rebuilt, developed, and even radically changed in teaching gestures and postures, which requires a profound rethink of training. In this regard, UNESCO (2020) suggests that, in addition to implementing training for teachers, it would also be necessary to “ create professional learning opportunities aimed at dispelling preconceived ideas that some students are bad or incapable of learning, or even incompetent “ (ibid., p.1). Many teachers often mention their lack of training, and they call for training and other specific support that other partners can provide to help them better accomplish their tasks [19]. For these authors, adequate training of stakeholders is one of the factors for the success of school inclusion in regular classes [20]. In addition, the quality of teaching and the mobilization of adjustments require a questioning of practices in order to help school stakeholders promote the learning of all students [21]. Seen from this angle, teacher training is of great importance; it is considered a priority for welcoming these students with special educational needs in order to support inclusive practices [3,22]. It is therefore important to offer teachers adequate support by facilitating their access to continuing education, educational resources and by promoting the mobilization of inclusive strategies in their class (Pumpian, 1999) [21].

In the context of this research, we opt for action-researchtraining. Indeed, Catroux (2002, p.9) defines action research as a process intended to provide all participants in the educational scene, whether students, teachers, or other educational actors, with the means to improve their practices thanks to their experiences informed and nourished by the theoretical knowledge in progress. It also makes it possible to bring about beneficial changes contributing to the professional development of a group of people who are part of a project [22].

We conducted observation sessions, this involves firstly, a pretest, the idea is to observe the initial stage of our fieldwork which gave us an idea of the methods and facilitators used by teachers to promote access to educational content. We assume that supporting teachers through training is also important. Secondly, we proceed to carry out training for these teachers, our wish is indeed, in the long term, to contribute to the improvement of teaching in the context of welcoming a student with a particular need. Then, we proceed to a post-test after the training. The idea is to assess whether there is a change in relation to the actions carried out. This assessment makes it possible to measure the evolution of teachers’ practices and the effectiveness of individual and collective actions. This research is part of a goal of “acting on practices” [24]. This aim is based on the principle “ act to know, know to act “. The approach to practices can take several forms within the framework of action research (Ibid.). This form of research focuses on a problem encountered by actors and attempts to resolve it in collaboration, through the implementation of a system. Thus, within the framework of this action research we propose a training system for teachers welcoming students with special needs.

An observation grid comprising variables in several modalities in terms of action carried out by teachers in a classroom situation was constructed. It allowed us to focus our observation on the key elements of the research. This step allowed us to draw up a list of practices used by teachers. These observations carried out in the classes aim to answer our initial question which is to “ check whether teachers adapt to the presence of students with disabilities in their classes”. This activity allowed us to observe professional gestures as well as the adaptations that teachers use to implement their teaching activity with students with special educational needs.

Presentation of teachers’ teaching practices

The organization of the course

One of the practices we looked at is how the teacher organizes his or her lesson.

Table 1:

Among the 15 teachers, there are 6 who presented the objective at the first observation session, or 40% while 11 teachers, or 73% at the second. Teachers who summarize at the first session, the number is less significant compared to the second observation. Indeed, in the first session, 5 teachers summarize, or 33.33% and in the second session, 8 or 53.33%. A work plan is essential, it allows the teacher to better organize the contents of his course, to better structure his intervention. The results show very few teachers use a work plan for the first, or a number of 4 teachers which represents only 26.67%. In the second observation session, a fairly significant increase in terms of numbers was noted where it went from 9, or 60%. On the other hand, for the management of timetables, the teachers have mostly opted for this practice. For the first session, 9 teachers, or 60%, applied it while in the second 12, or 80%. This observation in relation to the management of the timetable can probably be explained by the fact that the class hours are most often scheduled for one or two hours of time. In most cases, the next teacher is already present to take over.

The use of materials by the teacher

In the pedagogical aspect, we are particularly interested in knowing how teachers organize their lessons, especially in a classroom situation. Does the teacher use educational sheets that are adapted to the needs of the students they are teaching? Does the teacher have the supports and teaching materials for these students to learn? In the observation grid, sections have been inserted to identify the materials used by teachers. How few teachers use an educational sheet or a screen, for example. In short, the results show that almost all teachers only have a board and chalk as materials or tools in their classroom. On the other hand, teachers do not have teaching and learning materials adapted to the diverse needs of learners with special needs. However, these materials could provide educational assistance adapted to the difficulties encountered by the student. However, it should be noted that in two of the observed rooms, three students with visual impairments recorded their lessons using a tape recorder.

