 So the inquiry-based learning that happens in the labs is messy, and it's a new and different approach to learning and teaching for some students, and it can be quite a bit different than what they might have been expecting. So we try to frame the labs for students upfront to let them know what to expect, to try to explain why we're taking this approach. We talk a little bit even about the research base in physics education, describing to students that experience has shown that deeper, more lasting learning can occur when students have the opportunity to wrestle with ideas for themselves rather than simply being told the answer. Another thing we try and do is provide some confirmation for students in their learning, especially after they've had a chance to collaboratively work through some ideas and develop understanding for themselves. So the labs might guide students through a series of short experiments involving two carts that have force sensors on them, and the force sensors can display graphs of the strength of the force that each cart is exerting on the other. So students are asked to do an experiment where there's a symmetrical collision, where the carts are approaching at the same speed, and then maybe a collision where one cart is approaching the other that's just sitting at rest, maybe an experiment where one cart has extra mass placed on it so they're not the same mass, and they're asked to compare the force strengths in all of those experiments, notice any patterns, and then they might be asked to think of their own experiments where they think the forces might be different, and what they would have observed up to now is that the forces are always the same. And then they'd be asked to generalize their findings to describe, well, in what situations are the mutual forces that two interacting objects exert on each other the same strength? And then finally, after all of that, students would be told Newton's Third Law. And interestingly, many of them have probably already read Newton's Third Law in their textbook or heard it in the lecture, but we reprinted it in the lab in a little paragraph of text, and that provides sort of the confirmation that students have arrived at a valid scientific idea. And it helps, I think, some students who may not, even though they've done a fabulous job of going through the reasoning for themselves, who may not feel secure in that knowledge, simply because it's not a mode of learning that they may be used to. So when you're actually asking them questions and guiding their exploration that way, I think it's better because they're questioning what they're understanding, and when they actually answer the questions, they kind of, they have to kind of gauge whether that fits in, and that way their group mates can kind of understand and see if it fits what they're thinking as well. And so I think by probing that and asking those questions, that's a good way to kind of get them collaborating. As a group, they have a better chance of having the correct model because by bouncing ideas back and forth, that way they can kind of refine their thinking and see what works and what doesn't work. So I think that's really important. As a physics major, I've gone through this experience I've done, I've dealt with these difficult concepts, and so I know they're struggling when they're struggling with this difficult concept and they can't get it, and I love the moment when they get it, and you can see their eyes are lighting up, and that's when it's just magical because you've gone through that experience and you're helping another person go through that experience.