Exploring Novice Raters’ Textual Considerations in Independent and Negotiated Ratings

Educators often employ various training techniques to reduce raters’ subjectivity. negotiation is a technique which can assist novice raters to coconstruct a shared understanding of the writing assessment when rating collaboratively. there is little research, however, on rating behaviors of novice raters while employing negotiation techniques and the effect of negotiation on their understanding of writing and rubric features. this study uses a qualitative method to keep track of 11 novice raters’ scoring behaviors and examine their textual foci during three phases of scoring through an analytic rubric: prenegotiation, negotiation, and postnegotiation. to ensure triangulation, multiple sources of data including raters’ verbal protocols of independent scoring during the initial and final phases, audiorecorded interactions in the negotiation phase, and semistructured interviews were gathered and analyzed. results indicated that in their initial independent rating, raters mostly scored based on their understanding of the writing skill and the writing features that were important to them, but negotiation sessions aided them to refine their judgments and attend to a wider array of textual features more consistently and in line with the rubric, thereby expanding their understanding of the rubric categories. postnegotiation ratings were also more similar to negotiation than prenegotiation ratings, meaning that the raters attended to more features of the rubric for scoring. the findings may have implications for rater training. in the absence of expert raters to train novice raters, negotiation can be considered a useful technique to improve raters’ understanding of the rubric features.