A key role of assessment is to make learning, both its processes and products, accessible and ‘visible” to teachers. Unless they can see, hear, or otherwise discern a student’s learning, it is not possible for them to know how and whether learning has taken place. Put another way, it is not possible for teachers to assess what their students are learning/ the sense they are making unless there is some ‘observable’ evidence of that learning, which means they are limited in the kinds of actions they might usefully take. However, our expectations that teachers will make student learning visible are ambitious, all the more so when the students in their classes are diverse and hence have diverse strengths, needs and interests as well as different capacities and cultural dispositions towards demonstrating what they know and can do (Gipps & Murphy, 1994, Huang & Bell, 2013; Stobart, 2005). Adding complexity and challenge, for teachers to understand and support their students learning effectively and sensitively they need access to both the processes and products of students learning. They need access to student meaning making when their students are working through activities/ learning if they are to meet current expectations associated with teacher enactment of formative assessment. Expectations that teachers will progress student appreciation and understanding of particular curricular learning outcomes - knowledge(s), skills, dispositions, competencies and values - adds to the challenge of ensuring the visibility of learning.  This challenge is exacerbated given the breadth of evidence that both students and teachers value/ attribute value to the knowledge and skills that are assessed, with this the case for both large scale / high stakes assessments (Reay & Wiliam, 1999; Stobart, 2005) and teacher classroom assessment (Author, 2005; Crooks, 1988; Gipps & Murphy, 1994).

To this point the focus has implicitly been on teacher knowledge and skills but teacher beliefs about teaching and learning filter and amplify their assessment practices, including the assessment views of student teachers (Author, 2020; Mertler & Campbell, 2005). Teacher assessment practices have been shown to be influenced by their conceptions of how students develop and demonstrate skills and knowledge, and how and why teachers should assess student knowledge, performance and skills (Corrigan, Buntting, Jones & Gunstone, 2013; Harris & Brown, 2009). In consideration of these linkages a number of researchers, including the authors, have moved towards a sociocultural understanding that links to teacher assessment understandings to teacher professional identities (Authors, 2020; Looney et al., 2018; Xu & Brown, 2016). This shift has been stimulated by studies that have identified the influence of teacher dispositions and beliefs about teaching, learning and students as well as those which have explored the implications of diversity within and across the contexts of learning and teaching (Looney et al., 2018; Xu & Brown, 2016). There is also a body of work that acknowledges the teacher is also ‘in’ the assessment experience (Giles & Earl, 2014) and highlights the importance of relationships supporting mutual trust as central to the trustworthiness of assessment. For these reasons it is important that teacher naïve or tacit beliefs are made explicit so they can be discussed and, if need be, challenged within initial teacher education (ITE) programmes (Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). In this paper, we draw on one aspect of a multi-national study to address the question of how pre-service teachers understand if and in what ways classroom assessment practice makes valued learning visible and interrogate the notion of the value of what is visible.

The evidence presented in this paper was generated in New Zealand under the umbrella of a four-nation Canadian Partnership project on the preparation of assessment capable teachers (see DeLuca, et al., 2019). New Zealand’s national curriculum has been referred to as a framework with teachers expected to design a local-curriculum and classroom activities that take account of student and community strengths and needs (Hipkins, 2019). Assessment in New Zealand schools is expected to involve a partnership between teachers, students and families (MoE, 2011). Within this framing teachers have a lot of flexibility in both designing for, assessing and reporting on student learning, especially since there are no formal nationwide assessment and reporting requirements for primary school students in New Zealand. As part of the Canadian Partnership project student teacher reflections were gathered using the GoingOK.org software. The GoingOK software was designed to collect the personal reflections of people who are undertaking change or transition (Gibson, 2017; Willis et al., 2017). We report on New Zealand preservice teacher responses to one of a series of prompts about assessment using the GoingOK app. Specifically we analysed responses to the statement: “Assessment makes valued learning visible”. Please respond to this quote with how you understand the meaning and what your thoughts are on this claim. We were cognisant that what is assessed gains value, especially in terms of high stakes assessment where there are concerns about backwash of assessment into curriculum and pedagogy at many levels: international and national in the case of PISA to the community in relation to national, school and classroom assessment results, and even further into the dynamics of classroom culture and student-teacher interaction. Data was collected in the last semester of the preservice teachers’ three-year primary initial teacher education programme (August, 2019). Ethical approval was gained for data collection. Respondents were from three cohorts in different versions of a 12-week course on assessment. Preservice teachers could respond that they agreed or disagreed with the statement and explain their reasoning for their judgement. Sixty two of the 221 (28%) primary preservice teachers across three cohorts responded. These responses were analysed using both deductive and inductive processes with attention to three questions: How did our preservice teachers respond? What aspects of the statement did they respond to? What might we learn about teacher capacity /preservice teacher understanding of assessment from our students' responses?

