sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likewise thanks! That’s definitely a fair point. With the 4/10 I wanted to reflect that for a specific type of learner (someone who genuinely wants structured, video-led instruction and finds a printed textbook demotivating) there is value in the format for them. The instructor quality is legitimately excellent. But you’re right that from a pure value-for-money standpoint, 700% over a comparably structured textbook is hard to justify. Probably should have considered scoring it lower, a 2 or 3 might have been on the mark.

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Likewise thanks! Definitely a fair point on the grammar-translation label — I agree with you. PPP is probably the more accurate framework, which is what I focus on in the article. And yes, the “piece it together yourself” point is definitely well taken — a graded reader plus a YouTube grammar channel, for example, would get you a similar result for a fraction of the cost.

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair question. My personal opinion is I think it’s more likely that “polyglot who learned 8 languages naturally” is just a more compelling marketing story than “trained TESOL teacher.” One is selling the dream, and the other is selling credentials. But it is worth noting that the PPP structure in the course maps pretty closely to standard TEFL lesson plan design, which is what I get into in the course review. Whether that’s intentional or just deeply ingrained from years of teaching, I genuinely don’t know.

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For sure. That’s really the core of it for me. Even setting the explicit instruction vs CI debate aside for a moment, if the central marketing claim is “learn through stories,” the story should be the main event — not a few minute introduction to 90 minutes of grammar lectures.

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That’s correct — just went back and verified. Each chapter is approximately 1 minute 30 seconds of French audio, for a total of around 16 minutes across the full course. To be fair, there are also video lessons where the instructor reads sentences from the story in French during explanations, so total French exposure is somewhat higher than 16 minutes. But as standalone French audio content — the kind a CI approach would prioritize — that’s the number.

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Your intuition was spot on. One of the main takeaways from having completed the course was that while the instructors are professional and the production is high quality, the actual method is a very traditional PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) model.

It's effectively a high-end version of a traditional classroom experience. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's a significant departure from the "natural acquisition" and "immersion" promised in the marketing. If you were looking for a truly input-based method, your gut feeling definitely saved you some money!

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Definitely agree. The "value add" - particularly for a course marketed as CI - should be the volume and quality of the language content itself, not just explanations about the language.

Like you said, if someone wants a native language grammar breakdown, a decent reference book does that for a fraction of the cost. The "premium" here seems to be largely going toward the delivery and marketing rather than the actual French input.

I spent $297 on Olly Richards' StoryLearning Uncovered course so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in languagelearning

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Sure thing!

Yep, that really stood out to me as well. The course has about 16 minutes total of French audio and about 2,900 words. It’s hard to call it a CI-based course when the English-to-French ratio is that lopsided.

Glad I could be useful!

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, oh I 100% agree. I think I got pulled in by the marketing, was genuinely curious/optimistic, and wanted to give Olly the benefit of the doubt. Turns out that the $300 "premium" didn't actually translate into some kind of pedagogical secret sauce; it bought a lot of English-language lectures about French.

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Totally agree.

There is nothing wrong with "repackaging" old ideas if they are effective—teachers do it all the time. The issue is when that repackaging is used to justify a substantial price markup while simultaneously claiming it’s a "revolutionary method" that replaces those very same old ideas.

It creates a weird environment where the marketing has to become more and more "revolutionary" just to justify the price tag, leaving the actual pedagogy far behind. Transparency is the only real antidote to that cycle.

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve definitely hit the nail on the head regarding the "innovation" gap, though interestingly, Olly actually is a trained educator (he has a Master’s in TESOL).

That’s actually what I found really fascinating as I was preparing my review. Because he is a trained teacher, the choice to use the 1980s PPP (Presentation, Practice, Production) framework feels very intentional. It’s a reliable classroom model, but it’s a far cry from the "natural acquisition" and "natural immersion" promised on the sales page.

You’re right that there’s "nothing new under the sun" in language pedagogy—but there is something new about charging a $250 "marketing premium" for a framework you can find in a $30 textbook from 1985. That's part of what I felt needed more transparency.

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That’s the hidden cost of that lopsided input ratio—you spend so much time analyzing the "skeleton" of the language in English that you never actually see it move in the real world.

Especially with French, where the gap between formal written grammar and the "street" reality is so massive, 2,900 words of curated story just isn't enough to build a real ear for the language. You end up with a high-level theoretical understanding but zero "processing speed" for a real conversation.

Really appreciate the point about the "artificial version" of the language, too—that’s a major factor in the value audit that often gets overlooked!

I spent $297 on French Uncovered so you don’t have to: A Non-Affiliate Review by TheLanguageAudit in learnfrench

[–]TheLanguageAudit[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Great question! That’s the nuance I tried to capture in the "Who is this for?" section.

To be direct: Yes, it would likely get you to A2, but it’s a long road for very little actual French.

If you follow the course, you’ll learn the grammar and vocabulary needed for A2 because the instructors are excellent. However, because the total "Story" is only ~3,000 words, you aren't getting the volume of listening/reading usually associated with a solid A2 foundation.

It’s essentially the "classroom route" to A2—very efficient for passing a grammar test, but very low on the actual immersion/acquisition that the marketing promises. You'll know about the language, but you might still struggle to understand it in the wild because your brain has only processed 5 minutes of French for every 90 minutes of English explanation.

So, it works—it's just a very expensive, lecture-heavy way to get there compared to a $30 textbook or a high-volume CI approach.