This essay was first published in Dutch om the 28th of April 2014

Learning
Why do we learn? What do we learn? How do we learn and when have we learnt? If you ask these questions to pupils or students, you often receive clear answers. We learn because it’s compulsory (public education law) or because we want a decent job later on (diploma). We learn facts from books and texts that we often never need again. We learn by reading these books, summarizing and memorizing them. And we have learnt well when we pass the test.
These answers may be a bit negatively formulated but most teachers and supervisors will have heard them often. I am willing to juxtapose them to more positive perspectives. There are many students full of curiosity and ambition. They ravish the books, study till late in the night and in the weekends, have had a vision about their future employment from early childhood and will not settle for less than an A or A+, because the study is the gateway to that job. Both perspectives are applicable to what I wish to shed light on in this essay.

Everything in the name of
The common aspect of both groups is that they relate all of their activity (or lack thereof) to the study itself. I often hear students blame themselves for “not having done anything this week”, or shout with relief that they “have a week off” or “don’t have to do anything for tomorrow”, while others lament that they “have no free time”. Some students do not allow themselves any breathing space: “if I don’t succeed, I am dumb”, “if I don’t graduate from this study then everything has been for nothing!”.

Remarkable comments
These are remarkable comments if you take them seriously (something I try to do as much as possible!), because you cannot do nothing. We do nothing when we lay dead in our graves. At all other times, we are busy as bees. It is remarkable to talk in terms of “free” or “not free” in relation to learning. We learn continuously, and, in effect, we cannot have “free time” even if we wanted to (but why would you want to?). We are unceasingly active in creating all sorts of knowledge constructs in our heads. This is in no way an exaggeration. We literally learn with every step we take because we activate certain regions in the brain that are necessary for our thinking and memory (Professor Erik Scherder has given a clarifying lecture about this at the University of the Netherlands). It is from a psychological point of view impossible that all kinds of actions could be “for nothing”.

Monopoly of learning
Is clarification really still needed to explain that a fail for a test does not mean that someone is dumb and that failing your study also doesn’t mean that you have lost all this time senselessly? Yet, this idea is deeply ingrained in a lot of students. They interpret the activity of learning apparently completely from the perspective of education. Education (in the form of teachers, syllabi, regulations, political or societal discussions) apparently determines how we view learning. It determines what we mean by learning and what acknowledged learning activities are. In addition, the institutions determine whether or when you are free, useful, and how smart you are.
I must admit that I come across professionals in the work field that also seem to believe that education has a monopoly on learning.

Problematic
In short, we are in a situation where educational institutions provide an unusual large contribution to how we view learning, even though, in reality, it only plays a minor role in our actual learning. This would not be so problematic if learning in schools would be aligned seamlessly to the learning processes elsewhere. Sadly, this is not the case. Educational institutions employ an exceptionally narrow interpretation of learning. Which means that students, in turn, also have narrow interpretations of learning (see my essay Homo Praxis) . This is what makes the comments above so poignant to me. The students judges and condemns themselves on the basis of seriously limited information.

Narrow Interpretation
Our current education system is the result of two influential historical periods: The Enlightenment and the Industrial revolution (the education expert Sir Ken Robinson has made a famous video about this). The influence of both is, after all this time, still extremely strong. Thanks to The Enlightenment, we see learning primarily as rational knowledge acquirement. Aside from language and mathematics, it is primarily about content filled subjects like geography, history, biology and so on, subjects in which a lot of information is poured into the students. At an early age, we learn about tectonic plates, Romans, William of Orange, etc. My daughter knew the ten largest cities in the Netherlands and the capitals of all surrounding countries even before she had learnt to use the city map to find her quickest way home.

In elementary education, there is some attention for playfulness, personal expression and the practice of everyday life, but on secondary schools, this soon has to make room for “real” subjects in all abstract seriousness. English, Dutch and Mathematics are mandatory subjects and all profiles are filled with hard science. Creativity, social emotional development and self-exploration have to be given attention outside of school. At least, there is no room for this in the all-determining final exams.

