Semester.ly

Johns Hopkins University | AS.210.152

Italian Elements II

4.0

credits

Average Course Rating

(3.9)

Course helps students develop basic listening, reading, writing, speaking, and interactional skills in Italian. The content of the course is highly communicative, and students are constantly presented with real-life, task-based activities. Course adopts a continuous assessment system (no mid-term and no final). May not be taken Satisfactory/ Unsatisfactory. No previous knowledge of Italian is required.

Spring 2013

(3.76)

Spring 2013

(3.0)

Spring 2013

(3.83)

Spring 2013

(3.57)

Spring 2014

(4.0)

Spring 2014

(4.0)

Spring 2014

(4.14)

Spring 2014

(4.0)

Spring 2015

(3.9)

Spring 2015

(4.36)

Spring 2015

(4.08)

Spring 2023

(3.9)

Spring 2023

(4.14)

Spring 2013

Professor: Alyssa Falcone

(3.76)

The best aspects of this course included the effective use of conversational Italian, the interactive lessons, and the instructor’s thorough explanation of the material. One student felt there was not enough focus on grammar and vocabulary. Another student felt some of the subject matter was covered too fast. Suggestions included providing a new textbook, a more succinct syl abus, and spreading out the Sentieri exercises. Prospective students should know that this course focuses primarily on conversational speaking and that attendance is mandatory.

Spring 2013

Professor: Maria Assunta Farisco

(3.0)

The best aspects of this course included the interactive environment, the many opportunities for students to improve their grades, and that the small sections made it easier to participate in class. Some students felt the cumulative exams were excessively more difficult than expected and didn’t properly test students’ demonstration of material learned in class. One suggestion included providing students with vocabulary lists. Another suggestion was to include a mixture of contemporary media – news broadcasts, movies, Top 40 Italian pop songs, etc. Prospective students should know that doing wel on the homework doesn’t necessarily mean that they wil master the exams; consistent studying and practice are invaluable means of preparation.

Spring 2013

Professor: Lorenzo Bacchini

(3.83)

The best aspects of this course included the interactive environment, the many opportunities for students to improve their grades, and that the small sections made it easier to participate in class. Some students felt the cumulative exams were excessively more difficult than expected and didn’t properly test students’ demonstration of material learned in class. One suggestion included providing students with vocabulary lists. Another suggestion was to include a mixture of contemporary media – news broadcasts, movies, Top 40 Italian pop songs, etc. Prospective students should know that doing wel on the homework doesn’t necessarily mean that they wil master the exams; consistent studying and practice are invaluable means of preparation.

Spring 2013

Professor: Rebecca Lee Green

(3.57)

The best aspects of this course included the interactive environment, the many opportunities for students to improve their grades, and that the small sections made it easier to participate in class. Some students felt the cumulative exams were excessively more difficult than expected and didn’t properly test students’ demonstration of material learned in class. One suggestion included providing students with vocabulary lists. Another suggestion was to include a mixture of contemporary media – news broadcasts, movies, Top 40 Italian pop songs, etc. Prospective students should know that doing wel on the homework doesn’t necessarily mean that they wil master the exams; consistent studying and practice are invaluable means of preparation.

Spring 2014

Professor: Rebecca Lee Green

(4.0)

The immersion style of the course and the relaxed class dynamic were the best aspects of the course. Uneven distribution of the work, a confusing online tool, and a large class size were rated as the poorest aspects of the course. Limiting the number of students in one class to 15 and using a different online tool were two suggestions for ways to improve the course. Prospective students should try to take the course with this instructor, and make sure to stay on top of the workload.

Spring 2014

Professor: Beatrice Variolo

(4.0)

The instructor’s availability and willingness to help students, along with the opportunities to practice speaking were the highest rated aspects of this course. Many students thought the amount of work, and the impression that a good deal of it was “busy-work” was the worst aspect of the course. One suggested improvement to the course was to remove the Sentieri exercises from the course. Prospective students should know that there is a heavy work load associated with this course.

Spring 2014

Professor: Lorenzo Bacchini

(4.14)

The highlights of this course were the small class size, the chances to practice in class, and the instructor. Most students thought the discrepancy between the online activities and the textbook were the worst aspect of the class. The most common suggestion was to use either the textbook or the online activities to reduce to conflicting lessons. Prospective students should know that language courses take more weekly practice and work outside of class to succeed, so you should be prepared to put regular work into the class.

Spring 2014

Professor: Francesco Brenna

(4.0)

Learning Italian from a native speaker, the cultural elements, and the conversational nature of the class were the highest rated elements by students. The amount of work and the online exercises were cited as the worst aspects of this course. The suggestions for improvement were more English spoken in class, more Italian spoken in class, fewer online assignments, and more online assignments. There was, however, agreement that students interested in this course should take it with the same instructor, and make sure to keep up with the weekly assignments.

Spring 2015

Professor: Troy Tower

(3.9)

The best aspects of this course included the professor who encouraged students to speak Italian in class and focused on grammar which contributed to successful completion of assignments. Students appreciated the variety of materials used to teach the concepts, including film and writings. Students did not find the Sentieri exercises helpful. Suggestions for improvement included having more opportunities for student-to-student interaction and conversations in Italian. Prospective students should have a good foundation in Italian Elements I and be prepared to practice skills every day.

Spring 2015

Professor: Francesco Brenna

(4.36)

The best aspects of this course were the instructor’s ability to relate class material to Italian culture, and his wil ingness to attend to the needs of individual students. The instructor focused on grammar and vocabulary which made the content easier to grasp. The worst aspects of the course included the heavy workload and confusing material. Suggestions for improvement included decreasing the amount of Sentieri exercises and increasing opportunities for in-class discussion. Prospective students should be familiar with concepts learned in Elements I.

Spring 2015

Professor: Beatrice Variolo

(4.08)

The best aspects of this course included the thorough and helpful teacher who encouraged the class to speak the language. Students appreciated the professor’s flexibility with deadlines as well as her wil ingness to provide extra help to students. The worst aspects of the course were the Sentieri exercises and the grammar summaries which were too detailed. To improve this class, students suggested removing the Sentieri lessons and having more interactive activities in class. Prospective students should know that the class was not very hard and that the workload was manageable.

Spring 2023

Professor: Alessandro Zannirato

(3.9)

Spring 2023

Professor: Leonardo Proietti

(4.14)

Lecture Sections

(01)

No location info
L. Proietti
16:30 - 17:45