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 — Anatomy identification defense
Scored against the anatomy identification defense rubric · after Units 02–04.
Setup. The student stands at a torso model or preserved specimen you've flagged with numbered tags — their model, their pointer, their call. You name a structure or point to a flag; they locate and identify it, then defend its function out loud while you watch their hands and listen to their reasoning. Because it's their identification and their explanation, there is nothing to outsource.
The question ladder:
- Locate & name: "Find this structure on the model and name it." (Can they place it on the specimen, not just recall the term?)
- Structure → function: "Now tell me what it does — connect the form to the function." (Do they reason from the anatomy, not a memorized definition?)
- System: "How does this structure work with the ones around it?" (Do they see the structure inside its system, not in isolation?)
- Counterfactual: "If this structure were damaged or missing, what fails downstream and why?" (This is the rehearsal-proof rung — a memorized answer dies here.)
Demonstration 2 — Timed physiology case
Scored against the timed physiology case rubric · after Unit 07.
Setup. Under a time limit, the student traces a physiological process end to end — following a drop of blood through the heart, tracking a nerve signal from stimulus to response, or diagnosing a failing system from a set of signs. The clock is the integrity mechanism: there is no time to look anything up, and reasoning through a live pathway under pressure can't be generated.
The question ladder:
- Trace: "Walk the pathway out loud — where does it start and where does it go?" (The reasoning itself, step by step.)
- Explain: "At each step, tell me what's happening and why." (Can they justify each transition from the physiology, not a memorized diagram?)
- Diagnose: "If the system fails here, what sign appears — and how do you tell it from the failure that looks similar?" (The confusable 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 observation to the mechanism and the lab to the concept unprompted. | Names the structure in isolation; can't trace the physiology 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 heart valve — come back when you can reason through what fails downstream if that valve leaks.")
- 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.