The Industrial Revolution might even have had more (bad) influence. The most important characteristics are: scale, quantification, standardization, and efficiency, characteristic of all learning and testing methods in our current regular education system. The individual is completely subservient to the organization. As a pupil you have nothing to say about it, and as a student it is not much better.
Multiple-choice tests are a typical product of this way of thinking. I know study programmes that literally hinder their students from finding out what they did wrong precisely on a test; they merely receive the answer sheet. The testing method is already problematic from an educational point of view, but this lack of decent feedback is fundamentally wrong. Yet, this is what happens; frequently and shamelessly.

Rationalism
In my essay, “true scientists” I claim that we are not the sober empiricists that people in education think we are. I referred to the misconception of viewing the individual as someone who critically and objectively goes through the learning cycle of Kolb (because they do not). But my reading of these ideas in educational systems is, on second thoughts, too optimistic. I see little of the ambition to develop empirical skills in pupils and students. Rationalism dominates with the idea that true knowledge can be completely transmitted via books, lectures, assignments, and multiple-choice tests.

Murdered creativity
I would not go as far as Sir Ken as to say that the education system “murders” the creativity of the pupil, but I see apparent negative consequences in my practice. Doing “nothing” and being “free” are only the most innocent signals. The pupils and students that I meet are decidedly conservative in their learning methods and conform completely to their institution. They want to learn techniques and strategies that all fall within the paradigms of The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. They want to read faster, memorize better, and write more effortlessly. They want to attain this behind their desks and laptops by employing concrete, standardized (read: immediately employable without changeover or measurement) techniques. The menacing condemnation of “being dumb” that constantly hangs over their heads is seen as a given and they want to avoid it at all costs. Conclusion: eyes on the prize and avoid all risks.

The Summit
Nowhere is this rigid working method more prominent than in the phase of writing the thesis. This “highest” level of education ought to be filled with citizens who have managed to achieve the summit of their learning capacity. They ought to be critical and creative minds that dare to lean on their learning capability and that take on all intellectual challenges with confidence. They should, in other words, be intellectual hotshots.

Some students undoubtedly match this description, but the majority does not, and I dare to claim that those hotshots that did come this far have done so despite the system and not thanks to it. Many of the students I come across in this period have no idea what the academic level is that they should try to attain and know just as little about what they want to show at this level. They also consider their capacity to show it of a very low standard. They wrestle with a lack of overview, goal-orientedness and self-confidence and would rather write grammatically correct sentences with the proper academic depth, off the cuff.

Broadening the Horizon
In my work, I try to broaden their horizon – which is full of rigid conceptions and working methods (see also: “Let’ Play ”, “Chaos in the Order” and “Fear of Failure”). I let them formulate their confusion and frustrations and show them that these largely stem from preconceived assumptions and misconceptions. Applicable alternatives can be put in use. One does not have to begin at the beginning and go through everything. You do not have to understand everything in one go. A text does not have to be perfect at the first try. You are allowed to ask stupid questions and to write down nonsense (in the first draft!). Put down your laptop for once and pick up large leaves of paper and colour pencils. Take your study book out on the street, talk aloud to yourself, to your dog, or with each other. Organize a “battle” on the subject and go wild in taking extreme positions. Almost everything is allowed in the learning process, as long as the action at hand sincerely explores the subject (!). Every action, no matter how crazy, serves the purpose of the learning process. Only when you have made yourself independent from the paradigms of the education system, have you reached the highest level of learning. More often than not, I manage to widen the students’ blinders. Would it not be beautiful if we could achieve this with the educational institutions?

