Samuel Reid, Tokyo Kasei University
Abstract
This article discusses the use of terms denoting a language adviser’s real or authentic feelings and behavior. It argues that many uses of these ideas in the literature on language advising can be problematic. First, these concepts may be theoretically confusing and unworkable when given as a guiding principle of language advising. Second, attempting to follow these principles may place an unrealistic burden on language advisors. Finally, identifying what constitutes these feelings is inherently slippery. The article argues for viewing honesty as a bonus rather than a theoretical principle in language advising, and suggests subsuming these ideas under the concept of professionalism.
Keywords: authenticity, genuineness, honesty, professionalism
The literature on language advising sometimes uses a set of terms related to the idea of emotional realness. The field of language advising, as defined by Carson & Mynard (2012), refers to using skilful dialogue to assist learners with “personally relevant aspects of their language learning development” (p. 4). These terms include words such as authentic, genuine, honest, open, and the like. During my training to become a language advisor, I was struck by how often writing either states directly or implies that advisors should strive for authenticity. The use of these concepts seems to stem from two beneficial places. First is the influence of positive psychology on language advising. The discourse of language advising draws on both language teaching and humanistic counselling (Carson & Mynard, 2012, as cited in Tweed, 2019, p. 183). Humanistic counselling is founded on “unconditional positive regard, genuineness and empathy” (Kelly, 1996, as cited in Tweed, 2019, p. 183), hence the seemingly natural fit. The second reason for the use of such terms is most likely the human connections that inevitably occur in the process of language advising. In the course of such one-to-one relationships, it is natural that advisors develop feelings of concern for, and interest in, the wellbeing of learners. The importance of humanistic counselling is unquestionable, as is the value of genuine engagement with learners. However, I feel the use of this group of terms can be problematic.
I believe the issues I will describe have arisen out of the second of the influences above, namely human concretions. Of course, there is nothing wrong with these feelings, but I want to argue that we need to be more careful about their role in language advising theory. In making this argument, I will necessarily have to quote from authors in the field. In advance, apologies to the authors I quote, and to the way I have read a lot into their use of words. I do not want to argue they are misguided or wrong, but I do want to argue for clarity in terminology. I know that language advising is characterised by a supportive and positive community, and criticising may be going against the grain. To be clear, my intention is not to dispute the value of anyone’s work. It is to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of language advising.
The problem of labeling genuineness as a strategy
The first issue is with the meaning of words such as genuine. Mozzon-McPherson and Tassinari (2020) provide a list of advisor skills they have identified in literature on language advising (this list is a comprehensive resource that I myself have found useful over recent months). One skill is titled “Genuine concern” (p. 128). Two other skills require the advisor to “show genuine commitment and concern for the learner’s needs/problems” (p. 127), and result in the advisor “signalling genuine concern” (p. 128). On the surface, the idea here of ‘feel care’ is clear, and it is hard to argue against this. However, I would argue that this is a disposition, not a skill. I believe a skill to be an observable and controllable behaviour, akin to Shelton-Strong’s (2020) description of language advising skills as “intentional use of language” (p. 4), the key word here being intentional. Feeling care is not something that can be turned on or off. Being genuine is obviously desirable, but being genuine either exists or does not exist. Concern involves naturally or unconsciously liking some people, with the implication of naturally not liking others. Otherwise, there would be no word for concern, because it would be assumed that we cared about everyone equally. I believe an advisor’s genuine feelings cannot therefore be a strategy, tactic or advising technique.
During my own advising sessions, for example, when I have made breakthroughs with students, it has been through a well-placed comment to engender a perspective shift in the student, or a probing question to get behind what a student is feeling. This is a case of me following practicable advice in the language learning literature. I have felt satisfaction that I have helped my students, but I have not experienced any feeling of genuineness.
