Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are


The courage of effectively relaying information is a mutual conviction that comes from within the understanding of an individual. Some principles guide everyone, but practical principles can make everyone understand their best way of teaching. Effective teaching does not follow the gimmicks of the laid principles. According to Palmer, he posits that the projection of teaching is conditioned by the student’s soul, the subject being taught, and the interconnection between the learners and the teachers. Palmer adds that any intellect becomes a cold abstraction when it reduces emotions and increases the narcissistic orientations (Yayli, 2017). To teach adults means having the familiarity with inner terrain and becoming surefooted in the teaching docket. Having a professional relationship with learners will make them open up with the basics towards understanding what they should be taught. Therefore, a teacher should equate their teaching scheme to teaching versus listening to the teacher within themselves while teaching.

Teaching Who We Are

Educator needs to know their students and then tailor the subject to meet their minimum threshold. The inner landscape should align with critical paths of intellectual, spiritual, and emotional understanding. When an educator is comfortable, the inner terrain is grounded with confidentiality to relay information in the best possible way. When I discover the uncharted territory to explore, the thickets of adversity open up. The illumined mind-thrilling framework flaws life in the teaching environment and a shared understanding links me to the adult learners (Yayli, 2017). The sources of teaching tangles involve fundamentalism is commonplace because it is complex. Commonplace acknowledges that teachers must ensure they are affiliated to research and readings and incorporate teaching commands that can elude the grasps. It is ideal to note that the student that is taught have complex lives. The fusion of Freud and Solomon must be achieved to account for the complexities of teaching standards.

“We teach who we are” poses enough techniques from inwardness to project educator’s soul to the learners. The emotional, intellectual, and spiritual paths cannot be ignored because they can make the education analogy have cold abstractions. For instance, when emotions are reduced, it becomes narcissistic, when spiritual cleansing is reduced, it loses the anchorage of the world, and reducing intellect makes the educational foundation lack a conclusive objective. The intellectual overview entails teaching and learning content based on the concept that people know. The nature of students and the subjects they take should revolve around things they can easily relate to (English, 2020). The teacher was once a student, and it is best to use a real-life outlook to explain various teachings in the education sector. Emotional attachment with the students can either enlarge or diminish their interlink with the educator. Spirituality brings diversity and a sense of belonging to animating the art of love and work simultaneously.

Teaching who we are takes the metrical vector of going beyond basic techniques. Techniques that are mastered are often passed from one generation to the other with ease. The best technique is to form an identity and integrity in plain sight. Having a solid identity makes it easier for students to get the contents contained in the education (Richmond et al., 2015). It also makes it easier for the adult learners to infuse the contents in the teachers’ enthusiasm. For instance, a student can describe their teacher and differentiate them from other educators. Such a description can make the incoming adult learners have a brief outlook of the imagery an educator has. A meaningful heart in teaching converges the humanistic understanding of a valued education. The idealism of teaching who we are is that it brings a win-win situation for both the learner and the educator.

Listening to the Teacher Within

To reclaim the teaching relationship with the common understanding of the adult educators entails knowing the best modes of relieving the teacher within us. Getting lost into adulthood invites the honor of the authentic self in terms of ego, and the imagery of expectation is always stripped away. The inner teacher can have a superego or conscience that the adult learners can internalize incorrectly. The vocational trouble “the teacher within us” can hound the learners and distort their integrity. Our identity brings out the moral calculus because it intersects the inner self and the outer understanding. Learners that are taught with such educators end up with an externally undervalued integrity. Their understanding of the mode of teaching is always shallow or much personified (English, 2020). The teacher within can expose ethically subjective circumstances that can erode the spirituality of the adult learners. For instance, when the inner self is violated at some moment, it will expose such ethical standards, and the weak idealistic minds within the learners can pick such signals and magnify them.

Following the teacher’s ideal within is ethically laudable, and it is not a voice of conscience. It also makes the educator speak of what defines their character that is the truth. Self-spoken audiology is a significant gate of selfhood, and it welcomes affirmations. Therefore, the “teacher within” is like a romantic fantasy that cannot fathom realism. The classical understanding of education is to lead others on the path of reflective determination for excellence. The amalgamation of romantic fantasy in teaching inhibits the appeal of inner truth toward the sequential adult teaching matrix (Yayli, 2017). When the teaching transformation in context with the students’ inwards understanding is ignored, the teacher is also ignored. For instance, when the educator teaches while listening to the teacher within them, they are easily ignored if the learner does not conform to their understanding. Therefore, listening to the inner self while teaching adults is not efficient.


Gauging between “Teaching Who We Are” versus “listening to the teacher within” brings antagonistic ideologies. In every idealism, there is the suitable vector and the wrong vector. The psychological ontology of teaching “Who We Are” follows the understanding of idealism. The factorial bureaucracy of teaching who we are conceptualizes the external factors of academic institutions. It also looks at the structural connection of self-knowledge and the overall positivity in collecting wisdom. “Listening the teacher within” utilizes internal power by barricading oneself through integrity and forming identity. The complex forces in the notion can subject the adult educators to miss critical points while being taught. It is the predictable line in learning that makes education dull. Parker Palmer insinuates in “The Courage to Teach” that educators must ensure they reconnect with professionalism and form a bond that adult learners can contextualize their basis of understanding (Yayli, 2017). Therefore, “teaching who we are” forms the utmost basis for educators and learners to formalize their professional relationships.


English, A. (2020). Listening as a teacher: Educative listening, interruptions and reflective practice. Paideusis, 18(1), 69-79.

Yayli, D. (2017). Using group work as a remedy for EFL teacher candidates’ listening anxiety. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(71), 41-58.

Cite this paper

Select style


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 5). Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are. Retrieved from


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 5). Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are.

Work Cited

"Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are." ChalkyPapers, 5 Apr. 2023,


ChalkyPapers. (2023) 'Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are'. 5 April.


ChalkyPapers. 2023. "Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are." April 5, 2023.

1. ChalkyPapers. "Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are." April 5, 2023.


ChalkyPapers. "Andragogy: Teaching Who We Are." April 5, 2023.