Volume 12: December 2008
www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol12/beej-12-1.pdf
Research Article
Seeing Eye-to-Eye? Staff and Student Views on Feedback
Ruth Bevan1, Joanne Badge2*, Alan Cann3, Chris Willmott4 and Jon Scott2
1University of Leicester CETL GENIE, Department of Genetics. 2School of Biological Sciences,
3Department of Biology, 4 Department of Biochemistry, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Date received: 24/04/2008 Date accepted:16/10/2008
Abstract
Feedback on academic performance is of critical importance to students’ learning, and in
their perception of the quality of instruction they receive. Here we report the outcomes of a
study comparing the views and expectations of first year biological science undergraduate
students and academic staff regarding feedback provision and utilisation. The results
indicate that while students and staff are generally satisfied with the feedback process, there
are some tensions generated by perceived differences in desired academic outcomes. In
particular, these tensions focus on perceptions of inconsistency in the feedback processes
and in the use made of feedback to inform future practice.
Keywords: feedback, survey
Introduction
It is well recognised that feedback plays a critical part in student learning (Ramaprasad, 1983;
Hattie et al., 1996; Black and Wiliam, 1998; Hattie and Jaeger, 1998). The importance of
providing feedback that is understandable, timely and that students can act on is emphasised
as an integral part of the empowerment of students as ‘self-regulated learners’ (Gibbs and
Simpson, 2004). However, despite general acknowledgement of the importance of feedback
to learning and development, the recent UK National Student Surveys (2005–2007) have
highlighted students’ relative dissatisfaction with the feedback they receive (HEFCE, 2006).
Although feedback from formative assessment can be given in many different forms (Hyland,
2000), as student numbers increase direct interactions between staff and students inevitably
decline, leading to a greater reliance on written feedback. Academic staff devote considerable
amounts of time to providing feedback to students but anecdotal evidence would suggest that
they are unclear to what extent the students engage with the feedback provided and whether
the intended messages are transmitted successfully. It has been suggested (Higgins et al.,
2001, 2002) that feedback may not be effectively used by all students due to differences in how
students understand feedback and therefore make sense of their assessments. Orsmond et al.,
(2005) suggested that for feedback to be effective there needs to be a common understanding
by both staff and students of the purpose of feedback and how it should be used.
A number of reasons have been proposed as to why students do not fully utilise feedback
(Wojtas, 1998; Glover and Brown, 2006): some students will only look at the grade given
because they believe it provides them with a clear, meaningful reflection of their progress
(Ecclestone, 1998); some students will only read feedback comments if the mark they receive
is outside their expectations (Taras, 2003). However, an additional group of students may not
read or take the feedback advice on board because they do not fully understand or realise

Volume 12: December 2008
www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol12/beej-12-1.pdf
the potential use of the comments (Chanock, 2000). This thinking may be exacerbated by the
modular structure of many degrees where students often do not receive feedback on assessed
work until after a module has finished (Lea and Strierer 2000). One approach to try to overcome
such effects of degree modularisation is the delivery of feedback in a form that encourages
‘feed-forward’ reflection by students, as suggested by Higgins et al., (2001).
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) have identified seven principles of good feedback practice,
which they broadly define as ‘anything that might strengthen the students’ capacity to self-
regulate their own performance’. However, although feedback which follows these guidelines
is likely to be constructive, research has also shown that it has a limited effect if students do
not actively engage with it (Fritz et al., 2000).
The study reported here provides a comprehensive examination of the perceptions regarding
feedback given on the first year of the Biological Sciences degree at the University of Leicester.
For the thirteen modules taught in the First Year, written feedback is predominant and is given
to students on their practical write-ups, presentations and essays through a formal School of
Biological Sciences feedback sheet, recently (January 2007) re-designed to encourage staff
to more easily identify areas of strengths and to suggest points for improvement in an attempt
to encourage ‘feed-forward’ practice by students. To encourage early engagement with their
studies, biological science students are required to complete their first assessed piece of work
and receive feedback on it within ten days of starting their course and subsequently submit
assessments and receive feedback weekly throughout the first semester. Although a structured
approach to giving feedback is encouraged within the School of Biological Sciences, there
remains a range of variables which impact on how staff and students perceive the role of
feedback, including differences in staff approaches, differences in assessment format and
differences in subject matter. The aims of this study were to compare the perceptions of
students and staff on a number of aspects of feedback on the first year of the biological science
degree and on the relationship that this feedback has to student learning.
Research Methodology
Research was conducted into the views and perceptions of staff and students regarding
feedback using a combination of online questionnaire, focus groups and interviews. Interviews
and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Permission for recording was sought prior
to the start of interviews and confidentiality ensured by anonymising transcripts. Management
of the project was undertaken by a research assistant who was not involved in any aspect
of teaching delivery within the School. Academic staff did not participate in recruitment of
students or in conducting focus groups to obviate any likelihood of students’ responses being
biased by an academic presence.
Feedback Questionnaire
An anonymous ‘feedback questionnaire’ based on Gibbs’ Assessment Experience Questionnaire
(Gibbs and Simpson, 2003) was posted on the University’s virtual learning environment,
Blackboard™, for a total of nine weeks during Semester 2. This sought views on students’
perceptions of a number of aspects of feedback, including quantity, timing, use and quality.
Responses were given using a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly
disagree’. Reliability analysis was performed to determine Cronbach’s Alpha using SPSS.
Student focus groups
Student Focus Groups: Students across the range of academic performance were selected for
participation in focus groups based on their 1st semester module results. Ten students were
allocated to each of four focus groups conducted over four consecutive weeks. Overall, 20