By Kaaryn Cater, Cherie Todd-Williamson, and Andrea Trueman
Association of Tertiary Learning Advisors Aotearoa New Zealand (ATLAANZ)
This blog article is intended as a practitioner reflection. Drawing on our own experiences, discussions with colleagues, interactions at the ICALLD Symposium, and survey responses from Learning Advisors (LAs), we explore some of the challenges and opportunities associated with role clarity in learning advising.
Understanding the Learning Advisor Role
Misunderstandings about what Learning Advisors do, and where the boundaries of the role sit, are topics that regularly surface in both our own practice and conversations with our colleagues. We were interested in hearing more about how colleagues navigate role ambiguity in their own practice, and what impacts their day-to-day work.
Our shared experiences instigated an ICALLD-affiliated survey to enable us to explore if this is an isolated or broader issue. We set out to understand how our peers experience and respond to role ambiguity. We were particularly interested in any factors that contribute to role confusion and the strategies colleagues have found helpful in creating greater clarity and stronger professional recognition.
Gathering Perspectives
We invited colleagues to share their experiences through a short survey shared with internal members that asked about their role descriptions, common misconceptions of the role, boundary challenges, and strategies used to clarify or protect the role.
We received responses from 54 Learning Advisors including colleagues from Aotearoa (34), the United Kingdom (17), Canada (2), and Australia (1). We also discussed this project at the 2026 ICALLD Symposium and gained a range of international insights.
Responses
We reviewed the responses and looked at commonalities, concerns, and experiences. As Learning Advisors, we recognised many of these themes in our own professional experiences.
Recurring themes:
- Role obscurity
- Professional identity confusion
- Communication and structural factors
Communication, organisational language, and structural positioning were repeatedly highlighted as both causes of confusion and potential solutions to focus on. Significantly, communication and structural factors revealed a central paradox: the same institutional systems that seem to generate these misunderstandings are also the systems capable of resolving them.
This highlights the ambiguity surrounding LA role identity, scope, and inconsistent positioning. When there is no consistent language to define the work, misunderstanding becomes almost inevitable.
Observations
One observation stood out immediately: our peers revealed at least fifteen different iterations of the LA role title.
Figure 1. Word cloud of role titles captured during the ICALLD Symposium
Responses
We are the ‘Fixers’
- “There is still a pervasive and pernicious tendency to see us as ‘fixers’, ‘glorified proofreaders’, or something like ‘the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’.” (NZ)
- “That we proof-read work and ‘fix’ it.” (UK – University)
Remedial / Deficit Framing
- “…for students who have ‘problems’.” (UK)
- “…usually [seen] as someone who offers remedial instruction.” (Canada – University)
- “That it’s restricted to remedial and generic study skills support.” (Australia – University)
- “That it is a transactional process and consists mainly of how to make a timetable to study for a test.” (Canada – University)
Role Recognition
- “…because we aren’t part of a faculty, we are a bit cut off from the research work.” (Australia – University)
- “Lecturers don’t view us as equal even though we are all very qualified and are expert in our own field.” (NZ – University)
- “It is a highly skilled and academic role which spans across so many academic skills/needs.” (NZ – Polytechnic)
Common Misunderstandings About Learning Advising
The most common misconception about LA work was the perception that it functions primarily as a proofreading or editing service, accounting for 25% of responses to the question, “What is the most common misunderstanding about your role?”. Colleagues shared that the service is often assumed to be intended for only students who are struggling. This was reflected in the 21% who noted that learning advising is viewed as remedial, with 15% saying learning advice is mistaken for disability support, and 5% reporting that they are expected to provide ESOL instruction. Although the ESOL percentage appears small, it was a recurring theme across conversations.
Peers also highlighted a significant misunderstanding of LA professional identity. This results in boundary tensions and a lack of recognition as educators, academics, or researchers, despite specialist expertise in academic literacies, learning development, and andragogy. Learning Advisory work involves teaching, embedding academic skill-building, and supporting long-term capability development, yet these contributions are often overlooked within institutional structures. LAs are increasingly expected to respond to a wide range of academic, pastoral, and student needs that extend beyond the intended scope of the role. As a result, Learning Advisory services are commonly positioned as a ‘one-stop fixing shop’ or described as ‘the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’, reinforcing deficit-based perceptions of the role, distorting the developmental, pedagogical nature of the work, and impeding appropriate student engagement (Delante, 2020; Gurney, & Grossi, 2023; Strauss, 2013).