One third of participants answered either 'yes' or 'no' to the prompt. Those who said yes tended to emphasise assessment for formative purposes ○ Without assessment it is difficult to track the progress of students . . . assessment is the most effective way to make visible the understanding in the mind of the students. ○ Assessment can help students ‘see themselves achieving’. Those who said ‘no’ tended to construct assessment as summative, formal, and not helpful in promoting student learning. ○ Often the things that are most valued to learn are often difficult/impossible to assess. Two thirds were more cautious. In their comments these participants mentioned the variation quality and relevancy of assessment tools and the challenges of diversity. They questioned what was meant by ‘valued learning’. There were questions raised about who gets to say which learning is valued and how assessment might be made ‘fair for everyone with such diversity in the classroom’. Some respondents suggested ‘visible’ evidence was only needed by stakeholders from outside the classroom as ‘proof’ of what had been taught and learned. What might we learn? Responses revealed preservice teachers' awareness of the complexity of assessment purposes and practices, including their awareness that a range of different groups have an interest in assessment information. This session will contribute insights into the kinds of ideas and attitudes preservice teachers bring to assessment and hence some aspects teacher education programmes could usefully consider as part of fostering teacher assessment capacity. Teacher education having the potential to raise critiques about what comes to be seen/ viewed as valued learning within a particular curriculum and classroom context. It offers an example of the use of digital technology to gather student voice about assessment in teacher education.

Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for assessment in New Zealand: Developing students’ assessment capabilities. Bjælde, O. E., Lauridsen, K. M., & Lindberg, A. B. (2018). Current trends in assessment in Europe - the way forward. White Paper. Brookhart, S.M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x DeLuca, C., Willis, J., Cowie, B., Harrison, C., Coombs, A., & Trask, S. (2019). Policies, Programs, and Practices: Exploring the Complex Dynamics of Assessment Education in Teacher Education Across Four Countries. Frontiers in Education, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.0013 Edwards, F. (2020). The effect of the lens of the teacher on summative assessment decision-making: The role of amplifiers and filters. The Curriculum Journal, 31(3), 379-397, DOI: 10.1002/curj.4 Gibson, A. (2017). Reflective writing analytics and transepistemic abduction. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology. Giles, D., & Earl, K. (2014). Being "in" assessment: The ontological layer(ing) of assessment practice. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 6(1), 22-29. doi:10.1108/jarhe-01-2012-0001Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning - tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319745 Huang, L. D., & Bell, B. (2013). Formative assessment as a cultural practice: The use of written formative assessment in Samoan science classrooms. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing Assessment in Science Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Policy (pp. 267-284). Springer. Looney, A., Cumming, J., van Der Kleij, F., and Harris, K. (2018). Reconceptualising the role of teachers as assessors: teacher assessment identity. Assess. Educ. Principl. Policy Pract. 25, 442–467. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090 Ministry of Education. (2011). Assessment: Schooling sector. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment (OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/synergies-for-better-learning.htm Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536 Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010