Interactions between teacher and student

Many studies have focused on teacher-student interactions that are part of the broader field of interpersonal relationships (Plutchick 1997 cited in Genoud, 2003). As part of this research, we wanted to verify, at the time of teaching, the teacher/student interaction. If so, how often do they make their interventions? To note the frequency , at the grid level we have a scale ranging from (0 to 10) which allows us to categorize the frequencies as follows: 0 (no interactions), 1 to 3 (rarely), 3 to 6 (from time to time), 6 to 10 (often). These interactions can be of several types: exchanges on a task, encouragement, individual or group questions to encourage the participation of all or the student with special needs, to test the knowledge or understanding of the students.

Table 2: Distribution of the number of teachers according to the frequency of interactions with students for the pre- and post-test (N = 15).

Referring to this table, we noted for example, in observation 1 on any task, 9 teachers out of 15 did not interact with their students and in the second observation the number decreased and went to 6 teachers. For encouragement, observation 1, 7 and 3 in the second observation did not encourage their students despite the involvement of these last teachers. For the most part, they let the student in difficulty figure it out according to their understanding. Furthermore, sometimes, we see that these students get help from peers (other students in the class), 5 teachers did it rarely, 2 from time to time and 4 very often. For the series of questions whether individual towards the student with special needs: 7 out of 15 practically did not question the students at any time whether they were students with difficulties or those not encountering any difficulty, even if only to know if they understood or to test their understanding. On this point, at the time of the teaching-learning situation, we have listed two profiles of teachers: i) a category that does not pay too much attention to its learners; ii) a second category that is not too numerous but has a characteristic that can be significant, this small group gives a lot of attention to students in difficulty. We have also been able to observe other postures in this group of teachers in addition to being the master, the facilitator. Indeed, some of these teachers play a role of “baby-sitter” to the point of ignoring the presence of other students in the class. This category of teachers practically, during the entire session, they hardly let go of these students.

In light of this table above, the results show very few teachers have systematically interacted with students, especially those with difficulties. We also found teachers who reprimand each time. We found that in general students participate very little in their own learning process. A fairly important finding, given that exchanges often go from the teacher to the students, and it is very difficult to see the opposite. In most cases, the interactive space is dominated by teachers. On the other hand, it was found that there are also teachers who make great efforts to stimulate interactions within their class.

Educational adaptations

Regarding teachers’ practices, in the context of this research we are particularly interested in the actions of teachers in teachinglearning situations, but a focus was placed on professional gestures, the adaptations that teachers mobilize to make their educational content accessible. We listed other professional gestures among teachers, aimed at students with difficulties and other students. In order to categorize the nature of educational adaptations, all statements were taken into account, drawing inspiration from the typology of Gombert and his colleagues [25]. We listed several proposals made from an analysis allowing us to construct a category of three main adaptations: Adaptations of instructions; Encourages peer help (towards the student in difficulty); Teacher guidance.

Table 3:

This table allows us to observe practices relating to pedagogical adaptations, the number of teachers having at least mobilized one pedagogical adaptation in a classroom situation. Referring to the table, let us take as an example one of the headings, the adaptation of instructions: it is a question of reformulating, verbalizing as much as possible to ensure the students’ understanding. For observation 1, we note that 2 of the teachers or 13.33% adapted their instructions and observation 2 against 13 or 86.66% who did not demonstrate in relation to this type of adaptation. In the second observation for these same section 8 teachers or 53.3% adapted their instructions well and 7 or a percentage of 46.7% did not implement this type of adaptation. For peer support, it is about setting up tutoring, mobilizing peer support. For observation 1, this type of adaptation, 33% of the 15 teachers encouraged mutual support between students, especially for students in difficulty, while in the second observation the number increased to 46.7%. Teachers also sometimes provided guidance to students in difficulty and other students in the class. The table shows that 8 teachers out of 15 provided guidance in the first observation and in the second observation 12 of them mobilized guidance, i.e. a percentage of 80% of teachers.

In most cases, we have found that many teachers nevertheless try to adapt their teaching to the situation of the student in difficulty, this particularly concerns the level of difficulty of the students. Also, a small group of teachers pay particular attention to students with disabilities: they reformulate, they guide, they check that the instructions have been understood. Thus, it is worth noting some interesting approaches by some teachers such as the designation of peers within the class, placed next to the students in difficulty to “form a group / team with them” in order to provide them with help. Teachers have also motivated students in difficulty by encouraging them to participate more in class activities.

