Educational research and evaluation (Canale A-L) a.y. 2025-2026 – Scienze dell'Educazione e della Formazione (EDU)

Teacher: Prof.ssa Antonella Poce
E-mail: antonella.poce@uniroma2.it

CFU: 12
Course code: 804002759
Bachelor Degrees: Scienze dell’educazione e della formazione
Language: Italian

Course delivery modalities: in-presence/online learning
Attendance: Optional
Assessment method: Oral examination – Written test

Pre-requisites:
None

Program:
The course aims to provide the skills and knowledge required to use the theoretical and methodological principles of empirical and experimental investigation, with particular reference to the definition of a research problem, the formulation of a hypothesis, the identification of the main data collection tools, the critical revision of hypotheses, as well as the selection of coherent paths for the solution of research problems. It also provides students with the necessary tools to design and evaluate research projects in the educational field that meet the educational needs of a given context and to make judgements on educational situations in the field of experimental research.

Program:

The course aims to provide the skills and knowledge required to use the theoretical and methodological principles of empirical and experimental investigation, with particular reference to the definition of a research problem, the formulation of a hypothesis, the identification of the main data collection tools, the critical revision of hypotheses, as well as the selection of coherent paths for the solution of research problems. It also provides students with the necessary tools to design and evaluate research projects in the educational field that meet the educational needs of a given context and to make judgements on educational situations in the field of experimental research.

Text books:
Poce, A. (2020). Education research in museum settings: methodologies, tools and functions. ISBN 978-8849544060. Napoli: ESI. Poce, Antonella (2019) (a cura di). Studi Avanzati di Educazione Museale. Lezioni. Napoli: ESI, ISBN 978-8849539011 Poce, A. (2022) (a cura di). Studi Empirici di Educazione Museale 2. Napoli: ESI, ISBN 978-88-495-4920-2.

Educational goals and expected learning outcomes:
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: to know the main elements of experimental pedagogy, also in the field of museum education; to understand the dynamics of evaluation in learning contexts. APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: to recognise and use basic data collection tools, data analysis and evaluation tools in informal and formal educational contexts; MAKING JUDGEMENTS: to identify the teaching methodologies most coherent with the educational context to analyse and evaluate the main docimological solutions according to a selected educational context and defined educational objectives COMMUNICATION SKILLS: Explain in an orderly and argued manner the concepts learned, especially in terms of the objectives and phases of an educational project, in Italian and English. LEARNING SKILLS: to know how to apply theoretical concepts to design educational heritage activities.

Educational goals and expected learning outcomes:

KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
to know the main elements of experimental pedagogy, also in the field of museum education;
to understand the dynamics of evaluation in learning contexts.
APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING:
to recognise and use basic data collection tools, data analysis and evaluation tools in informal and formal educational contexts;
MAKING JUDGEMENTS:
to identify the teaching methodologies most coherent with the educational context to analyse and evaluate the main docimological solutions according to a selected educational context and defined educational objectives
COMMUNICATION SKILLS:
Explain in an orderly and argued manner the concepts learned, especially in terms of the objectives and phases of an educational project, in Italian and English.
LEARNING SKILLS:
to know how to apply theoretical concepts to design educational heritage activities.

Methods and criteria for verifying the learning:
The evaluation takes place in the following way: Students will take the exam through a written test lasting a total of 60 minutes which requires the answer to 60 multiple choice questions (2 or 4 response items). Scores are assigned by assigning 0.5/thirtieths for each correct closed answer (0/thirtieths for incorrect and/or non-provided answers). The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of dddwdwpresentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills). The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking. The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria: – Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language. – 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language. – 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical. – 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical. – 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with appropriate/technical language. 30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language. The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills). The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking. The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria: – Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language. – 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language. – 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical. – 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical. – 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with appropriate/technical language. 30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language. . The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills). The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking. The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria: – Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language. – 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language. – 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical. – 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical. – 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with appropriate/technical language. 30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.

Methods and criteria for verifying the learning:

The evaluation takes place in the following way:
Students will take the exam through a written test lasting a total of 60 minutes which requires the answer to 60 multiple choice questions (2 or 4 response items). Scores are assigned by assigning 0.5/thirtieths for each correct closed answer (0/thirtieths for incorrect and/or non-provided answers).
The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge
about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of dddwdwpresentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills).
The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking.
The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
– Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language.
– 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language.
– 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills
with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical.
– 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical.
– 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with
appropriate/technical language.
30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent
skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.
The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge
about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills).
The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking.
The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
– Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language.
– 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language.
– 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills
with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical.
– 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical.
– 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with
appropriate/technical language.
30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent
skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.
. The exam assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge
about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. Making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills).
The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking.
The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
– Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language.
– 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language.
– 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills
with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical.
– 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical.
– 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with
appropriate/technical language.
30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent
skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.

Attendance modalities:
The course, delivered in a blended mode, includes both in-presence lectures and distance learning activities. In-presence lectures (2h) will be balanced by plenary discussions on specific topics, in-progress exercises and assessment activities. The distance learning activities include video lectures, self-regulated learning activities, exercises, use of OERs, case studies and case histories, web seminars. Attendance is not compulsory, but strongly recommended.

Attendance modalities:

The course, delivered in a blended mode, includes both in-presence lectures and distance learning activities. In-presence lectures (2h) will be balanced by plenary discussions on specific topics, in-progress exercises and assessment activities. The distance learning activities include video lectures, self-regulated learning activities, exercises, use of OERs, case studies and case histories, web seminars.
Attendance is not compulsory, but strongly recommended.