First Published in Dutch on the 16th of May 2017

Managing
Simon is a dentistry student in his fifth year, whom I’ve tutored a year ago in the course Professional Behavior. I give this course—together with a tutor from that study—a few times a year to senior students. It is focused on helping students with being able to manage their activities. For students starting their fourth year this can be quite hard because they become responsible for the management of their patient files. They have to invite, call, make and change appointments, outline a treatment cycle, establish priorities, etc. In addition, all other activities continue, such as making assignments, attending practicums, writing papers, and so forth.
Recently, Simon came by my office, telling me that he had worked very hard on the course, but that his problems were deeper. He had a lot of stress and anxiety, alternated by depression and despondency. This emotional rollercoaster influenced his ability to function, making it hard for him to manage his activities.

Did I forget something?
In such conservations, I think it is very important to ascertain the concrete situations that the student struggles with. It soon turned out that there were two kinds of activities: Simon had no trouble with treating a patient, attending a practicum, or carrying out a concrete assignment in real time. These were activities that only require to be carried out.
Activities that required strategic decisions for the future were entirely different. Because he had a lot of different activities on his plate, he also had to be able to make an action plan that took several variables into account (patients, treatment plans, personal wishes, schedules, deadlines). This led to a lot of stress. When I asked Simon what made certain activities so stressful, he said he was constantly asking himself: “did I forget something?” We came to the conclusion that the stress was due to him not even knowing how to answer that question.

Control
When it comes to self-management, you could say that this question is of genuine importance. For people who have great self-management, the question is a logical control question for ongoing matters. The question is an expression of the reflection we need in the analysis and adjustment of our work processes. For people without control—and therefore defective self-management—the question is more a sort of rhetorical expression of panic. It is comparable to the question “Is anyone there?” in a horror film. Many different things impel the question to be asked, but the answer “yes!” is about the worst prospect possible.

Unpredictable
I primarily receive students who don’t experience overview and control. Some of them have an illness or different kind of handicap. Even though the clinical picture can vary strongly, these people almost always struggle with the feeling of being subject to totally unpredictable periods of physical and/or mental problems. They often think that they are very different from “healthy” people, but this is wrong. I often get students without demonstrable ailment who struggle with their concentration or energy level and are desperate about why “it” sometimes goes well and other times not at all. They experience a comparable sense of unpredictability.
Both groups are totally unable to estimate how the days will go and—as a result—don’t know whether they will be successful in meeting their goals or deadlines. When this lack of agency becomes chronic, the continual insecurity leads to an extraordinary miserable feeling with the person in question.

Powerlessness and Power
One by one, all of these students feel awful. One is depressed, the other aggressive, a third has panic attacks, and a fourth is chronically sleepless. Powerlessness is the most awful feeling we can have. It is therefore imperative to give their sense of power back. This does not mean, however, that we can tackle the feeling directly.

Simon drew a well-known but—in my view—wrong conclusion by thinking that his feeling caused him to function badly. It is precisely the other way around! His defective functioning creates his misery. The inability to answer the question “did I forget something?” creates the emotional stress he experiences. I therefore think that there is no reason—at least initially—to dig for “deeper” lying problems. He just has to be made capable of answering the question. In principle, it is quite easy to develop the personal power in question.

Step 1: Create Overview
There are three successive steps that lead to personal power: creating overview, creating insight, developing control. In the first step, one ought to get an overview of his situation. This means that all relevant factors must be made visible. I generally make the student write time. He has to take notes of everything he does, when he does it and how long it takes him to do it.
The more unpredictable our life seems, the more accurate we ought to record what is happening. Everything, even the most senseless activity, can be relevant (also see my essay Tip of the Iceberg). The goal of this first step is to visualize your situation, how you react on certain events and make decisions.

Step 2: Create Insight
We often experience chaos even though clear patterns can be discerned. Our reactions to a situation are especially more predictable than we think. There are many students who always react to every whatsapp, tweet, and facebook message they receive on their smartphone.
Such insights are typical of the second step. On this level we discern patterns from exceptions and connect causes to effects (“whatsapp takes up several hours a day and contributes to me missing deadlines”). The result is almost always that a student recognizes that there’s no uncontrollable chaos that they are the victim of, but that they create that chaos themselves.

