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.

中文翻译：

---

伸出橄榄枝：异议评估者解决安置差异做法的研究

人工评分者对学生写作的评估通常会存在差异，需要通过讨论来解决。本研究探讨了美国大学学术英语项目中的这一过程，重点关注持不同意见的评分者的退出实践——用于解决分歧的策略。利用多模态对话分析，该研究表明，持异议的评估者通常采用两种退出做法：承认个人偏见和尊重共同评估者的意见。虽然承认偏见可以有效地结束分歧，但服从他人可能会被视为挑战平等参与，从而给解决过程带来复杂性。该研究还强调了社会对职业可信度和声誉的担忧如何影响评估者的解决策略。研究结果为学术安置会议的互动复杂性提供了宝贵的见解，强调了了解这些背景下退出实践的重要性。他们还展示了对话分析方法在揭示评分者互动中未探索的方面的潜力。