Course record APPM
APPM 1360
Calculus 2 for Engineers
University of Colorado Boulder
3,222 grades101 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score18/100
Needs work
Joy Noel Mueller 49 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mueller vs. the course average
A
+28.5
B
−5.4
C
−12.0
D
−6.1
F
−5.0
Difference in percentage points.
7.5% withdrew · 4 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.82
Synthesis3.64
Collaboration3.43
Connection3.43
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.64
Reflection4.81
Respect4.83
Creativity3.88
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.52
Questions4.62
Jonathan R Kish 122 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
122 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kish vs. the course average
A
+12.7
B
+7.0
C
−15.2
D
−2.8
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 7 of 129 enrolled.
Overall4.56 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Silva Chang 645 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
645 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chang vs. the course average
A
+3.7
B
+1.5
C
−1.3
D
−1.8
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 37 of 682 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
210 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.12
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.87
Connection3.58
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity3.34
Grading4.43
Reflection4.25
Respect4.49
Creativity4.33
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.22
Challenge4.49
Questions4.55
Robert W Benim 469 grades · 1 term 2.54GPA
469 letter grades
Compare with the course
Benim vs. the course average
A
+0.7
B
−1.1
C
+3.2
D
+0.1
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
6.8% withdrew · 34 of 503 enrolled.
Overall4.19 / 5
202 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration3.58
Connection3.64
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.50
Reflection4.46
Respect4.54
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.63
Questions4.67
Anne Margaret Dougherty 801 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
801 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dougherty vs. the course average
A
−0.7
B
+1.1
C
+2.0
D
same
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 48 of 849 enrolled.
Overall4.25 / 5
312 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.65
Connection3.68
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity2.95
Grading4.31
Reflection4.51
Respect4.67
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.77
Questions4.55
Richard C Mcnamara 255 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
255 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcnamara vs. the course average
A
−0.1
B
+2.3
C
−1.1
D
−0.2
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 12 of 267 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
109 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.06
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.34
Reflection4.70
Respect4.94
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.75
Questions4.81
Samuel Johannes Ryskamp 37 grades · 1 term 2.50GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ryskamp vs. the course average
A
−0.9
B
+13.4
C
−18.9
D
+4.7
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
14.0% withdrew · 6 of 43 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.80
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Adrianna Marie Gillman 66 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gillman vs. the course average
A
−8.9
B
−2.6
C
+13.0
D
+3.0
F
−4.5
Difference in percentage points.
7.0% withdrew · 5 of 71 enrolled.
Sean D Nixon 117 grades · 1 term 2.31GPA
117 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nixon vs. the course average
A
+3.1
B
−14.5
C
+12.0
D
−4.4
F
+3.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 6 of 123 enrolled.
Overall3.13 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology2.90
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration2.60
Connection2.90
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.40
Grading2.90
Reflection3.10
Respect3.70
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.60
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.30
Questions3.10
Eric Alan Vance 26 grades · 1 term 2.30GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vance vs. the course average
A
+0.6
B
−6.8
C
−5.5
D
+13.1
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
10.3% withdrew · 3 of 29 enrolled.
Overall3.33 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration2.50
Connection3.30
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity2.00
Grading3.00
Reflection3.60
Respect4.60
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.60
Challenge2.90
Questions4.40
Jan Adam Norris 53 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Norris vs. the course average
A
−1.7
B
−1.6
C
−6.0
D
+5.2
F
+4.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.6% withdrew · 5 of 58 enrolled.
Eduardo Corona 44 grades · 1 term 2.20GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Corona vs. the course average
A
−6.6
B
−2.6
C
+3.9
D
−3.8
F
+9.1
Difference in percentage points.
10.2% withdrew · 5 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.70
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.30
Lyndsey Julia Wong 83 grades · 1 term 2.20GPA
83 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wong vs. the course average
A
−3.2
B
+2.7
C
−12.0
D
−0.1
F
+12.6
Difference in percentage points.
8.8% withdrew · 8 of 91 enrolled.
Overall3.44 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration2.80
Connection2.60
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.60
Reflection3.50
Respect4.20
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.70
Questions3.90
Caleb Allen Jacobs 41 grades · 1 term 2.15GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jacobs vs. the course average
A
−3.0
B
−7.9
C
−0.7
D
+1.2
F
+10.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 2 of 43 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
114 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.72
Connection3.95
Contribution3.74
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.68
Grading4.38
Reflection4.44
Respect4.86
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.34
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.60
Questions4.74
Osita Eluemuno Onyejekwe 208 grades · 1 term 2.13GPA
208 letter grades
Compare with the course
Onyejekwe vs. the course average
A
−8.6
B
+1.9
C
−2.6
D
+1.1
F
+8.2
Difference in percentage points.
11.1% withdrew · 26 of 234 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology2.96
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.09
Connection4.39
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.01
Grading4.54
Reflection4.61
Respect4.81
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.71
Questions2.79
Daniel Seneca Lindsey 94 grades · 1 term 2.06GPA
94 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lindsey vs. the course average
A
−14.0
B
−4.3
C
+11.2
D
+4.5
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 6 of 100 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.44
Connection4.33
Contribution4.16
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.76
Reflection4.58
Respect4.48
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.51
Questions4.52
Ian G Grooms 91 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
91 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grooms vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
−9.0
C
+2.7
D
+7.1
F
+6.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.0% withdrew · 9 of 100 enrolled.
Overall3.89 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology2.03
Synthesis4.96
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.01
Contribution3.49
Discussion3.99
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.00
Reflection3.51
Respect4.98
Creativity4.97
Feedback3.50
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.97
Questions4.50
Matthew J Reynolds 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 1.51GPA
21 letter grades · Limited sample
4.5% withdrew · 1 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.18 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.10
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.20
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Killian Reed Wood 20 reported responses 3.50Eval / 5
Overall3.50 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.27
Technology3.87
Synthesis2.90
Collaboration4.13
Connection2.57
Contribution3.47
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.63
Grading3.23
Reflection3.50
Respect4.53
Creativity3.63
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.97
Challenge3.30
Questions3.97
Jacob Wharey Sitison 20 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration4.73
Connection2.67
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.97
Reflection3.97
Respect4.57
Creativity3.10
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.37
Challenge3.80
Questions4.50
Sabina Adhikari 19 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.51
Connection3.98
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.99
Grading4.78
Reflection4.78
Respect4.80
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.79
Questions4.79
Serena Joy Dileonardo 22 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.65
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.89
Grading4.54
Reflection4.57
Respect4.81
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.64
Questions4.87
Kate Marie Bubar 16 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.97
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.90
Connection2.53
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.20
Grading3.83
Reflection3.97
Respect4.77
Creativity3.17
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.10
Questions4.70
Kyle Patrick Fitzgerald 20 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.83
Connection3.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.77
Respect4.77
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.83
Questions4.83
Sage Byron Shaw 16 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.03
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.77
Grading4.53
Reflection4.93
Respect4.80
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.67
Questions4.87
Jacob Christian Spainhour 19 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.07
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.57
Reflection4.57
Respect4.80
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.63
Questions4.97
Sachin R Natesh 21 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.93
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.33
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.87
Creativity4.13
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.67
Questions4.90
Evan David Gorman 12 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.15
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.95
Reflection4.85
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.75
Questions4.95
Wuyan Wang 17 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.57
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.37
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.93
Grading4.03
Reflection4.13
Respect4.67
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.20
Questions4.57
Theodore John Eberts 6 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection2.60
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Lewis R Baker 4 reported responses 3.12Eval / 5
Overall3.12 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.30
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration1.70
Connection2.30
Contribution1.30
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity2.70
Grading3.30
Reflection3.00
Respect3.80
Creativity3.80
Feedback2.70
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.80
Questions3.00
Jonathan Adam Belcher 5 reported responses 3.32Eval / 5
Overall3.32 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.86
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration4.73
Connection2.94
Contribution4.69
Discussion3.92
Inclusivity2.98
Grading3.83
Reflection3.92
Respect3.04
Creativity3.98
Feedback3.83
Interaction3.98
Challenge3.94
Questions3.92
Brandon David Finley 4 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.30
Questions5.00
Sara K Tro 21 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.13
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.23
Connection2.97
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.00
Reflection4.23
Respect4.83
Creativity3.87
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.37
Questions4.63
Madi Yerlanov 17 reported responses 4.25Eval / 5
Overall4.25 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration3.87
Connection3.28
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.32
Grading4.13
Reflection4.43
Respect4.34
Creativity4.18
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.24
Questions4.62
Kyle James Weishaar 11 reported responses 3.94Eval / 5
Overall3.94 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection2.60
Contribution2.90
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.40
Reflection3.60
Respect4.60
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Ellery Galvin 13 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.28
Synthesis3.68
Collaboration4.33
Connection3.01
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.02
Inclusivity3.06
Grading3.53
Reflection3.17
Respect4.55
Creativity3.54
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.55
Questions4.17
Eappen Sebastian Nelluvelil 22 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.14
Collaboration3.14
Connection3.50
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity3.76
Grading4.82
Reflection4.36
Respect4.74
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.76
Questions4.72
Nicolas Coloma Carphio 23 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.90
Connection3.60
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.87
Grading4.83
Reflection4.57
Respect4.83
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.83
Leo Alexander Crowder 23 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.47
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.07
Grading4.50
Reflection4.37
Respect4.83
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.37
Questions4.57
Chi K Tran 4 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.80
Questions4.80
Kaloyan Parvanov Parvanov 12 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.85
Connection3.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.25
Reflection4.25
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.55
Matthew Ryan Buchta 8 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.17
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.83
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.60
Questions4.43
Carolyn Fulton 14 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.15
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.75
Grading4.15
Reflection4.65
Respect4.55
Creativity3.75
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.65
Questions4.75
Frank Seidl 16 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology3.93
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.27
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.13
Reflection4.17
Respect4.70
Creativity3.73
Feedback3.53
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.10
Questions4.37
Matthew Leduc 23 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.17
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.17
Connection3.63
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.27
Grading4.33
Reflection4.73
Respect4.87
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.50
Questions4.87
Tyler Jensen 13 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.12
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration1.66
Connection4.22
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.27
Reflection2.82
Respect4.27
Creativity2.08
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.06
Challenge3.33
Questions4.99
Allyson Hineman 59 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
59 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.94
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity3.12
Grading4.32
Reflection4.78
Respect4.91
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.87
Questions4.87
Kate Boden 13 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.10
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.45
Reflection4.80
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.75
Questions4.85
Johanna Mccombs 12 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.13
Collaboration3.70
Connection2.73
Contribution3.53
Discussion4.03
Inclusivity2.87
Grading3.73
Reflection3.80
Respect4.17
Creativity3.47
Feedback3.87
Interaction3.77
Challenge3.80
Questions4.43
Jonathan Homan 29 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.67
Connection3.79
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity2.36
Grading4.74
Reflection4.77
Respect4.86
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.53
Questions4.98
Erin Obermayer 18 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.67
Contribution4.33
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.77
Grading4.77
Reflection4.63
Respect5.00
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.57
David Armendariz 12 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.73
Connection3.77
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.47
Respect4.83
Creativity3.77
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.57
Addie Mccurdy 17 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.85
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.55
Grading4.55
Reflection4.65
Respect4.90
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.65
Questions4.85
Noah Parks 14 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.67
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.38
Reflection4.70
Respect4.87
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.75
Questions4.57
Anna Kinne Granquist 8 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.65
Connection3.60
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.35
Reflection4.10
Respect4.35
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.25
Questions4.90
Ari Geisler 13 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.10
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.23
Reflection4.27
Respect4.83
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.10
Questions4.80
Michael Nestor 15 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.73
Connection3.30
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.87
Grading4.63
Reflection4.53
Respect4.70
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Alex Paradise 4 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Connor Loehde-Woolard 26 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.64
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration3.78
Connection3.73
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.64
Grading4.62
Reflection4.56
Respect4.79
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.41
Questions4.61
Jan Adam Norris Ii 14 reported responses 3.33Eval / 5
Overall3.33 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology2.60
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration2.20
Connection3.10
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.40
Reflection3.40
Respect3.80
Creativity3.50
Feedback2.70
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.50
Questions3.60
Charlie Mcmenomy 19 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.17
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.63
Connection2.97
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity2.83
Grading3.63
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.17
Questions4.57
Maia Richards-Dinger 26 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.53
Connection3.53
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.53
Grading4.43
Reflection4.67
Respect4.90
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.83
Questions4.63
Riley Fisher 41 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.47
Contribution3.85
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity3.13
Grading4.30
Reflection4.57
Respect4.73
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.47
Questions4.65
Brian Ha 18 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.93
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.45
Grading4.63
Reflection4.57
Respect4.70
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.83
Questions4.93
John Maddox 16 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.97
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.10
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.57
Reflection4.80
Respect4.97
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.13
Challenge4.77
Questions4.93
Logan Barnhart 12 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.10
Contribution4.47
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.80
Reflection4.67
Respect4.83
Creativity4.70
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.87
Questions5.00
Poom Kritpracha 15 reported responses 4.38Eval / 5
Overall4.38 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.03
Connection3.60
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.73
Respect4.60
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.53
Questions4.60
Eric Paul Gilleland 36 reported responses 3.53Eval / 5
Overall3.53 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.80
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.10
Reflection3.60
Respect4.70
Creativity3.50
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.70
Questions3.50
Ryan Thurman 46 reported responses 4.21Eval / 5
Overall4.21 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology3.74
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration3.82
Connection3.14
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity3.03
Grading3.81
Reflection4.46
Respect4.62
Creativity3.84
Feedback4.04
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.49
Questions4.48
Charlie Montes 26 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.13
