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 — Microscope cell defense
Scored against the Microscope Cell Defense rubric · after Unit 02.
Setup. Use an instructor-approved permanent plant or animal slide. Observe the learner handling and focusing it; ask which features are actually resolved and which are only known from a diagram. The Unit 02 source/scale assignment rehearses reasoning but does not certify handling. Do not request personal swabs, pond samples or a culture. Judge observed technique and the explanation, not a polished supplied-data result.
The question ladder:
- Procedure: "Bring these cells into focus and show me a clear view." (Can they work the microscope and get a sharp, honest image?)
- Name & observe: "Which structures are resolved here, and what evidence supports each label?" Accept an honest unresolved feature rather than requiring every diagram label on this slide.
- System: "What does each part do, and how can you tell this is a plant cell and not an animal cell?" (Do they connect structure to job, and read the evidence in front of them?)
- Counterfactual: "How would an approved animal-cell reference differ from this plant-cell image?" Use a reference image, not a request to collect a sample.
Demonstration 2 — Timed classification challenge
Scored against the Timed Classification Challenge rubric · after Unit 06.
Setup. Under a time limit, the student sorts and keys out a tray of organisms by their observable traits — using a dichotomous key, hand lens, and field guide — and records each call. 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:
- Observe: "Look closely and tell me exactly what traits you see." (The hands-on skill itself — body shape, covering, legs, symmetry.)
- Key it out: "Work the key and tell me what group it's in, and which trait sent you each way." (Can they justify the call from the evidence in front of them, not from memory of a worked example?)
- Discriminate: "How do you know it isn't the look-alike organism that ends up one branch over?" (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 observation to the mechanism and the lab to the concept unprompted. | Knows the test in isolation; can't trace the life 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 the cell defense — come back when you can explain how a cheek cell would look different from an onion cell, and why.")
- 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.