DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 M ARC J ONES , G RETCHEN C LARK * Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings Abstract. Awareness of Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has increased in recent years within the field of language education, especially regarding how to support learners with the condition, yet there remains a lack of research on how ADHD affects teachers living with the condition. The current study used a questionnaire survey to investigate the experiences of language teachers (N=57) with ADHD in the workplace. Using mixed-methods, namely Bayesian correlations and frame analysis, responses were analyzed. Findings were that self-efficacy measures do not correlate with ADHD effects on teaching, preparation or assessment, but that ADHD effects on teaching, preparation and assessment had medium correlations with each other. Qualitative findings suggest that teachers are polarized regarding their perceptions of ADHD as a benefit or hindrance. Regardless, many participants expressed internalized negativity despite clear reports of self-efficacy. 1. Introduction Awareness of Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is increasing due to both work in neurodiversity and a rise in diagnosis. Childhood ADHD is a highly researched neurodevelopmental condition (B ARKLEY / B ENTON 2022). It is frequently framed in the literature as a condition that mainly affects students, with the exception of J ONES / N OBLE (2023), which provides accounts of living with ADHD as a language teacher. Researching ADHD language teachers is important for the language teaching and learning community because there is a minority of the population whose experience is not represented in the literature. As stated in J ONES / N OBLE (ibid.: 34), “language teachers are assumed to be neurotypical by default”. As it stands, only research regarding how ADHD affects adults in general informs those living with the condition; it is unknown how ADHD affects teachers’ work in particular. However, domain-specific research is required in order to understand the strengths that ADHD members of the language teaching community bring to the profession. In addition, * Correspondence Addresses: Marc J ONES , M.Res. Toyo University, Faculty of Global and Regional Studies, Department of Global Innovation Studies, 5-28-20 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, T OKYO , 112-8606, Japan E-Mail: jones056@toyo.jp Research areas: English listening, ADHD in language teachers Gretchen C LARK , M.A., Ritsumeikan University, 2-150 Iwakura-cho, Ibaraki, O SAKA , 567-8570, Japan E-Mail: gclark@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp Research areas: Interactional competence, ADHD and language education Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 107 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 understanding the self-efficacy of language teachers with ADHD may help neurodivergent learners’ self-efficacy because evidence shows benefits of having faculty role models who are “like-you” (R ASK / B AILEY 2002; M UIR / D ÖRNYEI / A DOLPHS 2021). To this end, in this questionnaire-based study, we seek to build on J ONES / N OBLE (2023) and explore the experience of a larger sample of language teachers living with ADHD. By understanding the work life experiences of ADHD language teachers we can understand reciprocal effects between them and the learning environments they work in. That is, teachers’ self-reports detail their actions toward people and things in their workplaces, and the effects that people and workplace conditions have upon the teachers themselves. We begin the paper with a brief review of the general literature on ADHD before turning to research on neurodivergent language teachers and their self-efficacy, which leads to our research questions. The following section outlines the methodology underpinning our questionnaire-based survey, including sampling rationale and ethics procedures, as well as the correlation and frame analyses. We then examine the findings of this data in depth, particularly regarding correlation strengths regarding beliefs and behaviours, and how participants’ framings may have ramifications for the classroom. Finally, we make conclusions about the experiences of the participants based upon the data and analyses, and acknowledge the limitations of the study. 2. Literature review 2.1 Overview of ADHD The A MERICAN P SYCHIATRIC A SSOCIATION (2013: 32) defines ADHD as “a neurodevelopmental disorder defined by impairing levels of inattention, disorganization, and/ or hyperactivity-impulsivity” (italics added for emphasis). B ARKLEY / B ENTON (2022: 117) state that individuals with ADHD “seem to be deficient in or show excessive reuptake of dopamine and norepinephrine”, with low available levels of these neurotransmitters leaving a person unable to execute tasks. B ARKLEY / B ENTON (ibid.) also provide a list of 87 possible problems faced by adults living with ADHD. Those living with the condition may fidget, appear restless, or need to move around, often in conflict with restrictive social expectations; their physical spaces might be perceived to be in disarray; they may have trouble listening and appear not to pay attention; they may have trouble organizing and expressing their thoughts; they may struggle with detailed tasks. As found by K ESSLER / A DLER / B ARKLEY / B IEDERMAN / C ONNERS et al. (2006), while usually diagnosed in childhood, ADHD persists into adulthood, hence understanding the condition in teachers is imperative. 