The problem of assuming positive advisor feelings
Another point concerns what seems to be an implicit assumption that advisors will have positive feelings towards learners. Shelton-Strong and Tassinari (2020) write, “The baseline of advising is openness, authentic interest in the learner, empathy, authenticity, and transparency to build a safe relationship based on reciprocal trust” (p. 198). They also argue, “When advisors express themselves in naturally and authentically transparent ways, the learner may be encouraged to act similarly. This transparency fosters an atmosphere in which trust is shared, and the truth is valued” (p. 196). As argued above, authenticity is not something that can be generated artificially. There is another problem when we consider the point they make, however, which is that the advice to be authentic assumes that authenticity is always a positive emotion. I assume that I am like most people who have chosen teaching as a career: I like the majority of my students. However, I envy the teacher who has never come across a student they dislike!
If we take acting authentically or genuinely as a principle, should we therefore show disinterest or lack of concern if we do not connect with the learner? If it is a case of genuine concern, this implies we might not do it for some students, but might for others. Imagine we believe a learner has a bad idea, or an offensive attitude, or we simply do not gel with the learner for some reason. If we are to be genuine, authentic, or open, then, should we therefore make this clear to the learner? I know this is a ridiculous straw man argument: none of these writers are advocating this or mean to imply this. However, if we follow the logic, this can be where it leads. Language advising needs to have theoretically coherent principles.
The problem of identifying what is authentic
The third point I want to make is about the difficulty of labelling some behaviours authentic. For instance, Morrison and Navarro (2012) discuss language advisor’s reflections, which
“show that to question well, students need to be given the space to respond, and the LA needs to relinquish control to the advisee so that the LA genuinely responds to the student and asks questions modified to their responses” (p. 356).
The use of genuine implies that other kinds of response might be inauthentic. I do not believe there are many advisors who would claim to be responding inauthentically to their learners. This leads to the point that if there is genuine and non-genuine behaviour, how do we know the difference? Can they be clearly distinguished enough to make this a workable principle?
Moreover, the advice to be genuine clashes with an important principle of language advising, that of suspending judgment and meeting the learner where they are. For instance, Kato and Mynard (2016) propose three principles of Transformational advising, the second of which is to “Keep an open mind” and the third of which is to “Take a neutral position” (p. 18). Personally, this advice has been very helpful for me. Although I have worked in Japanese university settings a long time, there is a big difference in the expectations of a university student in my own country and in Japan. It is always useful for me to remember how students’ educational experiences might have formed their attitudes. This is on top of the age gap, because as digital natives, students may have different perspectives and different pulls on their attention. To me, the principle of suspending judgment seems like an exhortation to hold back on instinctual reactions. A degree of detachment is necessary for advising to take place. I imagine that most advisors would say that rather than being inauthentic, they are using skilful discretion in order to successfully perform their role. This may manifest in behaviours like listening nonjudgmentally to a learner’s situation, in prompting, or in steering a learner in a certain direction.
In my own case, I try to stay very controlled when doing language advising. A basic reason for this is that I am relatively new, and I still need to bear in mind the principles I should follow. Juggling listening to what students say and thinking about how to deploy theory effectively does not leave me much room for emotion. This reflects my inexperience and is not an argument against emotion. More importantly, however, I find that a certain non-emotional distance makes it easier to analyse what the student is saying and consider my best response. I see the advising session as a puzzle, with my trying to find the best way to help. Objectivity is helpful in this regard.
A bonus, not a principle
Reflections by advisors illustrate that genuineness is something many strive towards, as shown in the following statements:
“The trick is to genuinely listen, avoiding making personal judgements and giving direct advice; the students will let the Trojan horse in only if they find out the answer themselves, and switch their viewpoints towards the issue” (Esen, 2019, p. 330)
“In spite of the differences in role of an advisor and that of a teacher, there are several skills that can be transferred into the classroom. One of the most important, is being able to establish an open and genuine dialogue with learners” (Sagástegui, 2019, p. 396).