With reference to the definition of teaching practices [8,10,25], we have selected a few practices that particularly refer to methods and means that teachers use in classroom situations. Emphasis has been placed on the teaching environment. Indeed, in terms of inclusive education, it is very important to create an accessible and inclusive learning environment for all students. Another point to take into account concerns the teaching adaptations that they implement to make their educational content accessible. The idea is to know: Does the teacher have the teaching materials? What teaching techniques? What adaptations? Indeed, these techniques/ adaptations constitute the foundation for the implementation of a universal design guaranteeing equality for all students.

The results presented above show that teaching practices are not always present, from one teacher to another, they use different practices. For example, referring to the table presenting the practices relating to teaching adaptations during the first session, the teachers mobilized professional gestures. While during the second session, they will be able to implement more or less other different professional gestures. The frequencies seem quite significant to us where we noted a certain evolution compared to the first session if we take for example, for the section “exchanges on a task” we observe 4 of the 15 teachers did not have any interactions properly speaking with the students, 5 of them did it rarely, 2 from time to time and 4 very often. On the other hand, the second observation for this same section, 3 teachers, did it rarely, 3 teachers from time to time and 5 teachers did it very often. On the one hand, we see that these figures vary, and on the other hand, teachers used different practices during each observation, that is, they did not always use the same practice. These results suggest that practices may be subject to variations from one session to another.

If we refer to the table presenting the frequencies relating to the pedagogical adaptations, it is practically observed that there is variability between the teachers’ practices. In addition, teachers can sometimes use certain gestures and sometimes these same teachers in a situation do not implement these same gestures. For example, with regard to the adaptations of the instructions in the first session, 4 of the group adapted the instructions and the other 11 teachers did not use these gestures. And if we take the category of teachers who are interested in reformulation, contrary to the previous gestures, the number can increase or decrease. For example, for the adaptation of the instructions which refers to the teacher’s reflections on the work instructions or at least the instructions which are taken by the teachers and also those which are understood by the students, during the hours of observations we did not record this back and forth between teachers and students. In most cases we have found that the interactions are always in the same direction, or it is the teacher who takes all the initiatives.

Indeed, we did not really trace systematic interactivity among the majority of students. For example, the idea where students can also present their own ideas during a class discussion was not observed. During the observations, a few rare students had to ask their teacher questions either to clarify something or to have more understanding on a given task. Sometimes, we observed some groupings or collaboration on a task with their classmates. The results show that largely the teaching is based on lectures, the teacher presents the lesson, asks questions and teaches the content to the students. In this case we are on a “ magistrocentric “ form where the teaching is centered on the “master”, who teaches [23,26]. In this research, teachers always have a note to copy on the board. During class time, the majority of teachers were facing the board to copy their note and the students were fixed to the teacher’s back. Some teachers ask students to repeat in order to memorize by heart, lesson recitations were also highlighted. If we consider this centrality on the teacher, the inactivity among students, this form of teaching refers to the traditional system in which the teacher makes presentations, he dispenses his knowledge and the students in turn listen and take notes. The results show that teachers even if they have evolved in their way of doing things, but they remain very welded to traditional methods.

According to UNICEF (2019), Haitian teachers use the traditional method where students are considered recipients of messages. Through this method, students remain frozen and hardly participate. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that this love for the recipe of traditional methods dates back a long time [27]. According to the author, Haitian teachers use this method as if a doctor should always give the same prescriptions to all patients without needing to examine them and subject them to tests appropriate to their case. For Edmé [28], depending on the operating modes of the system, the student in Haitian primary school is unable to experiment or apply the knowledge learned at school. Indeed, “The memorization of lessons not understood, or even not assimilated, remains at the heart of the learning method” (p. 21). To this day, “a majority of teachers continue to do what they do best: repeating concepts” (p.22). Similarly, Bru [24] describes traditional methods as a transmission process where the teacher transmits his teaching directly while the learner listens attentively to the teacher “ follow, imitate, repeat and apply “ [29]. An important point to note is that we are talking about very specific learners who have particular needs that require methods adapted to their needs. Some authors have even indicated that certain approaches used by teachers exclude any pleasure in learning for some students.