2.2 Neurodivergent language teachers As noted in J ONES / N OBLE (2023: 34), much of the language teacher psychology literature assumes teachers to be “neurotypical by default”, with few exceptions, and 108 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 research on teachers with ADHD is scarce. There are, however, articles about higher education professionals with invisible disabilities (including neurodivergent conditions) and their work experiences (D OLAN 2023; S MAGORINSKY 2011), and studies on autistic staff in schools (W OOD / H APPÉ 2023). The only article we are aware of which deals specifically with language teachers with ADHD is J ONES / N OBLE (2023). One example of a study with neurodivergent teachers was a qualitative study conducted by C UERVO -R ODRÍGUEZ / C ASTAÑEDA -T RUJILLO (2021) with two dyslexic, pre-service English language teachers. The teachers stated difficulties with needing to be ‘normal’ or avoiding mistakes, such as writing errors on the board, but also find that their condition can be used as a strength: [Teachers with dyslexia] have to make an extra effort, which helps them obtain refined results; this makes them more conscientious about the difference in the classroom. They project themselves as better and more open-minded teachers than the ones that they have found during their degree studies (93). In other words, in acting to mitigate workplace problems that they anticipate, C UERVO -R ODRÍGUEZ and C ASTAÑEDA -T RUJILLO ’s informants work to make better pre-emptive decisions. At the same time, this propensity to prevent error may lead to maladaptive coping mechanisms that veer to the extreme, potentially leading to burnout and further negative consequences (W OODS 1999). 2.3 Self-efficacy of language teachers High self-efficacy beliefs may mitigate some of the previously mentioned maladaptive coping mechanisms. Professional self-efficacy appears to be related to motivation. Research findings point to links between task success and occupational selfefficacy beliefs (H ACKETT 1995). Furthermore, B ANDURA / J OURDEN (1991) state that individuals with lower self-efficacy beliefs tend to overly evaluate themselves in relation to and dwell upon failures, whereas individuals with higher self-efficacy beliefs tend to orient more towards finding solutions. There is, however, apparently no prior research investigating the self-efficacy beliefs of neurodivergent teachers, and therefore whether this population, with potentially changeable beliefs about themselves due to emotional dysregulation (B ARKLEY / B ENTON 2022), needs to be researched. While the literature links high self-efficacy beliefs to positive psychological attributes and success, whether this is also the case for teachers with ADHD is unclear. Additionally, whether ADHD teachers’ reports of self-efficacy are largely positive or negative, or markedly different from neurotypical or non-specified teachers is also unknown. Freedom to teach as one pleases and the reward of having fun were also rated as important by participants in L EE et al. (2022). However, as M ERCER (2018: 507) notes, teaching often includes “less enjoyable activities such as administrative responsibilities”. Obviously, the friction between the responsibilities and the rewards of the job must be reconciled in order for teachers to do their work effectively. K ING / N G (2018) Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 109 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 found that some teachers compartmentalized the less enjoyable parts of their work by depersonalizing and detaching from them. It may be the case that teachers in general find ways to exploit their self-efficacy by doing tasks that they feel highly capable of doing, and prefer, to avoid the less enjoyable aspects of their jobs. However, for teachers living with ADHD, the search for reward and novelty is greater due to the difference in dopamine reception (B ARKLEY / B ENTON 2022) and the search for satisfaction and avoidance may be more extreme. 3. Research Questions The purpose of this project is to understand how language teachers with ADHD complete tasks, navigate workplace relationships, and how the work is affected by selfefficacy. This will be explored using the following RQs: RQ 1. Does self-efficacy affect the work of teachers? If so, how? RQ 2. How do language teachers with ADHD frame their working experiences? 