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 — Nutrition-Analysis Defense
Scored against the Nutrition-Analysis Defense rubric · after Unit 07.
Setup. The student analyzes a real diet or single food using its nutrition data — their food, their label or dataset, their read of the numbers. You name the food or diet to work up; they read the nutrition data, reason about what it does and doesn't show, and defend an evidence-based recommendation out loud while you watch their thinking. Judge the observed work and explanation together; do not infer independent understanding from a finished result alone.
The question ladder:
- Read the data: "Work up this food's nutrition data and tell me what it shows." (Can they read servings, macronutrients, and micronutrients accurately?)
- Reason: "Make an evidence-based recommendation from that data — show me the reasoning." (Do they argue from the evidence to a claim, framed as reasoning rather than an order?)
- System: "How does this one food fit an overall balanced pattern, rather than being judged in isolation?" (Do they see food in the context of a whole diet, not as good-food/bad-food?)
- Counterfactual: "If the serving size on the label were doubled, how does your reading change and why?" (This asks the student to apply the idea to a changed situation.)
Demonstration 2 — Timed Label-and-Data Reading
Scored against the Timed Label-and-Data Reading rubric · after Units 02–04.
Setup. Under a time limit, the student reads a set of nutrition labels and health data and separates the science from the marketing — what the numbers actually show versus what the packaging claims. 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:
- Read & report: "Read these labels and tell me exactly what the data shows." (The core skill — servings, quantities, ingredient order.)
- Science vs. marketing: "Which claim on this package is supported by the data, and which is marketing?" (Can they tell an evidence-backed statement from a health-halo claim?)
- Discriminate: "How do you know this ‘natural’ or ‘low-fat’ label doesn't tell you what it seems to?" (The recurring confusion — 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 observation to the mechanism and the lab to the concept unprompted. | Knows the test in isolation; can't trace the science 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 your nutrition-analysis recommendation — come back when you can reason through how a change in the serving size would shift your read of the data.")
- 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.