I believe openness is better seen as a bonus than a principle. An advising session may work better with a genuine connection, but this is the cherry on top. If a student perceives the advisor’s genuine care, this is obviously desirable, as it may increase the student’s emotional investment in the process. Ultimately though, the goal is for the student to increase their self-awareness or make changes in their behaviour. The advisor’s feelings are secondary to the goal of advising.
Another worry I have when seeing exhortations to genuineness is that they place an unrealistic burden on advisors. They may even create pressure to feel a certain way. Other techniques of language advising do not require this kind of deliberate manipulation of one’s own emotions. To exemplify this with Mozzon-McPherson and Tassinari’s (2020) list of advisor skills referenced above, ice breaking involves starting a session with simple relatable topics, and probing questions aim to uncover specific deeper information. In my opinion, a language advising session could be perfectly successful with the advisor skilfully using a multitude of advising techniques, while having no genuine interest in the learner. This is an extreme argument, and hopefully unpalatable to anyone reading this. The point stands, however.
Genuineness as professionalism
Language advising has solid theoretical foundations and is demonstrably effective, but in order to encourage the spread of language advising, it is important to clarify advice, which may be taken the wrong way. I would say that many practitioners are attracted to language advising because they are predisposed to its underpinnings in humanistic psychology. It intrinsically makes sense to them. However, there is another set of people who may not naturally lean towards a wholistic or humanistic view of education. In my case, having studied many of these principles at undergraduate level, I was a receptive audience and needed little convincing. Such people may feel intimated or put off. They may feel they lack the emotional involvement necessary for language advising. It would be a shame to lose out on this section of potential advisors.
I suggest substituting the terms I have discussed here for professional. The concept of professionalism covers many cases. It includes times when we genuinely feel a connection with a learner, times when there is no special personal connection but we instinctively follow language advising principles, and times when we are simply doing our best because of professional pride. Personally, I care about the success and empowerment of learners, and have a pride that I will do a good job. We can say that we are authentically performing our job to the best of our ability. We can say that our professionalism is genuine. I would say that my concern for my students manifests in my trying to give the best possible advising session. This is about trying to use the most appropriate techniques, not about my experiencing a sense of emotional honesty.
To reiterate, my argument is not against honesty per se. If language advisors never experience genuine feelings of concern for their learners, they are in the wrong job. It is not that authenticity, genuineness, openness, and transparency are undesirable (who is against honesty?). Rather, when discussing principles of language advising, these words have an intrinsic appeal that we need to be wary of.
Notes on the contributor
Samuel Reid is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Communication at Tokyo Kasei University. His research interests are Critical Discourse Analysis, and critical thinking in a second language.
References
Carson, L. & Mynard, J. (2012). Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue,
tools and context. Routledge.
Kato, S. & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739649
Morrison, B. R. & Navarro, D. (2012). Shifting roles: From language teachers to learning advisors. System, 40, 349-359.
Mozzon-McPherson, M. & Tassinari, M. G. (2020). From Language Teachers to Language Learning Advisors: A Journey Map. Philologia Hispalensis, 34(1), 121-139. https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2020.v34.i01.07
Sagástegui, G. (2019). The Difference Between Teaching and Advising. Relay Journal, 2(2), 394-397.
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2020). Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 963-985. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912355
Shelton-Strong, S. J., & Tassinari, M. G. (2022). Facilitating an autonomy-supportive learning climate: Advising in language learning and basic psychological needs. In J. Mynard, & S. J. Shelton-Strong (Eds.), Autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom: A self-determination theory perspective (pp.185-205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22679762.15
Tweed, A. D. (2019). What Learning Advisors Bring to Speaking Practice Centers. Relay Journal, 2(1), 182-188.
Dear Samuel,
Your paper examines the place of authenticity, genuine concern, emotional detachment, and professionalism in learner advising. It raises important questions about what these terms mean in practice, and about how (and whether) they should guide advisors.
First, there is the question of what authenticity is referring to here. You appear to agree that, as a concept, it has value, yet you also suggest it should not be positioned as a central aspect of professional language learner advising. In places it is treated as a “positive emotion”, and in others it seems to imply that being ‘authentic’ necessarily places an unwanted burden on the advisor.
