Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Nuru Fathihah Binte Mohd Jamil
1. Introduction
The music education philosophy in Singapore believes that all children possess inherent musicality. The educator’s role is to cultivate these abilities to develop lifelong musical engagement. This vision is supported by a national initiative promoting Holistic Assessment (HA). It is a formative assessment that supports learning and is prioritised over summative assessment that merely tests and grades (Leong & Tan, 2014). A dissonance emerges when attempting to realise this inclusive philosophy. The challenge lies in its implementation within an educational landscape historically dominated by the institutional authority of high-stakes examinations.
2. Case study: Peter
The challenge for implementing Assessment for Learning (AfL) in my context is that standard performance-based music assessments do not align with the unique learning needs of a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This gap makes it difficult to accurately and ethically measure their musical development. It occurs in my Primary 5 music class of 20 students. The intended learning objective (ILO) is to perform the ‘Singapore Town’ song on a ukulele. Peter, a student diagnosed with ASD, encounters considerable obstacles that hinder his participation in the standard curriculum. The participant is referred to by a pseudonym to safeguard privacy and confidentiality.
This situation is further complicated by the common teacher-led classroom culture in Singapore. In this environment, feedback is often given directly by the teacher. It can limit Peter’s opportunity to develop independence and the ability to self-assess. As a result, Peter is more accustomed to looking to the teacher for the “correct” answer instead of participating in a reflective dialogue about his own learning and musical growth.
Although assessment should use evidence to guide future teaching and learning, standard methods in performance-based subjects like music can act as his barriers. It risks obscuring Peter’s potential musicality by measuring the impact of his disability, his access skills, not the mastery of the intended target skills of musical understanding (Razmjoee et al., 2023). This introduces construct-irrelevant variance and threatens assessments validity. It is because the factors that are not related to the skill are being measured (in this case, musicality) affect the score (William, 2014). The assessment is therefore not measuring what it claims to measure. Rather, it is measuring Peter’s ability to handle his communicative and motor challenges within a rigid assessment system.
We have to move away from a student-deficit model that assumes the student is the problem (CCTL, 2025). Adopting an ecosystem-centric approach could be ideal as it focuses on redesigning instruction and assessment. With a clear framework, it can guide systematic, principled changes. The aim is essentially to ensure that assessment is valid, reliable, and effectively serves the learning needs of every student.
3. Proposed assessment practices through principled design
3a. Adopt a systemic framework for the principled adjustments
The framework needs to systematically look at the entire learning environment to create effective adjustments for the students. The focus is shifted from trying to “fix the student” to modifying the environment to better suit their needs. The tool our school adopts is the ESPRiT framework which is adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s (2013) ecological systems theory and is key to creating an inclusive education (see Figure 1). ESPRiT examines 5 key areas: the Environment, the Student, their Peers, the available Resources and curriculum, and the Teachers. The framework advocates for systemic changes to ensure all learners have equitable experiences (Poon & Yang, 2021). In practice, the school’s Special Educational Needs Officer (SENO), the student’s parents, and their peers are involved collaboratively. This collaboration helps to gather thorough information and apply consistent support strategies across all settings.
The ESPRiT framework provides a big-picture structure in identifying and putting in place targeted supports. For example, analysing the Environment for Peter led to creating a “calm corner” and providing him with seating that reengages him. Focusing on the Student meant engaging him in setting his own learning goals to build independence. This holistic and collaborative method safeguards that any assessment designed is based on a full understanding of the learner and their context, not merely assumptions. The information gathered from directly informs specific changes to the subject’s curriculum and assessment tools. This is to make sure that the tools are well-reasoned and fit for purpose.
Table 1: Analysis of ESPRiT framework
This table evaluates the validity and reliability of the ESPRiT framework as a tool for designing principled assessment with concepts according to Wiliam (2014).
3b. Use diagnostic tools for evidence-based adjustments
Effective AfL begins with a diagnostic phase. This initial phase uses structured tools to systematically gather evidence of the student’s specific strengths and challenges. For instance, our school uses a tool like the Learning Need Support-Teacher’s Checklist (see Appendices A) to capture detailed, observable information across multiple domains. These areas include “Inattention/Hyperactivity”, “Social Interaction”, “Motor Skills” and specific academic difficulties. The checklist allows teachers to document behaviours such as “short attention span”, “difficulty understanding others’ feelings”, “repetitive movements” or “slow/hesitant reading”. Recording these specific observations is necessary in building a comprehensive learner profile.