4. Methods 4.1 Researcher positionality statement Our reason for conducting this research is partly due to self-interest: we are both language teachers who live with ADHD. There are several others like us teaching language, and we wanted to know how ADHD has affected them. To an extent, this was explored by the first author in J ONES / N OBLE (2023), and by both authors in conference presentations and talks given to language teaching organizations (cf. B URKE / C LARK / N AKAGOME / S IEW 2023; J ONES / C LARK 2023). Our status as language teachers with ADHD allows us access to the community, and also a privileged emic perspective on the data. However, both researchers sought a greater sample to garner a wider perspective, which is realized in this survey. It should be noted that our own information does not form part of this data set. 4.2 Participants Participants were recruited by convenience and snowball sampling between December 2022 and February 2023. While an initial sample of 60 was recruited, a final sample of 57 was attained after discarding participants who were non-committal regarding their ADHD status or no longer employed as a language teacher. Of these 57 participants, 48 provided qualitative answers to the questionnaire. In the current study, discussing language teachers with ADHD across several countries and often working in more than one setting makes generalizability difficult. The strategies that one teacher in one context employs to cope with the effects of their ADHD maybe different to those of another teacher in a different context. This limitation thus means that we do 110 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 not seek to generalize, but to explore, and to make visible the struggles as well as the successes of the teachers we surveyed. 4.3 Questionnaire 4.3.1 Pilot questionnaire Five-point scaled items adapted from B ANDURA ’s (2006: 328) Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale were modified for relevance to language teaching in particular, and other items were added in order to address the aforementioned research questions more fully. Short answer questions were included to enable effective data triangulation (W YATT 2018). The questionnaire was constructed in Google Forms to collect data digitally; this allowed for wide distribution of the survey online to teachers across the world. An institutional version of Google Workspace was used, which does not supply data to advertisers, and we also advised participants that it may be a privacy concern if they answer the questionnaire while logged in to a Google account linked to their workplace. A pilot version of the questionnaire was trialed with six individuals outside the target population to evaluate internal consistency. This was analysed in R software (R C ORE T EAM 2022) using the ltm package (R IZOPOULOS 2007), and Cronbach’s alpha of 0.868 was observed. Based upon feedback from trial participants regarding length, some qualitative items were cut from the questionnaire. This resulted in the final questionnaire (available at https: / / osf.io/ rv8hz/ ). 4.3.2 Final questionnaire The questionnaire began with a screening item to determine if the respondent believed they had ADHD or was diagnosed with ADHD. Only those passing this requirement were eligible to continue. After this, demographic information and information about formal/ self-diagnosis was collected. We believe that self-diagnosis, while potentially contentious, is valid due to the potential costs and waiting times to see an appropriate practitioner, as well as fears associated with discrimination due to a neurodevelopmental condition on one’s medical records. S ARRETT (2016) discusses this regarding autism and the same can be argued for ADHD. The main sections of the questionnaire were 1) Lesson preparation, 2) Teaching, instruction and assessment, 3) Professional relationships, 4) Self-efficacy, and 5) General short answer. For sections 1-3, respondents were asked how having ADHD affects their ability to do work-related tasks by choosing from the selections: strongly hinders, hinders, no effect, benefits, strongly benefits. Following the closed-item sections, respondents could expand on their answers in short answer form. For section 4, participants were asked about their ability to do certain tasks along a 5-point scale (I cannot do highly certain I can do). Section 5 consisted of short-answer items regarding positive and negative effects on teaching and work-life, and a further short answer to comment on how ADHD affects life both in and outside of the classroom. Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 111 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 4.3.3 Sampling and sharing The survey was distributed using social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook between December 2022 and February 2023. Respondents were encouraged to share the survey with colleagues as they wished. At the end of the sampling period, data from 60 participants was collected. The responses were scanned for anomalies, and three participants were removed because they did not meet the criteria for participation regarding their ADHD or employment status. 