Another important point in the description of teachers’ practices is the fact that in the two sessions we had with these same teachers, they did not let go, they were always in lecture mode. Where did this question come from: how can this method used by these teachers guarantee that students with difficulties are taken into account? Knowing that the traditional method is lecture-based, it is based on the teacher’s teaching, in particular it is based on the oral transmission of the teacher to a group of students. With this method, student participation is minimal for the most part; the student will have to ask questions, in addition, their assessments are sanctioned by means of written tests/exams that will take into account their ability to memorize the content. But what about the fate of students with special needs welcomed in these rooms? Can teachers actually take into account the specific needs of these students through this method? Of course, observation alone is not enough to account for all the practices actually used by teachers, as Duguet [10] pointed out. But the fact remains that teachers have not opted for other methods that make students actors in their learning. In short, the results show that the majority of teachers rely on lectures and use practices from traditional methods that correspond to the same figures as those described by several authors including [10,30].

What is the effect of training?

Furthermore, in the context of this research, the impact of training can be seen from several angles. We are particularly interested in the effect of the practices actually implemented by teachers during class hours, as Clanet [30] points out. At the end of the training, a second observation session was implemented with the teachers in our research. The aim is to see if there is an evolution in practices after the training compared to the initial stage. How many teachers converge towards the idea of mobilizing teaching practices that take into account the specific needs of students? Also, it was important for us to know in the second post-test to verify whether the techniques proposed in the training in terms of key points, role-playing, approaches and types of teaching adaptations, above all, were those that are actually used by teachers. With regard to the practices used by teachers, three categories were identified for the majority of sessions: i) course organization, ii) interactions between teacher-students, iii) pedagogical adaptations.

The results show that there is an evolution in terms of change, that is, the number of teachers who have at least mobilized certain practices has increased considerably after the training. Indeed, there is a trend where there are more teachers who converge towards this idea of mobilizing professional gestures to better adapt the contents or their ways of doing things in class. What we understood from this process is that the post-training observation sessions were considered by the teachers as a practical exercise; sometimes we noticed that they reproduce the same practices but with different strategies. For some of them, they considered the training as an exercise that requires much more training before getting there.

It is interesting to note that following the training, the teachers have evolved. During the second session, they mobilize adaptation gestures more fluidly with their students in difficulty. In this regard, it is no less than giving time to some teachers to better understand the very notion of inclusive education and even its anchors. The training seems to have borne fruit, to the point of certain testimonies which underline an awareness which is translated into practices, visible results for the different sections in the second observation. By seeing what has been implemented by some teachers in their classes with what was seen in training, we can confirm that this training has indeed had effects on teachers’ practices.

The implementation of inclusive educational practices, to meet the specific needs of students with disabilities in inclusion, constitutes a means to enable students to achieve their learning objectives. According to Beaudouin [1], the implementation of these practices allows all learners to show their full potential. The results of this research show that the adaptations made by teachers do not always meet the requirements of a diagnosis. As several teachers indicated, “ the student arrived in class, and we were not told anything about his disability “. Most teachers say, “ we try to adapt “. By addressing this issue through the analysis of the teacher’s work, our research shows how some teachers, despite everything, still adapt. The results show that teachers used professional gestures and sometimes personal techniques to respond to the heterogeneity of their classes. Some teachers, despite their shortcomings, still played their part, they use specific techniques allowing them to keep their class working.

Through the results, we were not able to examine the effect of each practice observed in relation to teacher training or the impact of these practices on the success of these students. However, the results provide interesting avenues for reflection. The results highlight this conversion among teachers, this awareness that is reflected in their way of doing things compared to the initial stage. They show the desire to further mobilize teaching practices that take into account certain specificities of students with special educational needs.

The results of this research have shown that training influences certain teaching practices of teachers, however, it should be noted that the way in which the link between training and observed practices is understood does not allow us to determine the exact dimensions as well as which of these practices have more impact on student learning. These results also need to be further explored, since the method of analysis used does not allow us to take into account all aspects, the correlations between training and teachers’ teaching practices [31,32].

