Valuation judgement bias has been a research topic for several years due to its proclaimed effect on valuation accuracy. However, little is known on the emphasis of literature on judgement bias, with regard to, for instance, research methodologies, research context and robustness of research evidence. A synthesis of available research will establish consistency in the current knowledge base on valuer judgement, identify future research opportunities and support decision-making policy by educational and regulatory stakeholders how to cope with judgement bias. This article therefore, provides a systematic review of empirical research on real estate valuer judgement over the last 30 years. Based on a number of inclusion and exclusion criteria, we have systematically analysed 32 relevant papers on valuation judgement bias. Although we find some consistency in evidence, we also find the underlying research to be biased; the methodology adopted is dominated by a quantitative approach; research context is skewed by timing and origination; and research evidence seems fragmented and needs replication. In order to obtain a deeper understanding of valuation judgement processes and thus extend the current knowledge base, we advocate more use of qualitative research methods and scholars to adopt an interpretative paradigm when studying judgement behaviour.
Teacher beliefs have been shown to play a major role in shaping educational practice, especially in the area of grammar teaching―an area of language education that teachers have particularly strong views on. Traditional grammar education is regularly criticized for its focus on rules-of-thumb rather than on insights from modern linguistics, and for its focus on lower order thinking. A growing body of literature on grammar teaching promotes the opposite, arguing for more linguistic conceptual knowledge and reflective or higher order thinking in grammar pedagogy. In the Netherlands, this discussion plays an important role in the national development of a new curriculum. This study explores current Dutch teachers’ beliefs on the use of modern linguistic concepts and reflective judgment in grammar teaching. To this end, we conducted a questionnaire among 110 Dutch language teachers from secondary education and analyzed contemporary school textbooks likely to reflect existing teachers’ beliefs. Results indicate that teachers generally appear to favor stimulating reflective judgement in grammar teaching, although implementing activities aimed at fostering reflective thinking seems to be difficult for two reasons: (1) existing textbooks fail to implement sufficient concepts from modern linguistics, nor do they stimulate reflective thinking; (2) teachers lack sufficient conceptual knowledge from linguistics necessary to adequately address reflective thinking.
In L1 grammar teaching, teachers often struggle with the students’ conceptual understanding of the subject matter. Frequently, students do not acquire an in-depth understanding of grammar, and they seem generally incapable of reasoning about grammatical problems. Some scholars have argued that an in-depth understanding of grammar requires making connections between concepts from traditional grammar and underlying metaconcepts from linguistic theory. In the current study, we evaluate an intervention aiming to do this, following up on a previous study that found a significant effect for such an approach in university students of Dutch Language and Literature (d = 0.62). In the current study, 119 Dutch secondary school students’ grammatical reasonings (N=684) were evaluated by language teachers, teacher educators and linguists pre and post intervention using comparative judgement. Results indicate that the intervention significantly boosted the students’ ability to reason grammatically (d = 0.46), and that many students can reason based on linguistic metaconcepts. The study also shows that reasoning based on explicit underlying linguistic metaconcepts and on explicit concepts from traditional grammar is more favored by teachers and (educational) linguists than reasoning without explicit (meta)concepts. However, some students show signs of incomplete acquisition of the metaconcepts. The paper discusses explanations for this incomplete acquisition.