5. Data Analysis 5.1 Quantitative analysis A correlation analysis was carried out using R software (R C ORE T EAM 2022) with the jsq package (T HE JASP T EAM / D ROPMANN / S ELKER / L OVE 2019/ 2022). This analysis uses Bayes Factor Analysis because our work is exploratory: the aim is to find out the state of teacher beliefs and self-efficacy among language teachers with ADHD, not to confirm hypotheses based upon preconceptions. Internal consistency was evaluated and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.813 obtained by cutting items relating to Age, Gender, Country Raised, Country of Work, Country of Diagnosis, Time Diagnosed/ Time Suspected, and Employment. While these items are not useful for internal consistency, they do provide a way to observe sample diversity. 5.2 Frame analysis To understand how the participants viewed the interaction between ADHD and its effects on their work-life experiences, we used frame analysis, in which participant perspectives are explored from a macro-analytic level, through implicit ideas permeating the data, rather than a micro-level thematic coding. Frame analysis was first conceptualized by G OFFMAN (1974), and L OWE (2022) has done extensive work on the framing expressed by multilingual language teachers. L OWE (ibid.: 304) differentiates between two types of frame, “master frames and counter frames” (italics in original), through use of prior work by B ENFORD / S NOW (2000). We chose the frame analysis method because we believe the deficit narrative regarding ADHD as a fault to be remedied does not encompass the lived experiences and perspectives of the people who have the condition. Frame analysis allows access to these perspectives in a way that other qualitative methods, such as phenomenological thematic analysis, does not, due to a focus on the macro and meso levels of the data. Furthermore, through our analysis, we discovered a weakness of the method in which absence of data seemed to be significant. We describe this data set as an ‘empty frame’, wherein participants do not mention a particular aspect of their lives and experiences that are subject to investigation. This type of frame is worthy of comment, based on the proposition that the absence of data is itself data. In the current study, we analyze the partic- 112 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 ipants’ qualitative responses and apply them to master frames, counter frames, and empty frames. 6. Findings 6.1 Quantitative findings Twenty-four participants had received a medical diagnosis and 33 participants were self-diagnosed. Thirty-six participants identified as female, 18 as male, and three as non-binary. Most participants worked in Japan (n=42), with two based in other Asian countries, one in Africa, nine in Europe, and three in the USA. The mean age was 43 years old, with a range from 27 to 70 years old. Most participants worked in university (34), although seven worked in elementary schools, nine in junior high schools, nine in high schools, ten in private language schools, and nine in other settings. Some participants worked in more than one setting. 6.2 Correlations Within the correlations for the constructs of Preparation, Teaching, Assessment, Relationships, Disclosure and Self-Efficacy, the only effect sizes of interest which have a fairly strong Bayes Factor (BF) are Preparation : Teaching (Kendall’s Tau = 0.329, BF = 12.692), Preparation : Assessment (Kendall’s Tau = 0.316, BF = 28.1), and Teaching : Assessment (Kendall’s Tau = 0.352, BF = 23.095). BFs greater than 10 suggest strong evidence (N OROUZIAN / D E M IRANDA / P LONSKY 2019). All are medium-to-weak effects, but clearly show these aspects of teaching are correlated, as expected. Conversely, as it relates to Teaching, Assessments, Relationships or Disclosure, Self-Efficacy has very low Kendall’s Tau values as well as generally weak BFs, at the level of anecdotal or worse, and therefore no statistically sound link can be found. However, Preparation has a BF greater than 3, which is substantial (ibid.). Kendall's Tau Bayes Factor Preparation Teaching Assessment Relationships Disclosure Teaching 0.329 12.692 Assessment 0.316 28.100 0.352 23.095 Relationships 0.180 0.939 0.214 1.228 0.219 2.579 Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 113 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 Kendall's Tau Bayes Factor Preparation Teaching Assessment Relationships Disclosure Disclosure 0.041 0.200 0.140 0.448 -0.002 0.175 0.145 0.579 Self-Efficacy 0.247 3.564 0.157 0.518 0.172 0.881 0.111 0.347 0.222 2.774 Table 1: Correlation Table of Questionnaire Constructs 6.3 Frame analysis Five major framings were found in the qualitative survey data. First, ADHD was viewed as both a benefit and a hindrance; second, participants described extremes of lesson preparation; third, participants prioritized work tasks that directly affected students; a fourth master frame connected to internalized negativity and low self-worth was identified. Finally, a fifth ‘empty frame’ regarding the omission of references to language teaching was also observed. Frame 1: ADHD is both a hindrance and a benefit In the questionnaire, we asked whether ADHD hindered or benefited participants in different aspects of their professional life. However, 15 participants (26.3%) stated that their ADHD was both a benefit and a hindrance. For