This study explores the skills, knowledge, and experiences of substitute teachers teaching pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in Northern Ireland. Despite their essential role in schools, substitute teachers remain underrepresented in research, particularly in relation to inclusive practice and teacher self-efficacy. Guided by a pragmatist paradigm, this study adopted a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. Phase One involves a survey measuring teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP) and information gathering on participants’ training, experience, and confidence in supporting SEN learners. Findings indicated that substitute teachers reported lower levels of self-efficacy in inclusive practices compared to non-substitute teachers, particularly in areas such as behaviour management, collaboration with parents, and adapting assessments. Factors including teaching experience, postgraduate SEN qualifications, and holding a Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) role were found to significantly influence self-efficacy. Phase Two consists of semi-structured interviews with substitute teachers to further explore these findings. The qualitative data highlighted variability in initial teacher education (ITE), limited access to professional development, and challenges associated with inconsistent employment. Participants also emphasised the importance of practical experience and supportive school environments in developing confidence. The integration of findings suggests that substitute teachers face unique structural and professional barriers that may impact their ability to effectively support SEN learners. The study highlights the need for more consistent training, targeted professional development, and systemic support. Implications are discussed for policy, ITE providers, and educational psychology practice to enhance inclusive education and teacher self-efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brónach Charlotte Crabtree (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: