Course record APPM
APPM 1350
Calculus 1 for Engineers
University of Colorado Boulder
3,876 grades114 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score17/100
Needs work
Jonathan R Kish 308 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
308 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kish vs. the course average
A
+9.2
B
+0.7
C
−2.1
D
−3.1
F
−4.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 14 of 322 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
141 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.13
Connection4.48
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.69
Reflection4.76
Respect4.90
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.80
Questions4.86
Yermal Sujeet Bhat 103 grades · 1 term 2.65GPA
103 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bhat vs. the course average
A
+2.9
B
+5.4
C
+0.7
D
−1.5
F
−7.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.4% withdrew · 7 of 110 enrolled.
Overall4.00 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration2.45
Connection3.90
Contribution3.25
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.90
Reflection4.35
Respect4.75
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.05
Challenge4.35
Questions4.55
Lydia Korre 25 grades · 1 term 2.56GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Korre vs. the course average
A
+3.6
B
+10.5
C
−12.4
D
−1.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.40
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.70
Reflection4.10
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.50
Interaction3.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Robert W Benim 827 grades · 1 term 2.52GPA
827 letter grades
Compare with the course
Benim vs. the course average
A
+4.3
B
+1.4
C
−1.0
D
−1.8
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
6.6% withdrew · 58 of 885 enrolled.
Overall4.06 / 5
643 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration3.77
Connection4.02
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.40
Reflection4.51
Respect4.65
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.49
Questions4.69
Maria Eugenia Camisassa 53 grades · 1 term 2.47GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Camisassa vs. the course average
A
+4.2
B
−3.1
C
−0.1
D
+5.8
F
−6.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 3 of 56 enrolled.
Overall3.38 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration2.50
Connection2.90
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity1.80
Grading3.50
Reflection3.60
Respect4.40
Creativity3.70
Feedback2.80
Interaction3.00
Challenge3.60
Questions4.20
Sean D Nixon 100 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nixon vs. the course average
A
−0.4
B
+5.5
C
−2.4
D
+3.7
F
−6.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 5 of 105 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.30
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.80
Reflection3.80
Respect4.60
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
David J Gunderman 53 grades · 1 term 2.36GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gunderman vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
+8.2
C
−0.1
D
+2.0
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 54 enrolled.
Overall3.80 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration2.50
Connection3.70
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.30
Grading3.80
Reflection3.90
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.90
Questions4.40
Tahra Lucene Eissa 191 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
191 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eissa vs. the course average
A
−2.0
B
+1.3
C
−0.7
D
+6.4
F
−5.0
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 15 of 206 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration3.11
Connection3.85
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.28
Grading4.25
Reflection4.10
Respect4.90
Creativity3.85
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.13
Challenge4.35
Questions4.65
Patrick G Sprenger 40 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sprenger vs. the course average
A
−7.9
B
+5.5
C
+1.6
D
+3.2
F
−2.4
Difference in percentage points.
9.1% withdrew · 4 of 44 enrolled.
Richard C Mcnamara 447 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
447 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcnamara vs. the course average
A
+0.2
B
+0.2
C
same
D
−1.5
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 30 of 477 enrolled.
Overall4.12 / 5
240 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.07
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.23
Connection4.01
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.38
Grading4.37
Reflection4.28
Respect4.78
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.38
Questions4.66
Anne Margaret Dougherty 439 grades · 1 term 2.32GPA
439 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dougherty vs. the course average
A
−0.1
B
+0.5
C
−2.7
D
+2.8
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.4% withdrew · 30 of 469 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
288 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration3.78
Connection4.08
Contribution4.02
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.36
Grading4.32
Reflection4.36
Respect4.78
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.67
Questions4.57
Silva Chang 196 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
196 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chang vs. the course average
A
−0.5
B
+1.1
C
−3.9
D
+1.4
F
+1.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 9 of 205 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
97 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration3.53
Connection3.74
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.21
Reflection4.13
Respect4.33
Creativity4.12
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.22
Challenge4.24
Questions4.40
Jan Adam Norris 90 grades · 1 term 2.26GPA
90 letter grades
Compare with the course
Norris vs. the course average
A
−7.0
B
−2.9
C
+10.5
D
+4.0
F
−4.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 5 of 95 enrolled.
Matthew Paul Reichenbach 232 grades · 1 term 2.16GPA
232 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reichenbach vs. the course average
A
+0.3
B
−8.4
C
+3.9
D
−1.1
F
+5.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 13 of 245 enrolled.
Colin J Mitchell 310 grades · 1 term 2.14GPA
310 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mitchell vs. the course average
A
−4.5
B
−2.1
C
+4.5
D
−1.2
F
+3.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.2% withdrew · 24 of 334 enrolled.
Overall3.79 / 5
104 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology3.96
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.21
Connection3.65
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.16
Inclusivity3.12
Grading4.00
Reflection4.08
Respect4.28
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.07
Challenge4.24
Questions4.33
Jonathan Adam Belcher 51 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Belcher vs. the course average
A
−6.6
B
+3.8
C
−4.9
D
+0.5
F
+7.2
Difference in percentage points.
13.6% withdrew · 8 of 59 enrolled.
Overall3.17 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology2.80
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.30
Contribution2.70
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.50
Grading2.60
Reflection3.50
Respect3.50
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.50
Questions4.40
Judith Law 146 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
146 letter grades
Compare with the course
Law vs. the course average
A
−8.7
B
−2.8
C
+5.8
D
+1.0
F
+4.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.8% withdrew · 14 of 160 enrolled.
Overall2.97 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.94
Technology2.23
Synthesis2.94
Collaboration1.77
Connection3.03
Contribution2.64
Discussion3.57
Inclusivity2.52
Grading3.00
Reflection3.14
Respect4.33
Creativity2.80
Feedback2.43
Interaction3.21
Challenge3.18
Questions3.58
James H Curry 78 grades · 1 term 1.92GPA
78 letter grades
Compare with the course
Curry vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
+1.2
C
−5.4
D
+4.8
F
+9.4
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 5 of 83 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.80
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.90
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.20
Daniel Seneca Lindsey 163 grades · 1 term 1.74GPA
163 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lindsey vs. the course average
A
−11.2
B
−7.5
C
+4.7
D
−2.6
F
+16.5
Difference in percentage points.
11.4% withdrew · 21 of 184 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.29
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.66
Reflection4.63
Respect4.59
Creativity3.89
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.87
Questions4.84
Colin G West 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.90GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.40
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.70
Questions4.20
Jan Adam Norris Ii 34 reported responses 3.05Eval / 5
Overall3.05 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology2.80
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration2.50
Connection2.80
Contribution2.60
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity2.50
Grading2.80
Reflection3.00
Respect3.90
Creativity2.90
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.40
Questions3.30
Cooper Ray Simpson 20 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.05
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.20
Grading3.50
Reflection4.15
Respect4.85
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.20
Questions4.55
Yassin Bahid 20 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.73
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.10
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.37
Respect4.73
Creativity4.13
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.63
Kyle Patrick Fitzgerald 20 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.33
Collaboration3.83
Connection2.40
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.07
Grading3.60
Reflection4.00
Respect4.47
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.03
Questions4.27
Constance Delannoy 21 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.43
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.43
Reflection4.03
Respect4.97
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge3.93
Questions4.80
Shay Gilpin 6 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.40
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.80
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Sachin R Natesh 21 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.43
Reflection4.43
Respect4.83
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.57
Questions4.60
Emma Marie Schmidt 32 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.60
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.43
Grading4.53
Reflection4.17
Respect4.80
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Roman Gabriel Marcarelli 23 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.70
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.07
Reflection4.37
Respect4.33
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.40
Questions4.57
Nuojin Cheng 19 reported responses 3.77Eval / 5
Overall3.77 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology4.53
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.20
Connection2.57
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.07
Inclusivity3.43
Grading3.23
Reflection3.60
Respect4.13
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.53
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.20
Questions4.27
Wuyan Wang 24 reported responses 3.93Eval / 5
Overall3.93 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.47
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.07
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity2.97
Grading3.73
Reflection4.17
Respect4.47
Creativity3.17
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.83
Questions4.47
Daniel Ames Messenger 5 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection2.20
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.00
Respect4.40
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Emily Webb 15 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.45
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.60
Connection2.95
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity2.15
Grading4.05
Reflection3.85
Respect4.55
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.90
Questions4.70
Jacob Christian Spainhour 51 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.67
Connection3.72
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity3.56
Grading4.49
Reflection4.71
Respect4.90
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.62
Questions4.90
Kyle James Weishaar 47 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.36
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.09
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.41
Grading4.26
Reflection4.23
Respect4.82
Creativity3.91
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.12
Questions4.72
Amanda Kelly Lococo 4 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection3.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity3.30
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Alex Mcmanus 47 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.64
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.19
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.78
Reflection4.88
Respect4.81
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.86
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.90
Questions4.97
Arvind Jayashankara Aradhya 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Ethan Wesley Hobbs 9 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.15
Connection2.80
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.80
Reflection4.05
Respect4.50
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.05
Questions4.10
Eappen Sebastian Nelluvelil 12 reported responses 3.23Eval / 5
Overall3.23 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.83
Technology3.43
Synthesis2.73
Collaboration3.10
Connection2.50
Contribution3.17
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.17
Grading3.03
Reflection3.63
Respect3.27
Creativity3.10
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.53
Challenge3.37
Questions3.60
Zachariah Malik 23 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.63
Connection3.30
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.47
Reflection4.53
Respect4.93
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.43
Questions4.70
Grant T Kellogg 9 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.73
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.77
Connection3.62
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity2.65
Grading5.00
Reflection4.95
Respect4.85
Creativity3.92
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.73
Questions4.85
Brandon David Finley 6 reported responses 4.06Eval / 5
Overall4.06 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.50
Connection2.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity1.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity3.30
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions4.80
Lilac T Intrater 11 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration4.90
Connection3.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity2.30
Grading3.95
Reflection3.95
Respect4.60
Creativity3.45
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.20
Questions4.75
Kaloyan Parvanov Parvanov 9 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology4.55
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.20
Contribution3.75
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.25
Reflection4.20
Respect4.65
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.15
Interaction3.95
Challenge4.35
Questions4.20
Matthew Ryan Buchta 21 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.33
Collaboration3.63
Connection3.00
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.83
Reflection4.13
Respect4.87
Creativity3.37
Feedback3.77
Interaction3.83
Challenge4.03
Questions4.43
Anna Kinne Granquist 44 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.44
Synthesis3.81
Collaboration3.86
Connection3.97
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.69
Grading4.45
Reflection4.27
Respect4.92
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.62
Questions4.88
Nicolas Coloma Carphio 34 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.83
Connection3.93
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.61
Reflection4.66
Respect4.94
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.79
Questions4.85
Chi K Tran 19 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.30
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.07
Reflection4.57
Respect4.83
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.50
Questions4.73
Byanka Estudillo 69 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.62
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.72
Grading4.49
Reflection4.56
Respect4.70
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.45
Questions4.84
Leo Alexander Crowder 21 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.07
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity2.83
Grading4.03
Reflection4.00
Respect4.70
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.50
Questions4.83
Caleb Allen Jacobs 17 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.95
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.67
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.27
Reflection4.70
Respect4.87
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Johanna Mccombs 16 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.57
Synthesis2.73
Collaboration3.93
Connection2.13
Contribution3.07
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.53
Grading3.47
Reflection3.73
Respect4.23
Creativity2.97
Feedback2.77
Interaction4.57
Challenge3.43
Questions3.80
Allyson Hineman 28 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.57
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.97
Grading4.33
Reflection4.57
Respect4.83
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.70
Questions4.83
Camille Renaud 55 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.18
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.81
Reflection4.75
Respect4.88
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.82
Questions4.91
Will Magrogan 19 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.37
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration4.43
Connection2.60
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity2.93
Grading3.90
Reflection4.27
Respect4.83
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.07
Questions4.33
Serena Joy Dileonardo 10 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.85
Connection3.55
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.75
Questions5.00
Nic Rummel 23 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.07
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.13
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity2.77
Grading4.07
Reflection4.23
Respect4.67
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.43
Questions4.67
Kate Boden 24 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.03
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.63
Grading3.77
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
David Armendariz 25 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.17
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.37
Reflection4.33
Respect4.80
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.37
Questions4.77
Jonathan Homan 56 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.54
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration4.63
Connection3.47
Contribution4.09
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.23
Reflection4.54
Respect4.63
Creativity4.02
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.54
Questions4.81
Addie Mccurdy 43 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.20
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.43
Grading4.17
Reflection4.37
Respect4.70
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.43
Questions4.87
Noah Parks 20 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.31
Connection1.32
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity1.35
Grading4.93
Reflection4.97
Respect4.97
Creativity4.06
Feedback4.95
Interaction4.36
Challenge4.67
Questions4.97
Erin Obermayer 8 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.83
Connection3.83
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.23
Reflection4.80
Respect4.83
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.63
Questions4.80
Kal Parvanov 23 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.10
Contribution3.37
Discussion3.93
Inclusivity3.27
Grading4.07
Reflection4.13
Respect4.13
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.13
Challenge4.13
Questions4.37
Matt Reichenbach 173 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
173 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.46
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.64
Connection3.92
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.20
Reflection4.25
Respect4.55
Creativity4.01
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.45
Questions4.43
Benjamin Lombardi 24 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.24
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.64
Grading4.61
Reflection4.50
Respect4.63
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.56
Questions4.77
David Eduardo Flores 13 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.05
Connection3.70
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Jonathan Shaw 5 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection2.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity2.20
Grading3.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.40
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.80
John Maddox 20 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.80
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.40
Reflection4.37
Respect4.67
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.57
Questions4.80
Nikole Scribner Trout 44 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.57
Connection3.88
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.39
Grading4.22
Reflection4.35
Respect4.93
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Charlie Mcmenomy 19 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.07
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.93
Reflection4.23
Respect4.33
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.37
Questions4.47
Maia Richards-Dinger 37 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.53
Connection3.90
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.23
Reflection4.63
Respect4.67
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.37
Questions4.80
Riley Fisher 36 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.49
Connection4.83
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.13
Grading4.82
Reflection4.96
Respect4.98
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.52
Questions4.98
Matthew Leduc 20 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.57
Connection3.80
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.70
Reflection4.67
Respect4.87
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Logan Barnhart 8 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions5.00
Mohit Garg 24 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology3.82
Synthesis3.79
Collaboration3.95
Connection2.96
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.04
Inclusivity3.73
Grading3.84
Reflection4.05
Respect4.22
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.26
Challenge3.92
Questions4.30
Poom Kritpracha 24 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.93
Connection3.70
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.30
Reflection4.37
Respect4.87
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.47
Questions4.90
Brian Ha 14 reported responses 3.94Eval / 5
Overall3.94 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology3.37
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.87
Connection3.03
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.87
Reflection3.80
Respect4.43
Creativity3.33
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.97
Questions4.43
Katie Spencer 13 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.30
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.55
Reflection4.80
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Maedee Trank-Greene 1 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution3.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading5.00
Reflection3.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction3.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Samuel A Smith 20 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.63
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.13
Reflection4.43
Respect4.77
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.67
Questions4.33
Will Houser 13 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.57
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.43
Respect4.63
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Noah Palmer 19 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.37
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.60
Questions4.83
Gabriel Cowley 26 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.23
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.65
Reflection4.70
Respect4.64
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.61
Questions4.69
Peter Burke 17 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.17
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.60
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.23
Reflection4.17
Respect4.47
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.47
Jade Buzinski 51 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.66
Connection4.10
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.61
Reflection4.86
Respect4.85
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.71
