Semester.ly

Johns Hopkins University | AS.210.202

Intermediate French II

3.0

credits

Average Course Rating

(4.28)

This course develops skills in speaking, listening comprehension, reading, and writing. Systematic review of language structures with strong focus on oral communication and acquisition of vocabulary; extensive practice in writing and speaking; readings and films from French-speaking countries. Recommended course background: AS.210.201 or placement test score: https://learnmore.jhu.edu/browse/ksas/internal/selfenroll/courses/as-french-placement-test. Contact: Suzanne Roos (sroos@jhu.edu)

Spring 2013

(4.35)

Spring 2013

(4.55)

Spring 2013

(4.29)

Spring 2013

(4.35)

Spring 2013

(4.29)

Spring 2014

(4.1)

Spring 2014

(4.35)

Spring 2014

(4.45)

Spring 2014

(4.64)

Spring 2014

(4.4)

Spring 2015

(3.29)

Spring 2015

(3.67)

Spring 2015

(4.22)

Spring 2015

(4.29)

Spring 2015

(4.36)

Spring 2023

(4.5)

Spring 2023

(4.36)

Spring 2023

(4.28)

Spring 2023

(4.58)

Spring 2013

Professor: Jena Whitaker

(4.35)

The best aspects of this course included the various forms of language immersion utilized, the relaxed atmosphere regarding the oral evaluations, and the instructor’s means of teaching interactively. Students also appreciated the instructor’s enthusiasm for the course content. Some students felt that the course was not as challenging as they would have liked. Suggestions included dispersing the weekly schedules sooner and making peer-to-peer conversations in French mandatory. Prospective students should already have a good grasp of the language and be ready to learn.

Spring 2013

Professor: Ioana Cooper

(4.55)

The best aspects of this course included the oral evaluations and in-class compositions, the instructor’s interactive teaching methods, and the smal class size. Some students felt the QUIA exercises online were tedious. One suggestion was to make more peer-to-peer in-class conversations mandatory and in a presentational format. Another student suggested discussing the plot of the novel more in class. Prospective students are encouraged to keep up with the reading in order to comprehend and perform well in class.

Spring 2013

Professor: Sophie Turner

(4.29)

The best aspects of this course included the incorporation of French culture into the curriculum, the many opportunities to improve writing and reading skills, and the instructor’s approachability and enthusiasm for the material. One student felt that reading M. Ibrahim was useless since many students didn’t complete the reading and, when they did, expressed that the reading didn’t augment their learning of French. Another student felt the grading system was unclear. Suggestions included more interactivity during lectures and planning the syllabus so that the exercises, evaluations, and interrogations don’t fal within the same week. Prospective students are encouraged to be meticulous when writing their in-class compositions.

Spring 2013

Professor: Rebecca Loescher

(4.35)

145 The best aspects of this course included the introduction to French culture, the smal class size, the feedback provided by the instructor, and the overall invaluable language acquisition. One student felt that it was difficult having quizzes, movies, journal entries due around the same time. Another student felt the in-class work didn’t focus on the material that they were later tested on. Suggestions included more language-based conversations and more grammar practice. Prospective students should know there is a lot of mixed day-to-day work involved in this course – quizzes, vocabulary, online exercises, journal entries, readings, etc.

Spring 2013

Professor: Suzanne Roos

(4.29)

The best aspects of this course included the language lab and the pronunciation exercises, the smal group atmosphere, and the interesting topics involving col oquial French terms. Some students felt that the class involved a lot of “busy work.” Some students also felt that the instructor piled on assignments 146 and exams mid-semester, making the workload seem unbalanced. Suggestions included changing the book read in class and incorporating more films. Prospective students should stay as involved as possible in class discussions.

Spring 2014

Professor: Olivia Sabee

(4.1)

The small class size and the effective and patient instructor were the high points of this course. Low participation during class discussions and some reading material were given poor marks from the students. More participation and conversation with the whole class, as well as a bit more time with French culture were both suggested as improvements to the course. Students interested in this course should know that it is a good continuation from Intermediate French I.