example, P44 said, “I choose ‘no effect’ sometimes not because there isn't an effect, but because I’m not sure if it is positive or negative or a mix of both.” It cannot be framed as either benefit or hindrance because the two aspects are intertwined. This ‘mixed blessing’ was not directly elicited in the questionnaire, and therefore it is a pertinent framing determined by the participants themselves. While it may not be considered a master frame, because it was stated by a minority of participants (15 of 48), it is nevertheless a significant perspective. Frame 2: Extremes of preparedness Four participants explicitly mentioned a need to prepare in a lot of detail, even being ‘overprepared’ for lessons, with two participants stating that they engage in hyperfocus regarding single aspects of the planning process, i.e. spending an extended time in a state of intense focus which is difficult to break (A SHINOFF / A BU -A KEL 2021). Such states of hyperfocus tend to be brought about by enjoyable or interesting activities. Other responses related to desires to design creative, enjoyable lessons due to knowledge or possession of resources. Negative sentiments were expressed by three participants in relation to lesson planning: “I would get stuck on a lesson or procrastinate trying to make the perfect lesson every time” (P24). 114 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 “Long-term planning such as now for April [the beginning of the school year] is anxiety inducing” (P37). “In general it is hard to push myself to the executive functioning of detailed planning time” (P39). Participants P24 and P37 may be seen at one end of a spectrum related to negative framings regarding (over)planning, but a lack of planning can also cause such negative framings regarding planning, as expressed by participant P39. The counter frame to this ‘perfectionism’ is provided by three participants, who explicitly mentioned being underprepared or not planning lessons at all. There were also several comments by participants relating that plans were changed due to spontaneous ideas. The teachers who explicitly stated being very under/ unprepared stated that they were able to teach well, in spite of the anxiety this state brought them. Frame 3: Students are prioritized in workplace relationships When discussing workplace relationships, participants wrote about students and their relationships with them more often than their interactions with colleagues. Much of their teaching life both in and outside the classroom involved being highly attuned to the needs of their learners. “I think that my ADHD helps me gauge what might help students stay engaged during a lesson” (P10). “My own struggles have made it easier to spot students who are possibly ADHD/ autistic/ on the spectrum themselves, and adapt my lessons so that they will benefit from them. It also gives other students who might not be on the spectrum a wider variety of activities” (P29). “I think it makes me more understanding of the students. I am more flexible and willing to work with them about deadlines. Also, I am pretty flexible about the way they turn in their assignments and how they interact during some self-study/ group activities” (P4). The participants are sensitive toward students’ supposed shortcomings regarding attention and self-regulation, which the participants experience both as bystanders and also as people with diminished attention regulation and organization problems themselves. Furthermore, participants expressed that they were addressing problems in their own past education, such as “[w]anting students to have a better experience in the classroom than I [ had] ” (P7). By intervening positively in their students’ education, these teachers feel that it may be possible to prevent others from enduring the troubles that they themselves experienced as students. Conversely, while participants prioritized students and reported cultivating positive relationships with them, they reported negative interactions with colleagues and in general sidelined these workplace connections. “I forget my colleagues names, confuse them with one another, and forget when I received information or from whom” (P10). “I don't interact with my colleagues and I'm extremely easily distracted after I get my daily work done” (P24). “There just isn't anything else in the tank for polite chitchat [with colleagues]” (P49). This frames the lack of relationship maintenance with colleagues as being the result Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 115 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 of cognitive load limits (S WELLER / A YRES / K ALYUGA 2011), and therefore not actually a deliberate wish to insult, evade colleagues or to be aloof. Frame 4: Internalized negativity There are a lot of “I am” statements with regard to negative attributes. “I’m forgetful” (P44), "I am absolutely terrible at administrative tasks and organization” (P44), “I am awful at office politics” (P 32), “I am unable to focus” (P29), “I am not always able to do exactly what I had originally planned” (P4). These negative statements are framed as mainly fixed attributes, unable