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Bergeron L, Rousseau N, Leclerc M (2011) Universal pedagogy: in heart of planning for school inclusion. Education and Francophonie 39(2): 87–104.
2. Amente Desinor (2023) The teaching practices of teachers when welcoming a student with special educational needs: a study among teachers in France and Haiti. Iris J of Edu & Res 1(4): 2023.
3. Doudin PA, Lafortune L (2006) Intervening with students with special needs Individuals. Quebec: PUQ.
4. Ministry of Planning and External Cooperation, Strategic Development Plan Haiti, an emerging country in 2030, Port-au-Prince, May 2012.
5. Altet M (1994) The university lecture: a scientific-pedagogical discourse without teaching-learning articulation. Research & Training. What pedagogical training for higher education teachers? 15: 35-44.
6. Thirion AM (1980) Current trends in action research. Critical review, Thesis of PhD in Educational Sciences, University of Liège 1979-1980: 239.
7. Clanet J (2012) Introduction. Teaching practices. What theoretical anchors to better understand what a teacher does in class? In Joël Clanet (ed.), Teaching practices: What theoretical anchors for what research?. Paris: L'Harmattan pp. 7-14.
8. Altet M (2002) A research approach on teaching practice: analysis plural. French Review of Pedagogy 138: 85-93.
9. Altet Margerite (2003) Characterize, explain, and understand teaching practices to also contribute to their evaluation. In: Les dossiers des sciences de l'éducation. On the effectiveness of teaching practices? 10: 31- 43.
10. Duguet A (2014) Teaching practices in the first year of university: description and analysis of their implications on students' education. [PhD thesis, University of Burgundy].
11. Safourcade S (2011) Teaching practices in middle school. Research & Educations pp. 109-125.
12. Thomazet S (2008) Integration has its limits, but not inclusive schools! Review of educational sciences 34(1): 123-139.
13. Belmont B, Vérillon A (2003) Diversity and disability at school. Paris: CTNERHI.
14. Pelgrims G, Bauquis C (2016) From “BEP students” to the notion of specific pedagogical and didactic needs for learning knowledge in the classroom ordinary. In G Pelgrims, Perez JM (ed.). The so-called inclusive school?
15. Mache BD (2021) Teachers' teaching practices and student outcomes in a continuing education system based on the inverted classroom. [Doctoral thesis, University of Education. CY Cergy Paris University]. ‌NNT: 2021CYUN1048‌.
16. Silva, PA da (2006) Pedagogical practice of teachers. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Nucleo do Conhecimento 2(6): 117-125.
17. Malet R, Bian C (2020) Training inclusive teachers. Perspectives international comparatists. Thematic file of the Spirale review 2(65).
18. Ferguson D, Desjarlais A, Meyer G (2000) Improving Education: The Promise of Inclusive Schooling.
19. Gash H, Gardia Gonzalez M, Pires M, Rault C (2000) Attitudes towards Down Syndrome, a national comparative study: France, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. Irish Journal of Psychology 21(3-4): 203-214.
20. Doré R, Wagner S, Brunet JP, Bélanger N (1998) School integration of students with disabilities in the provinces and territories of Canada. In Y Lenoir, W Hunter, D Hodgkinson, P de Broucker, A Dolbec (eds.), A pan-Canadian program of research in education. Ottawa: Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) pp. 233-260.
21. Rousseau N, Prud'homme L (2010) It's my school too, Characteristics essentials of inclusive schooling. In N. Rousseau (ed.), The pedagogy of school inclusion, avenues of action for learning together. Quebec: University of Quebec Press pp. 7-46.
22. Blanc P (2011) Schooling of disabled children. Paris: Report to the President of the republic.
23. Prud'homme L, Vienneau R, Ramel S, Rousseau N (2011) The legitimacy of Diversity in education: reflection on inclusion. Education and Francophonie 39(2): 6–22.
24. Bru M (2006) Methods in pedagogy. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
25. Feuilladieu S, Gombert A, Faure Brac (2008) Impact of a student's schooling disabled in ordinary classes on teachers' teaching practices. Proceedings from the conference What school does to individuals. Nantes, France.
26. Frenay M (2006) Two visions of the role of the teacher. In B Raucent, C Vander Borght, to be a teacher. Master? Director?. Brussels: De Boeck p.26-31.
27. Thelusma F (2012) Methodology for teaching and learning French in Haiti: Findings and proposals.
28. Edmé R (2016) Some elements for the reestablishment of the fundamental school in Haiti. Haiti perspectives The Haitian fundamental school 5(1): 21.
29. Gagnebin A, Guignard N, Jaquet F (1997) Learning and teaching mathematics. Didactic comments on teaching methods for grades 1 to 4 of primary school, Corome.
30. Clanet J (2001) Study of the organizers of teaching practices at the university. Revue des sciences de l’éducation 27(2): 327–352.
31. Bélanger S (2004) Attitudes of different school stakeholders towards inclusion. In N Rousseau and S Bélanger (eds.), The pedagogy of school inclusion. Quebec: University of Quebec Press pp. 39-55.
32. Malet R (2013) The professionalization of teachers in the light of evaluation in school systems. Political drivers, development contexts and variations in use. In Assessment in School Systems. De Boeck Supérieur 35-48.