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.23
Grading3.90
Reflection4.57
Respect4.83
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.63
Questions4.70
Benjamin Lombardi 32 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.79
Technology4.19
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration3.89
Connection3.18
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.19
Reflection4.32
Respect4.56
Creativity3.88
Feedback4.08
Interaction4.29
Challenge4.35
Questions4.62
Haoru Yang 25 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.62
Connection3.93
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.51
Grading4.63
Reflection4.59
Respect4.91
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.64
Questions4.90
Kaya Pugh 31 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.24
Connection3.72
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.81
Grading4.35
Reflection4.81
Respect4.73
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.11
Questions4.58
Eric R Thaler 21 reported responses 3.49Eval / 5
Overall3.49 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration2.60
Connection2.90
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity2.20
Grading3.50
Reflection3.50
Respect4.20
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
Matt Reichenbach 81 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
81 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration3.86
Connection3.47
Contribution3.91
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity2.77
Grading4.46
Reflection4.38
Respect4.74
Creativity4.14
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.34
Challenge4.67
Questions4.76
Noah Palmer 17 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.20
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.27
Grading3.87
Reflection4.63
Respect4.63
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.30
Questions4.73
Samuel A Smith 10 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.30
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Peter Burke 28 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.13
Connection4.20
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.17
Grading4.23
Reflection4.43
Respect4.70
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.37
Questions4.83
Maedee Trank-Greene 9 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.85
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction3.45
Challenge4.85
Questions4.85
Kevin Stull 15 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.00
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.03
Grading4.43
Reflection4.63
Respect4.83
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.57
Questions4.60
Yuhao Zhao 13 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology3.87
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.87
Connection3.10
Contribution3.53
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity2.53
Grading3.43
Reflection4.30
Respect4.00
Creativity3.77
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.07
Challenge4.13
Questions4.07
Nikole Scribner Trout 18 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.58
Connection3.57
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity2.63
Grading4.70
Reflection4.45
Respect4.77
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.75
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.77
Questions4.85
Bryce Wall 13 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.70
Reflection4.73
Respect4.83
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.83
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.70
Questions4.83
Yassin Bahid 4 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution4.20
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity2.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.20
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction3.20
Challenge5.00
Questions4.70
Madison Jones 16 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.95
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.90
Questions4.75
Jack Krebsbach 13 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration3.73
Connection3.83
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.03
Reflection4.63
Respect5.00
Creativity3.87
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.53
Questions4.60
Natalie Eid 25 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology3.88
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.50
Contribution3.69
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.67
Grading3.95
Reflection4.61
Respect4.58
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.39
Questions4.47
Gabriel Cowley 16 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.72
Connection3.62
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.74
Reflection4.81
Respect4.93
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.77
Questions4.94
James Hyun 23 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.17
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity3.07
Grading4.43
Reflection4.43
Respect4.93
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.83
Questions5.00
Colin J Mitchell 34 reported responses 3.55Eval / 5
Overall3.55 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.95
Synthesis3.45
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.35
Contribution2.85
Discussion3.65
Inclusivity3.30
Grading3.60
Reflection3.75
Respect4.35
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.75
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
Jake Parmentier 12 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.33
Connection4.10
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.17
Reflection4.23
Respect4.10
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.17
Questions4.63
David Mead 19 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.83
Connection3.43
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.63
Reflection4.47
Respect4.43
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.30
Questions4.73
Nick John 18 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.13
Connection3.87
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.47
Reflection4.17
Respect4.83
Creativity4.27
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.67
Questions4.73
Toby Weed 6 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection2.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.20
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Joanna Parker 5 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.20
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.20
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions5.00
Dorothy Suzuki-Burke 6 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.10
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.17
Reflection4.43
Respect5.00
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.33
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Taylor Hurt 7 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.25
Collaboration5.00
Connection2.75
Contribution4.40
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.55
Respect4.90
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Ethan Shade 8 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.85
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.65
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.85
Reflection5.00
Respect4.70
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Marion Lara 20 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.93
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.77
Connection2.77
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity2.50
Grading4.17
Reflection4.47
Respect4.53
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.33
Questions4.67
Immie Cresswell 4 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.30
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.