Collaborative and Supportive Relationships

Teachers have interdependent relationships with those around them and these are an important contextual component of teacher self-efficacy (Friedman & Kass, 2002), and agency (Charteris & Smardon, 2015). Participants in both phases reported high levels of self-efficacy when working with parents and other colleagues to successfully plan and implement IEPs. All phase two participants highlighted the importance of collaborative and supportive relationships within the IEP team. Research shows that teachers who work collaboratively are more innovative and experimental in their teaching approach when working with students with disabilities (Allinder, 1994). Relationships were strengthened when teachers felt the other team members valued their input. Ensuring IEP team members feel valued can increase their motivation to engage in the process (Menlove et al., 2001). This study suggests supportive relationships that are formed at the beginning of the IEP process builds an environment, which can allow all IEP team members to feel equally valued.

Most phase two participants experienced enhanced self-efficacy when school management demonstrated trust in them by giving teachers autonomy over the planning and implementation of the IEP. Teachers experience a higher sense of self- efficacy when supported by school administrators and management (Bandura, 1997; Scott, 2011). However, this study found excessive support from school management decreased a novice teacher’s self-efficacy. Sally described high levels of support from her SENCO in relation to paperwork requirements and the IEP organization. This support inadvertently disempowered her, leaving her unsure of her role within the process, especially in regards to the IEP meeting. The experience lowered her sense of self-efficacy as it restricted her opportunities to learn through mastery or

76

vicarious experiences. This study found if inexperienced teachers have the sufficient support that allows them to learn through mastery and vicarious experiences, their self-efficacy and sense of agency would increase when engaging in the IEP process

5.1.3 Teaching Experience

Research demonstrates that teaching experience influences teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Hansen, 2005; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007). While phase one results demonstrated minimal difference between teacher experience and self-efficacy, this may be due to small numbers of participants with less than five years’ experience in this study. Conversely, the amount of involvement that phase two participants had experienced with the IEP process did influence their self- efficacy.

There was a range of teaching experience between phase two participants, from less than three years, to more than ten years’ experience. All participants had differing levels of self-efficacy. Fiona, in her first year of teaching, expressed high levels of self-efficacy. This is in contrast to research from the United States, where teacher self-efficacy is often at its lowest in the first year of teaching (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). In New Zealand, provisionally registered teachers12 usually receive considerable support in their first two years of teaching. In Fiona’s case, her school’s SENCO had spent time with her going through the IEP process and MoE guidelines, which increased her self-efficacy and teacher agency as she began the IEP process for the first time. This professional learning along with the verbal persuasion she received enhanced her self-efficacy. This is in line with research demonstrating the importance of verbal persuasion as

12

All teachers in New Zealand are required to teach for two years under the supervision of a mentor teacher before gaining full registration with the Education Council of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

77

well as mastery experiences for novice teachers to develop self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007).

This level of support may not be available to all provisionally registered teachers. Sally was newly registered, and in her first year without the guidance of a mentor teacher. She expressed the lowest sense of self-efficacy of the four participants in phase two, especially in relation to her knowledge of, and her role within the process. Sally had experienced limited involvement with the IEP process, so lacked mastery experiences to draw upon which might enhance her self-efficacy. The verbal persuasion she had received from her SENCO should have increased her self- efficacy. In this case, it did not. This is not unusual as verbal persuasion can increase self-efficacy in novice teachers, but require mastery experiences as well (Tschannen-Woolfolk & Hoy, 2007). However, Tschannen-Woolfolk and Hoy (2007) argue that novice teachers, with lower self-efficacy, are more reliant on their colleagues for support. As the teacher becomes more experienced, and has mastery experiences to draw upon, the need for verbal persuasion decreases. This study found that more experienced participants’ demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy in relation to the planning and implementation of IEPs. As self-efficacy beliefs are developed in the initial years of teaching, and can be resistant to change once formed (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007), this study highlights the importance of providing novice teachers with opportunities to engage in the IEP process, in order to develop mastery experiences if high levels of self-efficacy are to be developed.

Teaching experience influences self-efficacy and agency when planning and implementing IEPs. Teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to successfully plan and

78

implement IEPs will increase through mastery and vicarious experiences. Verbal persuasion is particularly important for inexperienced teachers, and providing verbal support and encouragement is imperative if teachers are to develop self-efficacy that persists throughout their careers (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007).