To consider these concerns, it might prove clarifying to take a Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) perspective to examine these aspects of the important interpersonal behaviour that makes up the professional work of the learning advisor. SDT is a robust and empirical theoretical framework of motivation and human development. It is also a practical source of guiding principles (Ryan & Deci, 2019b, p. 3) that can inform advisors, and others who are focused on both fostering goal progress and well-being. SDT has been used both theoretically (Shelton-Strong & Tassinari, 2022) and practically (Shelton-Strong, 2022a, 2022b, 2025), to understand advising practice and the ways advisors can facilitate conditions in which learners can flourish, experience healthy motivation, and engage with interest.
From an SDT perspective, authenticity is understood as a relatively unburdened alignment between inner experience (feelings and thoughts) and outward behaviour. It is defined by “fully owning one’s behavior” and a “genuineness or reality-based engagement with one’s circumstances” (Bradshaw & Ryan, in press, p. 10). It is also a critical part of the need to experience and to foster autonomy which is defined in SDT as “volition, willingness, and authenticity, [as well as] integrity” (Vansteenkiste et al., 2023, p. 85), and is one of the three basic psychological needs that underpin SDT. Satisfaction of (all three of) these needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) is considered essential for human flourishing, well-being, self-regulation, and overall positive experiences in life and learning. So, from this view, an advisor’s authenticity within a learner-advisor relationship is not a decorative add-on, but a critical part of how autonomy support is communicated and experienced, although it can also often be misunderstood.
In your paper, authenticity sometimes appears to be equated with saying whatever one feels. You suggest that if an advisor does not “connect with the learner”, then authenticity could legitimise “showing disinterest or lack of concern” or even telling the learner directly that they have “a bad idea” or “an offensive attitude”, or that the advisor simply “doesn’t gel” with them. You also note that this becomes a “ridiculous straw man argument”.
An alternative view (Ryan & Deci, 2019b) suggests that the need for authenticity does not require that advisors share all their feelings with the learner they are meeting with. Rather, it implies being sincere when expressing concern, interest, and openness, and taking responsibility for one’s own reactions without blaming the learner. Authenticity can also be expressed through carefully chosen reflective perspectives or self-disclosures that are likely to be meaningful to the advisee, and offered in a way that supports, rather than burdens, the learner.
You also note that the goal of advising is to promote learners’ self-awareness and support behaviour change. Yet you suggest that “openness” and “a genuine connection” may make an advising session more effective but also conceive these as non-essential and a “bonus” to be enjoyed. This sits a little uneasily with your later point that “If language advisors never experience genuine feelings of concern for their learners, they are in the wrong job.” That sentence already positions genuine concern as foundational, rather than optional. If so, the key question becomes less whether genuineness matters, and more how it can be enacted professionally and consistently. Being genuine in the sense of a ‘reality-based engagement with one’s circumstances’, acting from self-endorsed and honest reflection may not be a ‘strategy’ per se, as you point out, but knowing when and how to communicate (feelings, experiences, thoughts, etc.) in a genuine way can be enacted strategically within the reflective dialogue for maximum effect. This does not imply performing or manufacturing genuineness, but rather exercising professional judgement about how one’s genuine stance is communicated in the moment. After all, as you also point out, intentional use of language in the advising dialogue is at the heart of successful advising strategies, and this is another example.
From an SDT lens, this links directly to the need for relatedness, the fundamental need to “feel personally accepted by and significant to others, and to feel cared for by others and caring of them” (Deci & Ryan, 2014). Relatedness support is not separate from self-awareness and change; rather, when it is supported alongside autonomy and competence through encouraging and facilitating reflection on learning, it helps to foster sustainable change and personal growth from within as the advisor is responsive (understanding, validating, and caring) and the learner is open and receptive. Satisfaction of the need for relatedness enhances vitality and well-being, and lessens feelings of isolation and depression (Reeve, 2025). When an advisor is authentic and open, and takes a genuine interest in, and communicates concern for the learner’s well-being within the reflective dialogue, this support for their basic psychological needs becomes an essential part of making personal growth possible, as “it is at the psychological level that change can often most readily be leveraged” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 7).
