Background
The National Student Survey (NSS) has been carried out annually since 2005. The main aims of the survey are to provide information on the quality of courses and to allow future applicants to make informed choices about where to study. Both nationally, and at Nottingham, the scores for the Assessment and Feedback section are generally lower than the scores given for the other sections. Whilst this may be due to shortcomings in this area, there may also be a disparity between what staff and students interpret as useful feedback. This work seeks to explore these issues from the perspective of university staff. Specifically, the following research questions were identified:

• Which feedback methods do staff at the University of Nottingham most frequently use, and are they formative or purely summative?
• Which forms of feedback do staff believe are most beneficial to students?
• Do staff perceptions of assessment and feedback match those expressed in the NSS?

Methodology
A survey of Nottingham University academic staff was conducted using a specially designed questionnaire. Staff were asked to identify aspects of their feedback practice as applied to coursework, examinations and practical/laboratory work; and also to assess the quality of feedback they provide by answering NSS-type questions.

Results and Discussion

• 293 responses (18.8% response rate) were obtained from staff in 32 Schools, representing all 5 Faculties of the University.

• The most frequently used method of providing feedback on coursework, examinations and practical work was found to be by written comment. Staff also judged this as the form of feedback most beneficial to students. Other methods were also identified, but these were generally seen as less beneficial.

• A significant minority (35%) of staff provide coursework feedback only after an assessment, and most (67%) provide exam feedback automatically, suggesting there may be an emphasis on feedback associated with summative assessment. In contrast, feedback on practical work appears to be of a much more formative nature.

• Comparison of staff responses to the NSS questions on feedback with those of Nottingham students revealed clear differences. Questions concerned the promptness of feedback, the detail of feedback, and the ability of feedback to clarify misunderstanding. In all three areas, higher scores were provided by staff compared to the results from the NSS. The greatest discrepancy was seen in the ability of feedback to clarify misunderstanding. Staff rated this between 3.88 and 4.15 (scale of 1-5), while students gave a markedly lower score of 3.00.

These results indicate that differences in the way staff and students perceive the provision of feedback may contribute to the low scores given in the NSS. Staff may also overestimate the effectiveness of written comments. Further investigation into how staff can help students recognise the different forms of feedback and use them more effectively may lead to more productive learning.