Questions4.89
Josh Schultze 6 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Bao Nguyen 46 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.31
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.79
Reflection4.85
Respect4.92
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.65
Questions4.89
Kevin Stull 12 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.55
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.80
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.40
Questions4.65
Molly Mcfaul 21 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.77
Connection3.77
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.23
Reflection4.57
Respect4.53
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.63
Questions4.70
Yuhao Zhao 23 reported responses 3.55Eval / 5
Overall3.55 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.33
Technology3.77
Synthesis3.17
Collaboration3.77
Connection3.13
Contribution3.57
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity2.07
Grading3.33
Reflection3.83
Respect4.03
Creativity3.13
Feedback3.17
Interaction3.77
Challenge3.80
Questions3.30
Julian Xie 19 reported responses 3.23Eval / 5
Overall3.23 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology4.03
Synthesis3.53
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.00
Contribution2.50
Discussion3.17
Inclusivity2.43
Grading3.17
Reflection3.63
Respect4.13
Creativity3.23
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.47
Challenge3.33
Questions3.50
Cooper Doe 10 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.25
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity2.35
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect4.45
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.65
Questions4.90
Kate Knyazeva 38 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.84
Connection3.92
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.08
Grading4.42
Reflection4.54
Respect4.91
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.61
Questions4.78
Bryce Wall 14 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.97
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.97
Connection4.23
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.27
Grading4.70
Reflection4.83
Respect4.97
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Anna Hirschmann 6 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.50
Connection5.00
Contribution4.65
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.25
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.85
Creativity4.50
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Gavriil Shchedrin 74 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
74 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.08
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration4.24
Connection3.83
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.33
Reflection4.57
Respect4.56
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.63
Questions4.71
Toby Weed 39 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.57
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.63
Grading4.43
Reflection4.50
Respect4.57
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.40
Questions4.57
Kaya Pugh 22 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.37
Grading4.47
Reflection4.37
Respect4.70
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.87
Caitlin Igel 66 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology3.93
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.84
Connection3.45
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity3.33
Grading3.92
Reflection4.62
Respect4.79
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.84
Questions4.83
David Mead 37 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.50
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.53
Reflection4.63
Respect4.70
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.73
Questions4.83
Nirab Hossain 20 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.17
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.30
Contribution4.13
Discussion3.93
Inclusivity3.87
Grading4.00
Reflection3.83
Respect4.67
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.23
Questions3.77
Jake Parmentier 18 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.87
Connection3.67
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.67
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.77
Questions4.93
Victor Martinez Gil 40 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.60
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.57
Reflection4.60
Respect4.73
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.57
Questions4.80
Robert Pawloski 28 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration3.57
Connection3.43
Contribution3.47
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity3.93
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.53
Questions4.70
Levi Barksdale 20 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.50
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.63
Grading4.43
Reflection4.43
Respect4.80
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.73
Questions4.77
Nick John 17 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.13
Connection3.77
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.13
Reflection4.57
Respect4.70
Creativity4.37
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.43
Questions4.60
Tony Samour 19 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.70
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.75
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Marion Lara 16 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.73
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.73
Grading4.60
Reflection4.47
Respect4.97
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.63
Questions4.73
Liang Yue 27 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.31
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration3.55
Connection3.50
Contribution3.41
Discussion4.14
Inclusivity3.32
Grading4.17
Reflection4.43
Respect4.41
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.59
Questions4.54
Lucy Wilson 12 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.65
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity2.75
Grading4.55
Reflection4.30
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.60
Questions4.85
Samik Dasgupta 10 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.65
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.40
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.75
Questions4.65
Rachel Suzanne Tutmaher 13 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.10
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.30
Interaction3.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.