Offering an olive branch: a study of dissenting rater's practices for resolving placement discrepancies

Abstract

Assessment of student writing by human raters often involves discrepancies, necessitating discussions for resolution. This study explores this process within a US university's English for Academic Purposes program, focusing on the exit practices of dissenting raters - strategies used to conclude disagreements. Utilizing multimodal conversation analysis, the study reveals that dissenting raters typically employ two exit practices: acknowledging personal bias and deferring to the opinions of co-present raters. While acknowledging bias effectively ends disagreements, deferring to others can be perceived as challenging equal participation, thus introducing complexity into the resolution process. The study also highlights how social concerns regarding professional credibility and reputation influence raters’ resolution strategies. The findings offer valuable insights into the interactional complexities of academic placement meetings, underscoring the importance of understanding exit practices in these contexts. They also demonstrate the potential of a conversation analysis approach for uncovering unexplored facets of rater interactions.