 In our calculus-based physics course, students have a lab section each week, and in these lab sections, students work collaboratively in small groups through a carefully sequenced set of questions and short experiments that are developing an important concept or principle or law in helping students apply that concept to specific situations. So instead of being told what the idea is and then asked to verify or prove that idea or law through collecting quantitative data, which is how traditional labs often go, students are guided to make specific observations and then asked to generalize or make sense of those observations in some larger way. Teachers teach by questioning rather than by telling. So an instructor would listen to students discussing ideas with each other to try to get a sense for where the students are, to get a sense for what maybe is tripping them up, what they already do understand and what they're having trouble with. The instructor might then weigh in with the question of his or her own, designed to move the students forward, deepen their understanding, challenge them, help them through a spot where they may be stuck at. The focus is on sense-making, understanding and applying concepts, and going through specific lines of reasoning rather than manipulating equations or only calculating quantitative results, although students do some calculations. So we want students to understand what's going on and think about how we know what we know rather than simply being able to manipulate the formalism in the equations. This process of guided inquiry in most labs culminates in a final experiment that we call the Synthesis Challenge, where students are, some of that scaffolding and the guiding questions are kind of taken away and the students are asked to grapple with a more open-ended situation that often involves building an apparatus that works on the first try or measuring an unknown quantity. And we try to carefully design that Synthesis Challenge so that it builds on the concepts and ideas students have built up in the previous part of the lab, but asks them to apply those concepts and ideas now without the scaffolding. So we have this regular instructional sequence each week of the guided inquiry followed by the Synthesis Challenge in a regular way in which the TAs and professors interact with the students, teaching by questioning rather than by telling. So Arnold Arons was an early pioneer in carefully examining how students think about physics and where difficulties come up. And he put forward, urged physics teachers to change the order, the common order in which physics ideas are presented. And instead of telling students the result or the concept or the law or formula and then showing how it can be applied, to actually flip that around and guide students to think about the deeper idea first and only at the end label that idea with a name. So idea first, name later. And delaying introduction of the name can actually help students see the difference between understanding an idea and in the sense of being able to apply it versus understanding it in the sense of just being familiar with it. And I think it's easy to get those two mixed up. And it makes sense that people would mix them up if we look at kind of the way physics is traditionally taught, where the name is presented and then applications are shown. So by flipping it around we give students more of a chance to separate out the understanding from the name.