This is also connected with the advising strategies you note (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mozzon-McPherson & Tassinari, 2020). When these strategies are enacted in autonomy-supportive ways, that is, taking an interest in the learner, their perspective, and their unique challenges, the rapport created becomes an important part of the process of change. In practice, increased self-awareness and sustainable behaviour change are more likely when the advisor supports the learner’s need to feel self-endorsement and volition (autonomy), a sense of effectance and growth (competence), and acceptance, connection, and being valued (relatedness).
This raises a practical question: what is the likely outcome if an advisor attempts these advising strategies in the absence of genuineness? If a learner senses that interest and care are performed rather than felt, the reflective dialogue can quickly become procedural, and invitations to explore goals, beliefs, or emotions may feel unsafe or controlling. This is one reason why genuineness has been repeatedly highlighted in advising and related helping-profession literatures: it supports a relational climate in which learners can reflect honestly and still feel accepted.
To be fair, when transitioning from a classroom teaching environment, many novice advisors report feeling internal pressure as they juggle several new elements at once. These can include learning to use specific advising strategies within reflective dialogue, managing their own feelings of competence, and finding the right balance between objective professionalism and the responsive, caring rapport needed to facilitate a need-supportive learning climate (Kato, 2012). Developing this balance takes time. Reflection on practice, increased opportunities to advise, and engagement with a wide range of learners (with their own personalities, goals, dreams, fears, and uncertainties) are part of the ongoing development of advisors, coaches, and others in the helping professions.
While in this paper you do raise interesting questions, I would encourage you to clarify your definitions and to take a wider-angle view of how authenticity, honesty, genuineness, and openness function within the advising relationship, rather than treating them mainly as risks to professionalism. SDT can be a useful lens here, as it specifies how these are highly relevant to effective support in interpersonal relationships that promote effective learning and achievement through support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and how this underpins reflection, self-regulation, autonomous forms of motivation and learner flourishing. This keeps the discussion anchored in learner outcomes and may also help you resolve some of the tensions in your current framing.
References
Bradshaw, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). Autonomy deeply considered. In R.King, H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, F. Guay, & T. Dicke (Eds.), Self in context: Pathways to flourishing, learning, and well-being. Emerald Publishing.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. In Human Motivation and Interpersonal Relationships: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 53–73). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8542-6_3
Mozzon-McPherson, M., & Tassinari, M. G. (2020). From teachers to advisors: A journey map. Philologia Hispalensis, 34(1), 121–139.
Kato, S. (2012). Professional development for learning advisors: Facilitating the intentional reflective dialogue. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 74-92. http://sisaljournal.org/archives/march12/kato
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.
Reeve, JM. (2025). Understanding motivation and emotion. (8th ed.). Wiley Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. The Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019b). Supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness: The coaching process from a self-determination theory perspective. In P. Brownell, S. English, & J. Sabatine (Eds.), Professional coaching: Principles and practice (pp. 231–246). Springer.
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2022a). Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 963–985.https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912355
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2022b). Sustaining language learner well-being and flourishing: A mixed-methods study exploring advising in language learning and basic psychological need support. Psychology of Language and Communication, 26(1), 415–449. https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2022-0020
Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2025). Promoting learner flourishing and well-being beyond the classroom: The role of advising in language learning from a self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Motivation, 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2025.102127
Shelton-Strong, S. J., & Tassinari, M. G. (2022). Facilitating an autonomy-supportive learning climate: Advising in language learning and basic psychological needs. In J. Mynard & S. J. Shelton-Strong (Eds.), Autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom: A self-determination theory perspective (pp.185-205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Ryan, R. M. (2023). Basic psychological needs theory: A conceptual and empirical review of key criteria. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 84–123). Oxford University Press.