Specific evidence are needed to complete the “Student” section for Peter to understand a structured review of his needs. The data are then communicated to the involved stakeholders i.e. SENO and his parents. This evidence-based method make sure that any support measures are not random, but are directly targeted at his identified learning barriers. However, the quality of any diagnostic tool depends on its technical standards. The checklist needs to be evaluated against the William’s (2014) principles of assessment design i.e. validity (does it measure what it is supposed to measure?) and reliability (does it produce consistent results?).
Table 2: Analysis of the Learning Need Support – Teacher’s Checklist
3c. Informing adjustments and provisions
Adjustments and provisions for Peter can be made upon the finalised information gathered (see Appendix B). Our school has implemented several general resources to create a more supportive environment. For example, a “calm corner” in the main classroom where Peter can self-regulate his emotions, a visual behaviour chart to make expectations explicit and a volume control chart to help manage his voice levels. A buddy system is also assigned to provide Peter with peer support for social interaction and task completion.
The teachers supporting Peter are also connected through a common group chat. It serves as a rapid response system where we can request immediate assistance if a challenging situation arises. These school-wide provisions are to benefit all learners by creating a more structured and emotionally safe classroom culture. For Peter, these resources also can help reduce anxiety and deliver the scaffolding he needs to stay on task. These provisions generally form the foundation upon which subject-specific adjustments, such as the ukulele programme, can build on. This shows how data informs future practices to close learning gaps.
3d. Adjustments in the music ukulele programme
The specific adjustments within the music context to address Peter’s needs will be discussed.
First, environment. Peter’s seat has moved to a location that minimises distractions (see Figure 2). He is now seated near the teacher for easy support, away from high-traffic areas like the doorway and windows which can be sources of sensory overload for students with ASD. This would help him focus better during instruction and practice time (addressing challenge #3 discussed in case study).
Second, curriculum. Inspired by Tan’s (2013) discussion of task design of the triangulated model (see Figure 3), I have incorporated a “patchwork text assessment” into the Primary 5 Scheme of Work (SOW) (see Figure 4). Peter needs clarity and using a sequence of related, smaller tasks that build towards a final, integrated submission achieves that (Leong & Tan, 2014). This means the ukulele programme’s ILO of playing ‘Singapore Town’ is broken down into a series of manageable, “bite-sized” learning activities (Klenowski, 2009).
The curriculum deconstructs the ILO into weekly components to focus on musical skills like strumming, chord transitions and tempo accuracy. Each component of the “patchwork assessment” serves as an assessable ‘patch’ of learning that builds towards an integrated whole. This iterative design helps create timely opportunities for students to use targeted feedback on each skill before the next. An ‘Accessibility and Adjustments’ column is newly added into the SOW. This makes it more inclusive. The planning for diverse learners is also more explicit as compared to the initial curriculum design. This way, it removes barriers to learning from the beginning.
Third, resources. The most major adjustment is the introduction of an adapted ukulele (see Figure 5). The traditional ukulele currently hinders Peter in his chord fingerings due to the fine motor skill required (addressing challenge #2 discussed in case study). The adapted instrument removes this barrier in two ways i.e. the ukulele is retuned so that an open strum produces a C major chord and Peter can use a marker held flat on his lap to press down on colour-coded frets. Then there is no need for complex finger positions. This adjustment completely transforms the execution of the task and helps Peter to shift feeling frustrated to achievable success (Vogl & Pekrun, 2016). Peter would feel encourage to fully participate and contribute to group performances. The ‘Singapore Town’ sheet music is also modified to a coloured notation system (see Figure 5). Instead of traditional music score, the chord changes are indicated by colours that correspond to the tape on the ukulele’s frets. For instance, chord C-white, chord F-yellow and chord G-blue. This visual better aid his learning style and reduces the cognitive load of reading traditional notation (addressing challenge #1 discussed in case study).
Fourth, assessment. A Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy-based rubric is used instead of a traditional grading system. This model appeals because the content can be co-constructed with the class which encourages classroom dialogue and learner autonomy (Tay, 2018). The progression of learning is made visible, the success criteria transparent and guidance actionable to both the teacher and the student. The progression is described on a hierarchical scale. It starts from a ‘prestructural’ level (no understanding) through several stages to an ‘extended abstract’ level (students can apply their knowledge beyond the immediate context) (see Figure 6). Students with ASD often require clarity so Peter can benefit from this. It reduces potential anxieties that may arise from ambiguous or unclear expectations and lead to higher success (Vogl & Pekrun, 2016).