Spring 2014

Professor: Kathryn Haklin

(4.35)

Students found that the patience of the instructor and the immersion into French culture and language were the best aspects of this course. The most commonly cited negative for this course was the frequent and sometimes tedious homework assignments. Suggestions for improvements varied, but most frequent suggestion was to have more in-class discussions to practice speaking French. Prospective students should know that while there is regular work assigned, your French will improve greatly.

Spring 2014

Professor: Suzanne Roos

(4.45)

The highlights of this course included the patient and knowledgeable instructor, the variety of learning tools, and the open atmosphere which encouraged discussion. As in most language courses, students gave the near-daily homework assignments deux thumbs down. Suggested improvements were to read more short stories and watch more movies. Students interested in this course should know this is a fun and interesting course which will improve your French skills.

Spring 2014

Professor: Ioana Cooper

(4.64)

The instructor for this course was given high marks for her attentiveness and patience with her students. The small class size and exposure to French films and music were also highly rated by students. Many students found the online exercises to be repetitive and tedious, and struck many as busywork. An improvement suggested by several students was to incorporate additional books or movies. Students interested in this course should try to take it with this instructor.

Spring 2014

Professor: Ana Delia Rogobete

(4.4)

The regular feedback, varied modes of learning, and patience of the instructor were the best aspects of this course. Class discussions were often forced and clunky, and there is a good deal of weekly work. Fewer short assignments or less of the online exercises were commonly suggested as way to improve the course. Students interested in this course should know that the instructor was always willing to help, and that the regular assignments will help you learn and retain the language.

Spring 2015

Professor: Cecilia Benaglia

(3.29)

The best aspects of the course included the ability to get a lot of practice. The instructor incorporated a variety of activities and tools to help the students grasp the language, including movies and a short novel. Although the course covered grammar, the lessons did not help students grasp concepts. Suggestions for improvement were to focus more on grammar exercises and speaking skills. Prospective students should know that grading is fair and they should be comfortable with French before enrol ing.

Spring 2015

Professor: Marie Alhinho

(3.67)

The best aspects of this course included the opportunity to practice speaking French. The instructor organized the class wel and taught using many techniques. The worst aspects of the course included the instructor being somewhat impatient and the occasional moments of disconnection between her and the students. To improve the class, students suggested the instructor answer questions in English and use class time more effectively. Prospective students should be prepared to think and speak in French.

Spring 2015

Professor: Ioana Cooper

(4.22)

The best aspects of this course included assignments that helped students improve writing, reading, and speaking skil s. The instructor cared about student progress, and brought good energy and enthusiasm to the class. The worst elements included not reviewing course material and having an overwhelming workload. Suggestions for the class to improve included speaking French more often and having a variety of assignments. Prospective students should know that the course is pretty straightforward as long as assigned work is completed.

Spring 2015

Professor: Nicole Karam

(4.29)

The best aspects of the course included the instructor who gave many assignments that reinforced what was taught. The discussions were engaging and fun. The worst aspects of the course was the busy work and excessive focus on grammar. Suggestions for improvement were having more opportunities to speak French in class and having the instructor provide more ways to help students retain information. Prospective students should know that this course is pretty lenient and there is a significant amount of assignments.

Spring 2015

Professor: Suzanne Roos

(4.36)

The best aspects of the course included the positive interactions between the instructor and the students. The instructor used a variety of activities to teach concepts, which made the course fun. On the other hand, the workload was heavy and there was not enough practical French. To improve the course, the instructor could teach more about French culture and have more conversations in class. Prospective students should have a knowledge of basic French and should know that participation is important to succeed.

Spring 2023

Professor: Manon Page

(4.5)

Spring 2023

Professor: Camille Roche

(4.36)

Spring 2023

Professor: Suzanne Roos

(4.28)

Spring 2023

Professor: Thomas D'amato

(4.58)

Lecture Sections

(02)

No location info
S. Roos
13:30 - 14:20

(01)

No location info
S. Roos
10:00 - 10:50