This is a working draft for Leslie's review. All three demonstrations are scripted; edit the question ladders and example exchanges freely. Each demonstration is scored against its published rubric — this page is how to run it, not the rubric itself.
The demonstration is the part of the course that cannot be faked, outsourced, or generated. A student stands in front of you and shows understanding in real time, against a rubric, out loud. Your job is to run it the same way every time: a setup that makes faking impossible, a question ladder that probes past rehearsal, and a clean binary verdict recorded against the rubric.
The three rules that govern every demonstration
- The student does the work; you only ask. No coaching, no leading questions, no "are you sure?" that signals the answer. You probe understanding — you never supply it.
- The verdict is binary. Mastered or not yet. You are not assigning a score in the room; you are deciding whether the published rubric's bar was cleared.
- A "not yet" is a checkpoint, not a failure. How you deliver it determines whether the student comes back. Name the specific gap, give the re-attempt path, and keep the door open.
Every demonstration below climbs the same shape: from recall at the bottom to a rehearsal-proof rung at the top. Keep climbing until you reach the student’s real ceiling — a memorized answer falls off near the top.
Demonstration 1 — Dissection defense
Scored against the Dissection Defense rubric · after Unit 07.
Setup. The student works a real specimen at their own tray — their pins, their probe, their incision. You name the specimen and the region; they locate the structure, identify it, and explain its structure-and-function out loud while you watch their hands and listen to their reasoning. Because it's their specimen and their dissection, there is nothing to outsource.
The question ladder:
- Procedure: "Open this region cleanly and show me the finished field." (Can they expose the structures carefully without destroying them — e.g. laying open the frog's abdominal cavity?)
- Identify: "Locate the fetal pig's diaphragm and name it — show me how you know." (Do they read the specimen in front of them, not a memorized diagram?)
- System: "What does this structure do, and how does its shape fit that job?" (Structure-to-function — e.g. why the perch's gill filaments are so finely folded, not a recited label.)
- Counterfactual: "If this vessel were cut here, which downstream structure would stop working, and why?" (This is the rehearsal-proof rung — a memorized answer dies here.)
Demonstration 2 — Timed structure identification
Scored against the Timed Structure Identification rubric · after Units 02–04.
Setup. Under a time limit, you call out structures for the student to find and name on the specimen — locating each one on the real tray and identifying it under the clock. The clock is the integrity mechanism: there is no time to look anything up, and the motor skill of finding a structure cleanly and naming it honestly can't be generated.
The question ladder:
- Find & name: "Find the earthworm's crop and point to it — name it." (The hands-on skill itself — locate, expose, identify.)
- Identify: "What is it, and which feature told you?" (Can they justify the call from the specimen in front of them, not from memory of a diagram?)
- Discriminate: "How do you know it isn't the structure that sits right beside it and looks similar — the frog's stomach versus its small intestine?" (The recurring confusion pair — this is where a shaky student reveals themselves.)
Demonstration 3 — Oral lab-notebook defense
Scored against the lab-notebook-defense rubric · end of each unit.
Setup. The student walks you through their own notebook: the question, the method, the data, the anomalies, the interpretation. Because it is their recorded work, the defense is unfakeable — a student who didn't do the thinking can't narrate the decisions behind it.
The question ladder:
- Narrate: "Walk me through what you did and why." (Does the story hold together?)
- Anomaly: "This data point doesn't fit — what happened?" (Did they notice, and can they reason about it honestly rather than hide it?)
- Method critique: "What would you change if you ran it again?" (Do they understand the method's limits and sources of error?)
- Transfer: "How does this connect to the concept from this unit?" (Integration — scored on its own line.)
Reading the room: mastered vs. approaching
| Mastered | Approaching (“not yet”) |
|---|---|
| Answers the counterfactual rung without hesitation — reasons forward from understanding. | Strong on recall rungs, collapses at the counterfactual. The understanding is memorized, not built. |
| Owns anomalies and sources of error, and reasons about them. | Hides or hand-waves the data that doesn't fit. |
| Connects the structure to its function and the lab to the concept unprompted. | Knows the structure in isolation; can't trace the reasoning behind it. |
Recording the verdict
Mark the rubric in the room while it's fresh — pass or not-yet on each rubric line, with a one-line note on the deciding moment. If the verdict is "not yet," that note becomes the re-attempt instruction. Do not soften the rubric to avoid an awkward conversation; soften the delivery instead.
Delivering a "not yet" so the re-attempt stays likely
- Lead with what was solid before naming the gap — the student needs to know the work wasn't wasted.
- Name one specific thing to close, not a list. ("The counterfactual on the frog's digestive tract — come back when you can reason through how a blockage would change what you'd expect to find downstream.")
- Give the date and the path. A "not yet" with a re-attempt slot on the calendar is a checkpoint; a "not yet" with no path is a wall.
- Coach or hint during the demonstration — including tone, eyebrows, and "hmm."
- Ask leading questions that contain the answer.
- Let partial credit creep in. There is no 7-out-of-10 here — the bar is cleared or it isn't.
- Move the bar for a likeable student, a tired afternoon, or a parent in the room.