MDPE-TRANSFER — Move a practice to new conditions and keep it reproducible

• Situation: Learners can repeat a taught coordination with the teacher but cannot use it with unfamiliar partners, and a school wants to rely on the practice beyond the present class.
• Question: What transferred, what still depends on the teaching situation, and which result is needed for the school’s next commitment?
• First useful result or honest blocker: The relations the receiving version must preserve and a judgement of whether existing evidence supports its use; or the missing capability, source content, partner, or support that prevents it.
• Start with: MDPE.6 for the changed conditions and MDPE.17 for receiving performance. Use MDPE.23 when the uncertainty concerns recognition rather than the movement that follows.
• Stop or return: Keep the claim at the tested receiving use. Return a recognition problem to MDPE.23, a performance limitation to MDPE.10, or a missing support relation to MDPE.22. A broader continuation promise requires its own basis.

Suppose the teaching team wants learners to use two already taught partner-coordination variants with unfamiliar partners. MDPE.6 compares the class with that receiving use. Partner timing and contact must remain readable; teacher labels and a fixed exercise order need not remain. The team can choose a receiving version of the teaching arrangement that varies those conditions while retaining the original class for learners who still need its support.

MDPE.17 follows what the receiving dancers actually do, which taught method or variant their performance enacts, and how they used the demonstration or lesson material. When the performance fails, MDPE.23 can separate “did not recognize the current coordination” from “recognized it but could not perform the response”. Its constructed recognition case asks for a spoken A/B response before the movement. The learner identifies ten of twelve held-out trials with unfamiliar partners and music, but seven of twelve immediately after a rapid switch between dance contexts. This supports the tested recognition and a remaining transition-sensitive limit; it does not establish movement fluency. A correct recognition followed by a failed response returns to MDPE.10. If competent recognizers cannot maintain the distinction across the intended contexts, revise the distinction or receiving task before drilling it.

These results change the receiving trial and the next teaching move. MDPE.17 uses representative dance-performance observations to judge the receiving claim. It can report that the source was used and a receiving variant was enacted while leaving the source’s causal contribution undecided. Productive changes to the received variant can remain when they preserve the relations the receiving use needs.

When the school asks whether another teacher can continue the practice, MDPE.18 identifies what the lesson descriptions, recordings, and testimony can actually help that teacher recover, including the embodied relations they omit. MDPE.19 uses this evidence together with available performance and support results to assess the stated continuation promise. Existing evidence may support continuation with the current teacher while replacement remains unknown. Test a replacement only when the result is needed, obtainable, and worth the full teaching, performer, support, and observation burden. A claim that replacement performance was tested must rest on that performance; the proposal to develop another teacher is already a useful, narrower result.