Course record APRD
APRD 3002
Communication and Media Planning
University of Colorado Boulder
788 grades25 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score55/100
Mixed record
Loni Marie Peterson 61 grades · 1 term 3.90GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Peterson vs. the course average
A
+28.3
B
−22.6
C
−5.1
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 61 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.55
Reflection4.52
Respect4.90
Creativity4.76
Feedback4.61
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.61
Questions4.90
Bethany Lechner 31 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lechner vs. the course average
A
+23.6
B
−21.1
C
−5.1
D
−0.3
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Jocelyn Perkins Ellerbee 59 grades · 1 term 3.74GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ellerbee vs. the course average
A
+16.3
B
−12.3
C
−5.1
D
−0.3
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 59 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration3.71
Connection4.80
Contribution4.14
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.38
Reflection4.54
Respect4.68
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.62
Questions4.35
Cheri Lynn Felix 40 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Felix vs. the course average
A
+15.7
B
−12.5
C
−2.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 1 of 41 enrolled.
Overall4.92 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.89
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.89
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.89
Grading4.90
Reflection4.89
Respect4.94
Creativity4.84
Feedback4.86
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Maxim Lenderman 60 grades · 1 term 3.66GPA
60 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lenderman vs. the course average
A
+11.6
B
−10.9
C
−0.1
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 61 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.05
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.94
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.02
Inclusivity4.94
Grading3.37
Reflection4.00
Respect4.32
Creativity4.02
Feedback3.96
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.01
Questions2.85
Melinda Kiger Cheval 29 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cheval vs. the course average
A
+5.7
B
same
C
−5.1
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Devin Reiter 81 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reiter vs. the course average
A
+9.8
B
−10.3
C
+1.1
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 1 of 82 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.74
Connection5.00
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.91
Reflection4.88
Respect4.95
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.83
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.98
Questions4.95
Nicole Pavlica 49 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pavlica vs. the course average
A
+4.7
B
−3.0
C
−1.0
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.77
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.46
Reflection4.77
Respect4.77
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.77
Questions4.23
Harsha S Gangadharbatla 27 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gangadharbatla vs. the course average
A
−3.8
B
+2.1
C
+2.3
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.95
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Trina D Arnett 80 grades · 1 term 3.51GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Arnett vs. the course average
A
−10.5
B
+13.7
C
−2.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 80 enrolled.
Overall3.70 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.10
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.50
Reflection3.60
Respect4.40
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.70
Questions4.10
Celeste E Mckeon 30 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mckeon vs. the course average
A
−0.1
B
−0.9
C
+1.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Muhammad Muneeb Ullah Khan 29 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Khan vs. the course average
A
−8.1
B
+10.4
C
−1.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall3.66 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.90
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.20
Reflection3.60
Respect4.20
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.60
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.70
Questions4.10
Ashley Lynch 81 grades · 1 term 3.28GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lynch vs. the course average
A
−27.2
B
+24.3
C
+2.3
D
+1.0
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 1 of 82 enrolled.
Overall3.14 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.35
Technology2.99
Synthesis2.53
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.86
Contribution2.36
Discussion2.65
Inclusivity2.26
Grading2.65
Reflection3.13
Respect3.12
Creativity3.27
Feedback2.60
Interaction2.67
Challenge2.73
Questions2.44
Bridget Barrett 80 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Barrett vs. the course average
A
−20.5
B
+11.2
C
+7.4
D
+1.0
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 3 of 83 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.91
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration3.73
Connection3.75
Contribution3.48
Discussion4.06
Inclusivity3.68
Grading3.73
Reflection4.18
Respect4.58
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.43
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.17
Questions4.20
Lauren Marie Walker 41 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Walker vs. the course average
A
−30.2
B
+21.2
C
+9.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 1 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Bianca Antoinette Anderson 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.94GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Melinda J Cheval 27 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Bethany Rose Prosseda 14 reported responses 4.91Eval / 5
Overall4.91 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Diane Marie Elliston 2 reported responses 3.72Eval / 5
Overall3.72 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.00
Reflection4.50
Respect3.00
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.50
Questions3.50
Kayleigh Marie Galko 10 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.40
Reflection3.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.20
Burton St John 2 reported responses 1.55Eval / 5
Overall1.55 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence1.00
Technology1.00
Synthesis1.00
Collaboration2.50
Connection1.00
Contribution2.00
Discussion2.00
Inclusivity2.50
Grading1.00
Reflection1.50
Respect3.00
Creativity1.00
Feedback1.00
Interaction2.50
Challenge1.00
Questions1.50
Steven Sanders 44 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.55
Contribution4.09
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.55
Reflection4.32
Respect4.66
Creativity4.64
Feedback4.58
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.65
Questions4.80
Pooja Iyer 85 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
85 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.58
Connection4.48
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.08
Reflection4.29
Respect4.55
Creativity4.44
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.32
Questions4.60
Sangwook Lee 6 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.00
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Christopher Joseph Vargo 5 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.