One thing that resonated with me very quickly when reading the observations was the varying degrees of interaction and active participation that you have amongst the clientelele.  In other words, some clients will come in and just say something like, “I just don’t get it” (referring to the entire chapter), haven’t read the chapter, and have no test/quiz questions or problems out of the book to work on.  When asked what specifically is confusing, its hard to know how to guide the session when you get an answer like, “just… everything, I can’t get this stuff.”  Trying to calm down and pace clients like how Aimee did is something I don’t believe I’ve experienced yet, but I feel like I would much rather that be the case than having to try and teach a client an entire chapter and improvise a lesson plan.   And this is not always the case, nor is it even the majority of the cases I’ve seen, but I’m coming to terms with how students view the session… as if I’m going to have some sort of action plan waiting to go over with them when they get here.  When I get more proactive clients, on the other hand, its much more enjoyable.  In these cases I can identify what the problem is, where the client went wrong, explain it (perhaps in several different ways), and then do some practice problems, before finally asking the client to repeat the whole process back to me.  The way Grace would provide hints and recognize the significance of the struggle reminds me of my own technique (see Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development); its important to gradually wean a client off of advice/hints over the course of the session to make sure s/he can do it in a testing situation.