An analysis of moderation discourse between ASSESSORS / Chue Siu Kuan

• Main Author: Chue, Siu Kuan
• Format: Thesis
• Published: 2016
• Subjects: P Philology. Linguistics
• Online Access: http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/6821/4/siu_kuan.pdf; http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/6821/

Moderation is a post-judgement process where two or more assessors discuss previously awarded marks with the intention of reaching a common score (Bloxham, Adie & Hughes, 2015; McNamara, 2000). Studies have found that a consensus is achieved through an exchange of rhetorical moves, which may be influenced by factors such as power or experience (Orr, 2007) however, few studies have focused on the ongoing talk process that occurs within the moderation session. This study examines the talk in paired moderation sessions and how they defend or justify the scores they have given to four students in a group oral interaction. The study employs the pragma-dialectical Ideal System for Resolution of Disputes (Van Eemeren et al, 1993) together with a “quality of argumentation” classification as analytical tools. In the moderation, the assessors justify and defend the scores they had given before coming to an agreed score. Findings indicate that agreement is achieved through concessions and compromises, and that each assessor justifies the score they had given through observations of the student’s performance within the group interaction. The findings may suggest implications for the role of moderation as a means of reliability in assessment.