Political Economy a.y. 2025-2026 – Scienze dell'Educazione e della Formazione (EDU)

Teacher: Prof. Massimo Giannini
E-mail: massimo.giannini@uniroma2.it

CFU: 6
Course code: 804001084
Bachelor Degrees: Scienza dell’Educazione e della Formazione
Language: Italian

Course delivery modalities: online-learning
Attendance: Optional
Assessment method: Oral examination

Pre-requisites:
NEITHER

Program:
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL ECONOMY INSTRUMENTS AND TARGETS PUBLIC ECONOMICS MARKET FAILURES AND REGULATION PUBLIC CHOICES NATIONAL ACCOUNT

Text books:
ARTICLES AND DRAFTS ON THE ELEARNING PLATFORM

Educational goals and expected learning outcomes:
LEARNING OUTCOMES: TO UNDERSTAND THE FOUNDATION OF POLITICAL ECONOMY KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: MATH BASIC APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POLITICAL ECONOMY DOES IN REAL WORLD MAKING JUDGEMENTS: HIGH COMMUNICATION SKILLS: TO BE ABLE TO SPREAD THE KNOWLEDGE IN A SIMPLE WAY LEARNING SKILLS:

Methods and criteria for verifying the learning:
INTERVIEW TO ASSESS STUDENT KNOWLEDGE. 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:

INTERVIEW TO ASSESS STUDENT KNOWLEDGE.
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:
TUTORING AND MENTORING BY THROUGH THE ELEARNING PLATFORM.