Role Boundaries
When the role and function of the Learning Advisory team is poorly understood, boundaries are challenged. This was reflected in responses to the question, “In what situations are your role boundaries most challenged?”, with 18% identifying situations where they were asked and expected to complete tasks beyond the scope of their role, including unrealistic referrals for mental health and IT support. Many described experiencing ‘role creep’, reflecting the ‘third space’ or ‘no-space’ position that advisors are in danger of occupying within their institutions (Whitchurch, 2022). This is reflected in unclear expectations and gradually expanding responsibilities, with 15% sharing they felt demeaned and undervalued.
Colleague responses suggested that role boundaries are most challenged when demand exceeds availability and when inaccurate referrals are made. These challenges are compounded by structural gaps within institutions that reinforce power imbalances between academic and professional realms, leaving LAs with limited authority to challenge inappropriate expectations of their role. Colleagues highlighted the lack of career progression and academic recognition, which further affects how the role is valued across the institution. These misunderstandings leave LAs feeling invisible within institutional systems, affecting perceptions of the role’s legitimacy and professional standing, and impacting opportunities for meaningful collaboration.
In contrast, colleagues reported using a range of strategies to protect and clarify the boundaries and legitimacy of their role, including clear communication, avoiding deficit language, sharing resources strategically, and reinforcing role boundaries. When discussing the nuance of the role and strategies used to clarify its boundaries, 24% shared the need to constantly communicate the parameters of their role and challenge language and positioning. When asked “What do you wish others understood about learning development/advising?”, the responses strongly emphasised that LAs work with a wide range of students, focusing on developing long-term academic capability across their learning journeys through pedagogically informed teaching and support, and embedding and reinforcing academic skills, rather than simply ‘fixing’ student mistakes.
Key Takeaways
On the surface, the fifteen different LA role titles might seem like a minor administrative variation, but a closer examination points to something more significant. This diversity in naming reflects broader ambiguity around the role itself, including its scope, positioning, and perceived value within institutions. In other words, the way the role is labelled is not just semantic; it shapes how the work is understood, interpreted, and engaged with by others.
It is important to acknowledge that, while differing titles can contribute to role ambiguity, our conversations and survey responses also suggest that Learning Advisory teams operate within diverse institutional contexts. As a result, their priorities may vary. Some teams do focus primarily on supporting students who are experiencing academic difficulty, while others adopt a broader developmental approach. Both approaches are valid and reflect local needs and strategic directions.
Rather than positioning these differences as a point of tension, it is more productive to deepen our collective understanding of the learning advisor role across contexts. By strengthening communication about what we do through consistent messaging, strengths-based language, and proactive engagement, we can foster greater clarity, shared understanding, and recognition of our contribution to the learning journey.
Key Challenges
- Misconceptions of the Learning Advice role remain widespread.
- Learning advising is often viewed through a deficit lens.
- Professional identity remains unclear or invisible.
Emerging Themes for Safeguarding Learning Advising
- Developing clear and consistent language about the LA role – using academic language to reinforce pedagogical expertise.
- Setting clearer role boundaries and establishing shared understandings of role and boundaries across the organisation.
- Building stronger relationships with academic and curriculum design teams through embedded teaching and academic partnerships.
- Making LA teaching impact more visible by strengthening processes to collect and communicate evidence of student engagement.
- Improving referral accuracy across services.
Next Steps
We plan to continue these conversations through the ATLAANZ professional development series (ChatLAANZ), deepen our engagement with relevant literature, explore practical ways our Learning Advisory teams can strengthen role clarity and professional identity and contribute a professional reflection to the ATLAANZ Journal. This work is ongoing, and we hope to continue learning from colleagues across the sector.
Final Thoughts
During the ICALLD symposium sessions, attendees shared perspectives and experiences relating to the Learning Advisor role. The live format provided opportunities for discussion, reflection, and the exchange of ideas across different institutional and national contexts.
The experiences shared through the survey and symposium discussions suggest that an important shift is needed across higher education, moving away from viewing learning support as remedial and toward recognising LAs as essential academic partners in student success. Learning advising is not simply support work, it is skilled identity work grounded in andragogy, relationship-building, and academic development.
References
Delante, N. L. (2020). Challenges, paradigm shift and theoretical underpinnings of learning advising in higher education: The case of an Australian university in Singapore. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.11
Gurney, L., & Grossi, V. (2023). Supporting student wellbeing as an academic language and learning advisor: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(6). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.20.6.18
Strauss, P. (2013). ‘I don’t think we’re seen as a nuisance’: the positioning of postgraduate learning advisors in New Zealand universities. TEXT, 17(Special Issue 21), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.52086/001c.28376
Whitchurch, C. (2022, September 22). From ‘working in third space’ to ‘third space professionals’. Third Space Perspectives. https://www.thirdspaceperspectives.com/blog/tothirdspaceprofessionals