For continuous growth, feedback is necessary, as identified in Tan’s (2013) triangulated model of AfL. It is especially powerful when the process of learning (process level) is targeted. Peter needs to hone his ability to monitor his own learning (self-regulation level). Therefore, the targeted feedback is more effective than ones that focuses on the final product (task level) or on the student as a person (self level). To observe Peter’s successful transfer of learning, he has to demonstrate the following: (1) play the chords on demand even when applied to a new simple song, (2) perform it independently without prompting and (3) play it well in steady tempo. Teacher’s feedback hence focuses on the strategy e.g. “You have successfully linked the colours to the chords (relational). Let’s work on making the chord changes smoother (feed forward).” The rubric is not meant to be used just as an evaluative tool. When it is aligned with the principles of authentic assessment and AfL, Peter’s self-assessment is facilitated and honed. He would feel increasingly empowered to take ownership of his learning journey (Hook, 2018).
4. Limitations and considerations for implementation
First, the implementation highly demands resources from both teachers and the institution. Teachers need to invest considerable time and effort beyond their usual lesson preparation to create customised materials, adapt assessment tools, and provide targeted student support (Razjmjoee et al., 2023). These adjustments otherwise would likely to be superficial and unsustainable without institutional support for ‘white space’.
Second, successful implementation also highly depends on the stakeholders involved. The effectiveness of the adjustments relies on the teacher’s skill with specific inclusive strategies and the subject-matter knowledge of support staff e.g. scribes. Similarly, the success of the earlier suggestion on peer buddy system depends on the student’s maturity and would require careful management of social dynamics.
Third, the procedural compliance risks focusing on following procedures than achieving genuine learning. For instance, AfL practices can be misinterpreted as just a set of steps to follow. The core educational goal of AfL however is to develop reflective, independent learners. If tools like the adapted SOLO rubric are used simply as checklists then the goal is lost (Swaffield, 2009).
5. Conclusion
For students like Peter whose innate musical abilities are not fully realised within the constraints of a standard curriculum, there needs to be a fundamental rethinking of pedagogical and assessment approaches to facilitate his success. This could look like moving beyond the theoretical to concrete, evidence-based strategies. Principled adjustments, leveraging the ESPRiT framework and AfL principles, have shown high potential for implementation to cater to Peter’s specific learning needs. Such key interventions include the modification of ukulele for enhanced accessibility, the use of visual aids to improve comprehension, modular “patchwork” curriculum design which composed of manageable, sequential tasks and the development of an accessible rubric based on SOLO taxonomy. The aim was to shift his educational experience from exclusion to active, successful participation. Analysing this case study demonstrates that there are diverse, effective and successful pathways to demonstrate learning and competency for students like Peter.
6. References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2013). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. The Psychology Notes HQ Online Resources for Psychology Students.
Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning. (2025). The deficit approach. University of Cambridge. https://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/mind-gap-toolkit/reasons/deficit-approach
Hook, P. (2018). How do you design rubrics to accompany the authentic assessment?. In Designing Quality Authentic Assessments (pp. 52-90). Routledge.
Peter, C. (2025). More children with autism are joining mainstream schools, and parents are learning what it takes. ChannelNewsAsia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/children-autism-mainstream-schools-special-education-5388766
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646
Leong, W. S., & Tan, K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observations from ‘successful learning context’ in Singapore. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 593-619.
Ministry of Education. (2022). Music syllabus primary and lower secondary. Student Development Curriculum Division. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/syllabus/2023-music-syllabus-primary-lower-secondary.pdf
Poon, K. K., & Yang, X. (2021). Classroom support for students with special educational needs: What do we know and what else can be done?. OER Knowledge Bites.
Razmjoee, M., Cumming, J., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2023). A case study of effective classroom assessment adjustments for a student with disability: The role of teacher pedagogical mobility in assessment adjustments. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1178.
Scarparolo, G., & Porta, T. (2025). Examining the Australian educational landscape of differentiation through document analysis. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(3), 2137-2161.
Swaffield, S. (2009). The misrepresentation of assessment for learning-and the woeful waste of a wonderful opportunity. In Presentation at the 2009 National Conference of the Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment, Bournemouth (Vol. 16, p. 18).
Tan, K. (2013). A framework for assessment for learning: Implications for feedback practices within and beyond the gap. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2013(1), 640609.
Tay, H. Y. (2018). Designing quality authentic assessments. Routledge.
Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (2020). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Pearson.
Vogl, E., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions that matter to achievement: Student feelings about assessment. In Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 111-128). Routledge.
Wiliam, D. (2014). Principled assessment design. SSAT.
Appendices A: Learning need support – Teacher’s checklist
Appendix B: Peter’s support strategy plan