Step 3: Develop Control
When someone gets an insight about the cause-effect relations of their circumstances and the part their own behavior contributes to this, they often also automatically become able to exert influence on those cause-effect relations. When the first two steps have been passed through sufficiently, the possibilities (experimenting with new behavior) come within range.
People often think that they have tried everything to get out of the negative spiral but in reality, they kept operating within a very narrow bandwidth on their behavior. Our feeling of powerlessness is largely caused by the blinders we have on.

Real Self-management
Self-management is the ability to go through these steps and improve your functioning every time. They lead—through the learning cycle—to increasingly higher levels of competence. This competence has two clear manifestations. Firstly, we are able to prevent problems. “I see that I wasn’t able to meet my daily target three times because I immediately answered emails. I have to close down my mailbox for the coming days so I can meet my deadline this week.”

In addition, we can solve problems that we had not foreseen. “Due to my car trouble I won’t be able to be there for an appointment. I won’t get the information I need and will have to make a telephone appointment instead. That will mean working an hour longer. I’ll call home to inform my girlfriend.” The examples do not differ in essence from each other; you could say that real self-management is a practical ability to solve problems.

Registration System
It is clear that a chronic lack of personal power and control severely affects someone’s self-esteem. It is a misconception, however, to think that competent people (those that have power and control) are competent because they are self-assured. Confidence is often seen as something elusive that you either “have” or “don’t have.” But confidence comes after control and initially requires something that is especially tangible, that is, a reliable registration system.

Management
Simon felt incompetent because he continually struggled with his negative feelings. He didn’t see that the practical approach of the course, Professional Behavior, was focused on improving his self-management which would actually make him more competent and—as a result—would salve his negative feelings. Overview, insight, and control are essential steps in every shape of management, whether it be self-management, time management, project management, or life-management.

It is a pity that my work is sometimes considered vague psychological babble. I consider our psychological processes to be equally concrete and logical as our physiological ones. It is possible to make everything easy to see and insightful without having to go much further than asking the—ostensibly—innocent question whether “I have forgotten something.”

First Published in Dutch on the 13th of July 2015

Group dynamics
I prefer counselling students in a group. This preference does not stem from laziness. Counselling a group is really not easier than counselling an individual. I have to prepare more thoroughly and be more alert during the meetings. I prefer this method because it is often more effective than individual counselling. It may sound contradictory but the individual learning process flourishes in a group.

In practice, I often come across very different views about group teaching. One side prioritizes efficiency and considers this educational form to be unavoidable, even though not every student receives the attention she deserves. Others consider group education to be completely unacceptable, for this very reason. The individual development is said to be limited too much. Only few seem to think that group education is essential to the learning process. I am of this opinion and want to devote this essay to this issue.

Individuality
The well-known educational thinker, Ken Robinson (See video), does not beat about the bush: the current educational system murders creativity. His reasoning is simple. No two children are the same and an educational system that treats the entire population of children as one entity cannot be good. The individuality of the child is not acknowledged, and it is especially that which needs attention.

In recent times there seems to have been a turn towards “tailored education”. In primary education, people work with individual developmental perspectives and personal growth documents; in secondary education, people want to provide the pupils the possibility to take exams tailored specifically to their level. Every single exam would be based on the student’s own level (vmbo, havo, or vwo) in order to create a tailored degree. On my own university, the medical faculty will commence coming academic year with allowing the students to give shape to their own learning path.

Limits
To be clear: it is good when educational systems centralize the student and take their individual capacities and needs into consideration. This is inevitable since the learning process is ultimately a personal process. What I wish to claim in this text is that education should not be completely subjected to the individual character of this process. Customization has to have its limits.