to be changed with strategies or assistance. Additionally, Participant 29 noted that they lack “self-confidence and self-esteem despite more than a decade’s worth of experience and constant praise from students, co-teachers and parents.” This comment is important because it shows that the internalized negativity is a long-term problem, even while the individual is aware of evidence against it. However, while some teachers reported problems regulating emotion, others also “hide negative emotions” (P1) or “mask with enthusiasm” (P10). In other words, internalized negativity is widespread but may be hidden. Despite the negative statements, participants also made positive statements using ‘I am’ and ‘I can’ phrases. “I can change course if something doesn't seem to be working and I can improvise some really good explanations, teaching moments, conversations, advice, drawings, and so on” (P32). “I can often think of simple and accurate explanations quickly, even for unanticipated questions” (P10). The positive statements are mostly framed as abilities with ‘I can’, relegating them to mere possibilities rather than inherent characteristics of their identity. Furthermore, when participants stated positive aspects about their work lives and their ADHD, these were shorter (mean number of characters 140.8) than when stating negative aspects of their work lives and their ADHD (mean number of characters 186.3). This finding regarding the length of statements suggests that the negative symptoms of ADHD may surface regularly enough that they come to mind more readily, or have significant impact on self-esteem. Frame 5: Language teaching as an ‘empty frame’ Although all the participants are language teachers, an unexpected finding was that all of the responses were framed around the experiences of ADHD or teaching in general, but no participants mentioned language teaching in particular. With all 48 participants who responded to the short answer portion of the survey omitting a reference to language teaching, we propose a fifth ‘empty frame’. It may be the case that there is nothing specific about the teaching of language that is impacted by ADHD, or conversely, it may be that nothing in particular about language teaching has an impact upon the participants’ ADHD. Nevertheless, we think the absence from the data is an important finding in itself that further adds to how this sample of language educators frame ADHD and their work. However, it must be noted that the questionnaire did not directly ask about aspects of language in teaching; instead, because all of the par- 116 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 ticipants were language teachers, it was expected that they would comment upon aspects of language in their teaching. That they did not, according to our interpretation, suggests that the teaching of language is not affected by their ADHD in a way that merits remarking upon. 7. Discussion According to the statistical analysis, self-efficacy does not correlate with any of the constructs related to how ADHD affects the participants’ work. These findings complement the work of J ONES / N OBLE (2023), in that teachers’ reported self-efficacy did not correlate with negativity regarding ADHD effects in the domains of preparation or assessment. Conversely, the scores for teaching, assessment and preparation all correlate to one another with a medium effect, which suggests that participants’ scores in one of these three sections predicts the scores in the other two. In other words, ADHD affects work across tasks. In the frame analysis, ADHD was framed by participants as a dichotomy: a condition that has both positive and negative effects on their work lives. Generally, the participants devoted large amounts of time to preparation for lessons, while a smaller group reported not preparing at all. Being overprepared appears to be a compensation strategy to deal with or replace a lack of motivation toward other types of work related to teaching, such as marking assignments. Planning can be creative work, which would suit the ADHD need to seek novelty (B ARKLEY / B ENTON 2022). However, due to the emotional reactions caused by lesson planning and participants’ motivation to prepare ‘perfect’ lessons, such behaviour may not be wholly positive. Feelings of underpreparedness may lead teachers to provide more reactive instruction, which may not necessarily have a negative effect on learning. In their Dogme/ Teaching Unplugged approach, M EDDINGS / T HORNBURY (2009) advocate reactive teaching at the point of learners’ needs, i.e., teaching in accordance to what is observed in the moment in learners’ emergent language. Such a shift in teaching may also be beneficial from the perspectives of both neurodivergent and neurotypical teachers due to how it can minimize the stress of planning. Concerning relationships, the focus was on students more so than colleagues, with some participants avoiding coworkers altogether. Participants strongly empathized with students, particularly those who are struggling, perhaps due to the participants' identification with the same struggles in their own