MDPE.17:3.4 - Design support and context variation for the claim
Choose direct teaching, rehearsal, reconstruction, learning, evaluation, or control Methods. Then design a probe proportionate to the claim.
| Claim | Useful probe family |
|---|---|
| immediate receiving enactment | representative Work under the intended support and configuration; |
| less-supported enactment | remove or reduce only the teacher, model, prompt, or partner cue whose absence matters to the intended use; |
| transfer | change one relevant partner, tempo, music, material, instrument, room, cue, source example, input distribution, or task while preserving the claim boundary; |
| retention | repeat representative Work after a delay under stated conditions; |
| source contribution | use a source-specific contrast, withdrawal, alternative source, incorrect demonstration, or other causal comparison suited to the case and qualify it through C.28; |
| correction and adaptation | introduce or observe a relevant error signal and inspect how the next action or receiving variant changes. |
Variation is not automatically better. Use it when it can reveal cue dependence, transfer, or generalization for the current decision. A constant-practice condition can be adequate for another claim. Preserve task, exposure, fatigue, order, and support differences that could explain the result.
For human motor learning, context-sensitive recall is a useful working hypothesis. If performance disappears, first test whether it returns in the learning context. Then vary one relevant context factor. A recovered action may not have been forgotten; another context may have selected another motor memory. COIN supports this hypothesis for sensorimotor repertoires, not a universal law for every kind of learning. The practical requirement is still representative Work across the contexts in which the capability must be available.