False Dichotomy
People such as Robinson put the individual against the system, creating two sides: the “free educational thinkers” who claim that the natural curiosity of the individual needs to have unlimited space, and the “system thinkers” who prefer working from the educational organization and therefore prioritize the system. Do you choose the individual or the system?

I believe this is not a matter of a logical opposition, but, again, a false dichotomy. I have written in earlier essays that educational systems that centralize quantification, protocolization, and standardization can seriously fail short of the individual and his or her learning process, but this does not mean that the development of the individual is necessarily obstructed. In my previous essay I argued for this by pointing out that it is definitely possible to codify and organize the development of creativity.

The Borg
Even though I appreciate Robinson’s arguments, I have pointed out before that I think his claims are too extreme (see essay: Blinders). His claim reminds me of The Borg. Every Trekkie knows what I am referring to. In Star Trek’s science fiction universe, this is the name for the population of creatures that have merged into a collective where their individuality has been lost. The individuals do no longer have their own agency or personality. It has been replaced by the will of The Borg which is predatory and wants to incorporate and assimilate all new creatures that it encounters.

The creatures of the collective are portrayed as gray and grizzled zombies without any feeling or warmth, spontaneity and (there it is!) creativity. For people such as Robinson, classical education is comparable to this monster. Maybe it is not as much “assimilation” in the rigid sense, but “the system” is certainly hostile towards our freedom or at least our mobility and developmental possibilities.

Task of Education
The conflict is ultimately about the question what the purpose of education is. Two extreme opposite perspectives receive most attention: the individual serves the collective (education or society) versus the collective serves the individual (the Self-as-Business). This is very two-dimensional.
Gert Biesta, professor of pedagogy and educational science, claims that the goal of education is related to three domains that are closely connected. It is about qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Qualification is becoming competent in a job or work field; socialization is about being able to participate in society; and subjectification focusses on identity-formation.

Individual Needs
These three domains are not perpendicular to the individual needs. On the contrary, they are closely connected! In Self-determination theory (SDT), researchers distinguish between three fundamental categories and needs: competence, relation, and autonomy. These connect very well to Biesta’s domains. The system and the individual are not completely opposed!
Autonomy is often unjustly aligned to complete independence. In SDT, it is deliberately defined and positioned in relation to others. Within these dynamics, I create my identity. If everybody turns their back on me, I am not free at all; I am lost.

Falling Short
Every educational system – whether old-fashionably classical or modernly individual – falls short when it does not focus on all three above-mentioned domains. The current educational system is dominated by a focus on the cognitive (and possibly affective) aspects of the individual learning process. This way, we only satisfy the goal of qualification/competence. The ability to participate in society – where rational skills and the formation of autonomy are essential – is not stimulated enough this way. Only part of the learning process is addressed, and complete learning therefore does not take place.

The Value of a Collective
I see the confirmation of this in my practice. Recently, I rounded off counselling a group of students that were struggling in their study Dentistry. They failed to carefully manage their patients’ documents and independently keep track of their own activities. From the perspective of the study they fell short in their professional behavior. Until then, the study implemented the procedure to talk to these students individually and after insubstantial improvement, forward them to individual coaching.

Despite this customization of counselling, the department was still dissatisfied with the results. The students in question considered the problems to be separate incidents of bad luck, clumsiness or thoughtlessness, but never as signs of a deeper attitudinal problem. The desired change of view did not occur. Following my advice, they opted for group counselling because skills in rational thought and autonomy are addressed and stimulated to a much greater degree.

What happened is what I always hope to attain with a group. The students slowly came into contact with each other, first cautiously and superficially, but later more extensively. All relevant issues, some suggested or structured by the coach, were explored. They were encouraged to question each other and the coach. Sometimes they agreed; sometimes they didn’t. There were no judgments. They supported each other where it was possible and provided critical feedback when necessary. This way, they positioned themselves in relation to their field. This led to a deepening of understanding and insight. Eventually, every individual understood what they had to do.