education, and in turn identifying with the students themselves. This is resonant with the experiences of autistic school staff in W OOD / H APPÉ (2023). Many participants experienced low feelings of self-worth and inadequacy. These results are in line with the work of C UERVO -R ODRÍGUEZ / C ASTAÑEDA -T RUJILLO (2021), which found that neurodivergent teachers may have a level of internalized negativity regarding their behaviours and abilities. This may have to do with pressures of managing the symptoms of a neurodevelopmental condition in a world that is struc- Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 117 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 tured by and for neurotypical people. While frequently mentioned in the ADHD literature that those with the condition require more dopamine than neurotypical individuals, including from rewards and praise (B ARKLEY / B ENTON 2022), simple praise may not be enough to counteract internal negativity narratives of inability in certain areas. Yet, despite the internalized negativity, the teachers in the current study stated a confidence in carrying out their duties, and because few participants wrote about language teaching specifically, we conjecture that the participants do not believe that the language content of their lessons or pedagogy is positively or negatively affected by ADHD. 8. Limitations One limitation of the study is that it provides the beliefs and opinions of the people who participated at one particular time, however these are subject to change over time and depend upon other life circumstances. Moreover, it is based on self-reports, not objectively measured criteria. Nevertheless, we believe that the data provided is rich and offers an insight into a particular subsection of the language teaching population, which has not been acknowledged in the research literature. Additionally, other limitations of our study relate to the sample itself, which was garnered by a convenience and snowball sampling. The participants self-selected themselves, and thus it is possible that the data reflect only the opinions of people who have comparatively strong opinions about ADHD and/ or feel comfortable describing their lives. Furthermore, the data is heavily skewed toward language teachers based in Japan, and in particular in the higher education sector. Given the nature of qualitative data analysis collection techniques such as the frame analysis used for this project, the data is subject to our interpretation. We have made every effort to represent the data as clearly as possible in alignment with what the participants described. Moreover, when interpreting the correlation statistics, it must be borne in mind that this study concerns a relatively small sample for this type of method and that the work is exploratory. In other words, grand narratives about how ADHD affects teachers are not possible and must be avoided. Instead, our work describes the experiences of our sample of teachers, which may resonate with the experiences of other teachers with ADHD and other neurodivergent conditions and help inform them of how to navigate their professional lives. In conclusion, the purpose of this project was to understand how a sample of the teaching population living with ADHD see themselves in relation to their work and working relationships, and not to report grand narratives. We see our scholarship as a vital part of the research on neurodiversity in language teaching, and we hope that this paper inspires further research on the topic. * * Notes on contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the writing of the article and the conceptualization of the study. Marc Jones led the quantitative analysis and the frame analysis. Gretchen Clark assisted in the quantitative analysis and the frame analysis.  118 Marc Jones, Gretchen Clark DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 53 • Heft 2 References A MERICAN P SYCHIATRIC A SSOCIATION (Ed.) (2013): Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed). Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association. A SHINOFF , Brandon. K. / A BU -A KEL , Ahmad (2021); “Hyperfocus: The forgotten frontier of attention”. In: Psychological Research 85.1, 1-19. B ANDURA , Albert (2006): “Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales”. In: P AJARES , Felix / U RDAN , Tobias (Eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 307-337. B ANDURA , Albert / J OURDEN , Forest J. (1991): “Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making”. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60.6, 941-951. B ARKLEY , Russell / B ENTON , Christine (2022): Taking Charge of Adult ADHD. