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. Mastery 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.
The questions progress from recall to explanation and application. Use them to identify what the student understands and where further instruction is needed.
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. Judge the observed work and explanation together; do not infer independent understanding from a finished result alone.
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 asks the student to apply the idea to a changed situation.)
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. Follow the published timing and any approved accommodations. A time limit does not establish independent work by itself; observe the technique and ask the student to explain the result.
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 — use the answer to identify the specific misconception.)
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. Ask the student to connect the explanation to specific entries. Record what the evidence supports and what needs further checking.
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: Mastery vs. Proficient
| Mastery | Proficient (“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.