Limits to Individuality
This group was not an exception. In my practice, participants continually indicate in their evaluations that they appreciated the classes with their fellow-students. They often initially think that their questions and problems are unusual or complicated. In my experience, this is never the case. Their problems and how they deal with them are remarkably similar. They also notice this in the group. Others acknowledge and recognize their problems, allowing the student to proportion their own problems accurately. The students that truly follow their own individual path, by distancing themselves from their peer group and others, are the ones who remain stuck in their problems.

Being Happy
Our need for an individual path and customization is not as strong as it seems. The American philosopher, Eric Hoffer, once wrote it succinctly: “when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other”. One only has to look at playgrounds, fashion, or a concert or festival to see that this is a truism. In counselling in study stress, we explore the ultimate fears of students that could follow from not passing a test or study. Without exception, these feelings can always be traced to the fear of being cast out by their community or to stay behind, alone. The prominent psychologist, Martin Seligman, who researches happiness, also concluded that a stable social network makes individuals the happiest.

Meaningful Limits
The development of qualification/competence, socialization/relation, and subjectification/autonomy can only be reached collectively. Education must provide this collective, obviously not in the rigid sense as The Borg, but pervasive enough in order to strongly limit and structure our Corporate Self. Only in a group do these limitations become meaningful. Truly valuable education can only be established collectively.

First published in Dutch on the 3rd of Febuary 2014

“I have a problem right before a test. At first, I can manage fine, but a week before, I drive myself mad with stress.”

Right and Wrong
This student is right about one thing. She indeed drives herself mad. Readers of my essays know by now that a test does not cause anything, but that our interpretation of that test can set many things in motion. At some point, this student has all sorts of negative thoughts about the test. The tension in her body increases and she undertakes all kinds of activities that, in any case, will not soothe her and will probably fuel her stress even more. In this way, she is driving herself mad.

She is wrong, however, when she thinks that her problem starts at that very moment. The intensity of her experience reaches a certain threshold after which she becomes conscious of her experience of the test. Thus, she notices something that already existed before that moment but that was not experienced consciously. The problem did not suddenly flash into her consciousness out of nothing. In the period of time before that, several things occurred that have led to the feeling of misery. I see these things as part of the problem.

No Starting Point
We generally experience a starting and ending point in the (learning) path towards an achievement, but in reality, our achievements and failures are the peaks and valleys in a continuous stream of behaviour. The point that we view as the beginning is not a starting point that was not preceded by anything relevant. We do not begin neutrally, at zero. We have formulated all sorts of convictions that are already active at this “beginning” and have behaved in several ways of which this beginning is the result.

Hidden
It is understandable that we experience such paths as separate and rounded. Our functioning would be difficult if we did experience a continuous stream of change as Heraclitus said in the famous remark, “no human can step twice in the same river”. We would go mad without a feeling of security, roundedness, and repetition.

With regard to learning problems, I am sometimes inclined to resist this idea and instead tend to go along with Heraclitus’ vision. In a continuous stream, the visible problems are not the starting point of the problems, but part of a larger whole. It is comparable to the tip of an iceberg that is visible above the water. The tip is the exterior appearance of a mechanism that is an integral part of the problem. Without context and history, this mechanism remains beneath the surface, hidden from our view.

Circumstances and Exceptions
The students that come to me are focused on the course for which they received a failing grade again, the thesis that they cannot seem to finish, or the presentation that they have been dreading. I am focused on the context that has led to this trouble. I have attention for circumstances and exceptions on the one hand and patterns on the other. Circumstances and exceptions largely consist of factors that are beyond our control. They are, from a pedagogical and psychological point of view, not very interesting, but often get a lot of attention. Someone who comes late to class because of a traffic jam due to a tipped over lorry filled with cans of brown beans, does not have to draw any necessary conclusions. The chance that this will happen again is naught which means that he does not have to change anything in his practice the next day or any days that follow. Many students are still often inclined to pay an extraordinary lot of attention to such cases that are “in accordance with policy” completely unimportant. At most, certain strategic and tactical choices have to be made in order to compensate for the missed class.

