MDPE.10:2.4 - Choose a development Method that fits the holder
| Capability holder | Examples of direct development Methods | Boundary to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| person | focused practice, coaching, imagery, listening, movement, feedback, repertoire work, tool-supported practice | attendance and exercise success are not transfer; protect health, autonomy, and performance conditions |
| pair or ensemble | rehearsal, cue design, shared timing, partner feedback, coordination games, arrangement change | member capability and whole capability remain different |
| robot | control learning, trajectory or gesture adaptation, actuation change, calibration, mechatronic integration, rehearsal | a component benchmark or software result is not whole-robot performing capability |
| AI System | data, model, prompt, interface, fine-tuning, evaluation, recovery, and deployment Methods | output quality remains configuration-, distribution-, and use-bounded |
| equipped performer | human practice, device design, sensing and control calibration, co-adaptation, interface and safety Work | person, device, and combined-configuration capabilities remain separate |
| hybrid or collective | allocation, coordination, interface, communication, rehearsal, adaptation, and support Methods | the group label does not identify a capability holder by itself |
Choose teaching and attentional interventions by performer, material, limitation, and outcome. Current Music evidence does not support one universal internal-versus-external focus cue. Current Dance evidence does not support one universally superior teacher-led or learner-led pedagogy. Demonstration, correction, exploration, reflection, peer feedback, choice, and deliberate return of attention to an automatized detail are candidate moves to test, not a mandatory order.