 The actual pedagogy doesn't look very different if you go to the four classes. What does look different is how sometimes we approach concepts. And so, for example, when we wrote the biology curriculum, and we were using the physics curriculum as a model, we found that there were several things that physicists talk about and how they approach things that didn't translate very well to how biologists approach things. So we deal with things at a systems level, whereas physicists oftentimes are dealing with first-order interactions. A physicist can talk about a cart being pushed and a force being imparted, whereas if you're talking about cellular respiration, you're talking about lots of linked energy transfers or matter transfers. And so we really had to do a lot of kind of rethinking about how we were going to approach it in the biology class versus the physics class. But that doesn't mean that the actual whiteboarding and asking questions is any different. It just means that sort of the conceptual approach might be a little bit different. The consistent theme through all four classes is transfer of matter and energy. So I think what Deb was saying is sometimes maybe the different disciplines might approach that transfer of energy and matter a little bit differently, but the pedagogy is the same. In chemistry, which is my discipline, one of the most pernicious, what we would call misconceptions is related to the energy involved with bond breaking and bond formation and a lot of students and really all types of people come in with the idea that breaking bonds releases energy when really it's the bond formation that releases energy. Every quarter that I teach my chemistry, science, education, inquiry class, we spend a lot of time on talking about bond breaking and bond formation. It's a very difficult content area because it's so abstract and we're modeling these things with small particles. But by the end, almost all of them have turned around this idea or all of them have and they're drawing drawings on whiteboards that show bonds coming together and energy going out. I think every discipline has its kind of poster child misconception like this that is just very, very rewarding to see that turned around in a meaningful way and not only because the student now holds the correct idea but because they are able to reason in a way that scientists reason. It's this reasoning piece that I think is just as important as the end content goal that they're actually looking at their evidence and they're trying to make sense of it in a way that gets them to the correct idea and gets them to see science as a process instead of a collection of facts. New faculty workshops and the last one of those that we did were faculty from all around the university, not just in the sciences. So we did work with them on how to help students bring out their initial ideas, how to facilitate what we call metacognition which is reflecting on your thinking and how it's changing and regulating your learning. All of these aspects of how students learn that are consistent with a whole bunch of cognitive science research. A lot of this stuff is transferable to other disciplines. Especially the idea of frequent formative assessment. That works everywhere. Even the most experienced instructors don't always know what their students are thinking. In fact, they probably usually don't know. And more importantly, the students don't know what they're thinking or what each other are thinking. It's important for everybody to be upfront about it.