Patterns
If a problem recurs, it could become a pattern. These are much more important. A pattern is defined as a finite, ordered series of elements that can be subsumed as a condition or conclusion under a production rule. I translate this as a finite series of behaviour-effect links that consistently lead to the same conclusion. The whole series that can be subsumed in the “production rule”, I consider to be the larger problem of which the undesired result is the conclusion. This interpretation has important benefits.

A student whose bike chain is loose which causes him to be late for class, is unlucky, initially. If this happens consistently, he might want to solve the “core” of the problem by having his bicycle repaired. This is understandable, but what if he does not have any money to have this done. The student could conclude that he is powerless and subject to the dismay of an unreliable bicycle. This is wrong. Let’s analyze the behaviour that came before “the problem”. For instance, this student gets up so late every morning that he must make haste. The student jumps on his bicycle and cycles, due to his haste, as hard as he can, causing the chain to jump off. The time he needs to put the chain back on causes him to be late. There seems to be a pattern, the conclusion of which is: be late for class. This allows for several possibilities.

Several solutions
The student who considers his bike to be the overall problem, only sees the solutions that have to do with the bicycle itself. A sound analysis reveals that a whole range of other solutions are also possible. For example, the student always gets up too late because he does not set an alarm. His morning ritual consists of showering, breakfasting, drinking coffee, prepare lunch, etc. We can establish that he does not catch up on his haste because he jumps on his bicycle with that same rush. All sorts of solutions jump up. The student could set an alarm, shower shorter, prepare his lunch the night before, skip the coffee, etc. allowing him to leave the house sooner so that he does not have to wear his poor bicycle down. It is shortsighted to view the problem merely as a “bicycle problem”.

Learning problem
This example might seem too specific to be generalized to other (learning) problems, but this is not the case. When our student from the beginning of this essay consistently drives herself mad one week before the test, we also have a pattern. This pattern would have started weeks earlier. For example, the student is consistently sloppily prepared before class. She does not always go to class and when she does, she is unprepared (what would I need to prepare?) and does not take notes (it’s all there in the PowerPoints!). She does review the material after class but skips the parts that she does not understand. She intends to ask questions about it during the next class, but she does not get around to it because new topics are dealt with. This way, she starts to lag increasingly.

Obviously, she goes through this behaviour-effect series without a feeling of displeasure. It only starts a week before the test, but the stress she experiences is a logical conclusion from a long series of behaviour. She has been terribly unprepared up to that point and there is a real chance that she will fail the test. I often say to students: “the stress is not the problem, but a logical effect of the problem”. We must therefore focus on the period before the stress.

Patience, accuracy and nuance
Students regularly resist these types of explanations. I think this is the case because a nuanced analysis often shows that there are no ready-made solutions that solve everything. We want things to be cleared up easily; a simple action that offers a 100% solution. The more detailed we examine the situation, the more do we seem to get away from this possibility (“I just want a new bicycle!”). But the simple 100% solution is often an illusion. Such solutions are often very weak because something that can simply go well can, under slightly different circumstances, go horribly wrong. Robust solutions need accurate steps on several terrains.

In this way, however, we seem to be digressing from the problem itself (“I have a problem with my bicycle and this joker comes along and tells me that I have to get up earlier and not drink coffee anymore!“). It goes against our sense of linearity and simple problem-solution connections. The Chinese proverb, “when in a rush, take a detour”, seems very applicable to me in this case. For a decent learning process, haste and blinders are not advisable; even less so with regard to learning problems. It is a matter of patience, accuracy and nuance. The learning problems that we notice are the results of the real problems that precede them. they are the tips of the iceberg that is made largely out of convictions, choices and practices. The more we are willing to acknowledge this fact, the more real solutions offer themselves to us.