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications. B ENFORD , Robert D. / S NOW , David A. (2000): “Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment”. In: Annual Review of Sociology 26.1, 611-639. B URKE , Alexandra / C LARK , Gretchen / N AKAGOME , Sachiko / S IEW , Karmen (2023, April): Problem → Potential: Redefining ADHD in Language Education. Presented at Yokohama JALT, Online. http: / / yojalt.org/ otherfiles/ PreviousEvents.pdf C UERVO -R ODRÍGUEZ , Karen Andrea / C ASTAÑEDA -T RUJILLO , Jairo Enrique (2021): “Dyslexic individuals’ narratives on their process of becoming English language teachers”. In: HOW 28.2, 79-96. D OLAN , Vera. L. B. (2023): “‘…but if you tell anyone, I’ll deny we ever met: ’ the experiences of academics with invisible disabilities in the neoliberal university”. In: International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 36.4, 689-706. G OFFMAN , Erving (1974): Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. H ACKETT , Gail. (1995): “Self-efficacy in career choice and development”. In: B ANDURA , Albert (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232-258. J ONES , Marc / C LARK , Gretchen (2023, May): Not Necessarily a Deficit: Language Teachers with ADHD Can and Do Excel. Presented at the JALT PanSIG 2023, Kyoto Sangyo University. J ONES , Marc / N OBLE , Matthew (2023): “‘What about teachers? ’: A duoethnographic exploration of ADHD in ELT”. In: Explorations in Teacher Development 29.1, 34-45. K ESSLER , Ronald C. / A DLER , Lenard / B ARKLEY , Russell / B IEDERMAN , Joseph / C ONNERS , C. Keith / D EMLER , Olga / … Z ASLAVSKY , Alan M. (2006): “The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey replication”. In: American Journal of Psychiatry 163.4, 716-723. K ING , Jim / N G , Kwan-Yee Sarah (2018): “Teacher emotions and the emotional labour of second language teaching”. In: M ERCER , Sarah / K OSTOULAS , Achilleas (Eds.), Language Teacher Psychology. Bristol/ Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 141-157. Open data analysis: Due to the sensitive nature of the data, we regret that it cannot be shared. However, the script used for quantitative analysis is available from https: / / osf.io/ tfvwx/ . Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the participants, without whom the project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Robert J. Lowe and Adam Littleton for their feedback while writing this article. Language teachers with ADHD: self-efficacy and framings 119 53 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2024-0025 L EE , Bradford J. / B ROADBRIDGE , James / P ARK , Hyunsuk / S HIMADA , Miori / F REEMAN , Randi F (2022): “Does TESOL teacher motivation matter? Values vs. rewards”. In: KOTESOL Proceedings 2022, 21-33. L OWE , Robert J. (2022): “Framing, ideology, and the negotiation of professional identities among non-Japanese EFL teachers in Japan”. In: M IELICK , Martin / K UBOTA , Ryuko / L AWRENCE , Luke (Eds.), Discourses of Identity: Language Learning, Teaching, and Reclamation Perspectives in Japan. Cham: Springer, 301-320. M EDDINGS , Luke / T HORNBURY , Scott (2009): Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Surrey: Delta Publishing. M ERCER , Sarah (2018): “Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher”. In: Language Teaching 51.4, 504-525. M UIR , Christine / D ÖRNYEI , Zoltán / A DOLPHS , Svenja (2021): “Role models in language learning: Results of a large-scale international survey”. In: Applied Linguistics 42.1, 1-23. N OROUZIAN , Reza / D E M IRANDA , Michael / P LONSKY , Luke (2019): “A Bayesian approach to measuring evidence in L2 research: An empirical investigation”. In: The Modern Language Journal, 103.1, 248-261. R C ORE T EAM (2022): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.2.2). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R ASK , Kevin. N. / B AILEY , Elizabeth M. (2002): “Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution”. In: The Journal of Economic Education 33.2, 99-124. R IZOPOULOS , Dimitris (2007): “ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response analysis”. In: Journal of Statistical Software 17.5, 1-25. S ARRETT , Jennifer C. (2016): “Biocertification and neurodiversity: The role and implications of selfdiagnosis in autistic communities”. In: Neuroethics 9.1, 23-36. S MAGORINSKY , Peter (2011): “Confessions of a mad professor: An autoethnographic consideration of neuroatypicality, extranormativity, and education”. In: Teachers College Record 113.8, 1701- 1732. S WELLER , John / A YRES , Paul / K ALYUGA , Slava. (2011): Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer. T HE JASP T EAM / D ROPMANN , Damian / S ELKER , Ravi / L OVE , Jonathon (2022, May 27): jsq (R Package). (Version 1.2.1). Retrieved from https: / / github.com/ jonathon-love/ jsq. (Original work published 16 April 2019). W OOD , Rebecca / H APPÉ , Francesca (2023): “What are the views and experiences of autistic teachers? Findings from an online survey in the UK”. In: Disability & Society, 38.1, 47-72. W OODS , Peter (1999): “Intensification and stress in teaching”. In: V ANDENBERGHE , Roland / H UBERMAN , A. Michael (Eds.), Understanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout: A Sourcebook of International Research and Practice. New York u.a.: University Press, 115-139. W YATT , Mark (2018): “Language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: an introduction”. In: M ERCER , Sarah / K OSTOULAS , Achilleas (Eds.), Language Teacher Psychology. Bristol/ Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 122-140.