Grammar that's extensively used in interactive audio lessons that is explained much later! Why?

I am currently working on the interactive audio lesson 15.3 which introduces kinda “passing by” the “plus-que-parfait” that is subject of lesson 19.8 (!!!) and the “conditionel passé” that is subject of lesson 20.6 (!!!).
 

So, these grammatical concepts are introduced very confusingly at the beginning of level 3 and they are being explained towards the end of level 3.
 

Can anybody explain to me how this is supposed to make any sense?

In my honest opinion it should be that way:
Grammatical concepts that are introduced in interactive audio lessons must be paired with their thural explenations  in the same modul.

At least that would make common sense to me.

And then these grammatical concepts which have not yet been thoroughly explained yet, are even part of the quiz! How is this possible? 

Hey Robert, 
what you write shows that the course is, at least in parts, not well structured.

The “interactive audio lessons” and the “language and culture lessons” need to be synchronised in content.

I learn a grammar concept and then it's being used in the audio lesson or vice versa - that way they reinforce each other and the learning experience.

Hey Robert,

there has been a missunderstanding, sorry.

the “plus-que-parfait” that is subject of lesson 19.8 and the “conditionel passé” that is subject of lesson 20.6 are being used and explained in a very short way (that is possible in an audio lesson) in Audio lesson 15.3.!

Of course these concepts are part of Level 3, but they are not together, but very far apart.

That is a missed opportunity for good learning → have it introduced in the audio lesson and then explain it in the grammar lesson. It looks to me like the audio lessons and the grammar lessons are completely independend from each other, and that does not make any sense to me.

Hey Robert,
thinking about it, I think that it's the first time, at least that I remember, that an interactive audio lesson really introduces a grammatical concept at all - and then, that is explained much later in the language and culture lesson → that is the problem and does not happen often, but this one really bothered me.

I often come across stuff in the course, that is not the subject of that particular lesson and have been asking an AI-tutor in these cases for some time. That has been very helpful lately. Podcasts, some youtube channels, films and series are really good for immersion without needing to go to france … for now ;-)

The french language is so refined, detailed and nuanced, how things are said, what is not said, but expected to be read between the lines up to the intercultural differences in comminication - it's been quite a fascinating and beautiful journey so far. 

One more thing I have noticed is, that the interactive audio lesson 15.3 used to be lesson 17.3, as they say in the lesson. What happened to module 16? was it dropped or moved … who knows …

Well, I don't have any interest to construct a Rocket French lesson family tree, of course. And, as I mentioned earlier, this is a first, that a grammar construct was introduced in a interactive audio lesson to that extend, and part of the quiz and all that, completely unconnected with language and cultural lessons, that explain that same concept … far far apart. Repeating myself: from a teaching and learning experience, that does not make any sence and yes, that should be changed imho. 
There is some othere weird stuff too in level three like:

• dropping of words by the native speakers, like it's done in every day french, but it's not explained
• but use of inversion-questions and use of more formal words like “lorsque” in familiar french

So it's kind of a weird mix of more formal or written french, mixed in with some colloquial things, that doesn't really distinguish between different “registers” of conversation like “formal, neutral, colloquial”.

And I ask myself the same kind of a similar question like you: is it poorly written/developed, did somebody not pay attention and missed that, or is it a twisted sense of humor?

Yeah, I agree Robert,

in a weird way, them throwing in variations and things, that do not make sense, forces us to solve those problems on our own and we learn from that.

Allthough I still think that the course should not be disorganized, but rather organised.
And I don't think there is a big plan behind all this incoherence ;-)

I've had a language-AI-tutor for a while, that is always running whenever I work with rocketfrench to answer any question that comes up and it's been really helpful. I notice details, something grabs my attention in a sencense or two, that isn't even part of the subject of the lesson. I get an explenation and can practice it immediately, if I want. I got through the 6 lessons on the subjunctif much easier then I thought and with a few more details actually, with practice etc. 

What is cool about that is, that I don't ever feel like I am memorizing the phrases from the lesson, cause the AI-Tutor always comes up with new phrases. It's a really good addition to the course.

I am particularly interested to know how the every day french is spoken and the mix of different registers (formal, neutral, courant) is confusing - I like to be able to distinguish and use them.

One example from lesson 16.1 "Mais oui. Chaque fois que l'on parle de nourriture, voilà l'effet sur Eric !"

I thought that “chaque fois qu'on parle de nourriture, …” would be more courant.

I got this respond from my tutor: Très bonne question ! Les deux versions sont possibles mais il y a une petite nuance.
"Chaque fois que l'on parle" est légèrement plus soutenu que "chaque fois qu'on parle". Le "l'" est ajouté pour des raisons euphoniques (pour éviter le son "que-on").
C'est la même chose avec "si l'on" vs "si on". Le "l'" n'est pas nécessaire grammaticalement, mais il rend la phrase plus élégante, plus formelle. Par exemple : "Si l'on veut" au lieu de "Si on veut".
Dans le langage courant, on dira plutôt "chaque fois qu'on parle". La version avec "l'on" appartient à un registre plus soigné, plus écrit.

Me: I think it's more natural …

Tutor: Dans une conversation décontractée, "chaque fois qu'on parle" est beaucoup plus naturel. Le "l'" ici semble artificiel car la situation est informelle et la prononciation de "qu'on" est très naturelle et courante en français.

Il semble que votre cours mélange parfois les registres de langue. Dans le langage courant, on dirait simplement : "Chaque fois qu'on parle de nourriture..." ou même plus familièrement "À chaque fois qu'on parle de bouffe...".

All that in a very good french without accent and to read. “c'est génial” :-)
It's a good preperation for me for further steps like to talk to a native speaker in a tandem call and visite France in october ;-)

Robert, with all due respect to your experience of so so many years - I don't think that you get my point. 

The course sometimes or often mixes different registers like a bad stew with ingredients that don't match together. I'm not worried about anyone frowning over my french, and I want to understand everyday spoken french and barely any native speaker in any language talks like a textbook. I'm not Novak Djokovic and I suppose that the number of world class tennis players giving french interviews with respectful journalists, is very limited. I assume that most every day situations are quite different.

People learn languages in school and courses for years, formal textbook language and understand nothing when they talk to a native speaker… or when they listen to native speakers talking to each other.  

I thought this could be an interesting exchange of ideas and means to learn french and that is why I gave you that example - as an input for you and others, but you don't seem to be open for it. 

The tutor program that I use in combination with the course has been a great compliment and help to it and certainly for me. Others have looked into it and saw the value of it, as it might not be perfect, but very very helpful. 

BTW I lived in New York for a year quite some time ago, after years of series and films in original english version and talking to a friend from NY for years and people didn't think that I'm from Europe, from a country where english is not the first language. Why was that? Cause I had picked up (american) english how it is actually spoken and I didn't talk like I was reciting a textbook. I could understand the fastest and sloppiest New York accent and some other fast spoken american accents as well. 

I like to get into the details and nuances of a language and into the cultural differences that come with it as well. Language is much more then words and grammar.

That is my interest weather you personally think that I'm devoting too much energy to the notion of register or not. That is only one part of the nuances of the french language that fascinates me, amongst many others and I will keep devoting as much energy to it as I like. Cherio !

This Robert… is really an interesting personality, obviously not interested in exchange of ideas, or different approaches to learn french, then his own, since he deleted all of his comments. 
I have nothing to hide, so mine are going to stay :-)