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 — Specimen-prep defense
Scored against the specimen-prep-defense rubric · after Unit 07.
Setup. The student prepares a specimen to a finished slide on their own bench — their mount, their stain, their focus. You name the specimen and the technique; they prepare the slide, bring it into focus, and talk through their technique choices out loud while you watch their hands and listen to their reasoning. Because it's their preparation and their slide, there is nothing to outsource.
The question ladder:
- Procedure: "Prepare and focus this specimen and show me the finished field." (Can they produce a clean, defensible slide?)
- Technique: "Talk me through why you mounted and stained it that way — show me the working." (Do they connect the technique to what they're trying to resolve, not a memorized recipe?)
- System: "Why this stain for this specimen?" (Do they understand what the stain reveals versus what it obscures?)
- Counterfactual: "If your section were twice as thick, how would the image change and why?" (This is the rehearsal-proof rung — a memorized answer dies here.)
Demonstration 2 — Timed microscopy identification
Scored against the timed-microscopy-identification rubric · after Units 02–04.
Setup. Under a time limit, the student identifies an unknown specimen by finding it, focusing it, and reading its structures — locating the field, bringing it into sharp focus, and naming what they see. The clock is the integrity mechanism: there is no time to look anything up, and the motor skill of finding and focusing a specimen and reading it honestly can't be generated.
The question ladder:
- Find & observe: "Locate the specimen, focus it, and tell me exactly what you see." (The hands-on skill itself — find, focus, resolve.)
- Identify: "What is it, and which observation told you?" (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 structure that looks similar?" (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 observation to the underlying structure and the lab to the concept unprompted. | Knows the specimen 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 scale calculation — come back when you can reason through how a mis-calibrated eyepiece scale shifts the result.")
- 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.