Course record ATLS
ATLS 4519
Advanced Special Topics
University of Colorado Boulder
1,023 grades46 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score65/100
Strong
Sheiva Rezvani 42 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
42 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rezvani vs. the course average
A
+17.9
B
−12.5
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.59
Connection4.40
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.33
Reflection4.63
Respect5.00
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.53
Questions4.59
Yi Luen Ellen Do 28 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Do vs. the course average
A
+17.9
B
−12.5
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.60
Reflection3.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Jonathan Bradley Gallagher 40 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gallagher vs. the course average
A
+17.9
B
−12.5
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.89
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.85
Contribution4.95
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.86
Reflection4.83
Respect4.99
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.88
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.84
Questions4.96
Max Nova 35 grades · 1 term 3.89GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nova vs. the course average
A
+12.2
B
−9.7
C
−3.7
D
+1.8
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.58
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.28
Reflection4.68
Respect4.60
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.74
Questions4.53
Kevin Cook 71 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
71 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cook vs. the course average
A
+9.4
B
−5.5
C
−2.3
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 71 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.45
Respect4.95
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.60
Questions4.40
Ian W Hales 62 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hales vs. the course average
A
+8.2
B
−4.4
C
−3.7
D
+0.5
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.1% withdrew · 4 of 66 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration3.97
Connection4.32
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.43
Reflection4.54
Respect4.90
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.77
Questions4.80
Mirela Alistar 38 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Alistar vs. the course average
A
+10.0
B
−7.2
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.64
Connection4.36
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity4.23
Grading3.94
Reflection4.33
Respect4.62
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.72
Questions4.73
John Michael Bacus 49 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bacus vs. the course average
A
+1.6
B
+3.8
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.99
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.98
Contribution4.99
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.97
Grading4.53
Reflection4.99
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.99
Questions4.54
Brittney Urich Vanhorssen 89 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
89 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vanhorssen vs. the course average
A
+4.4
B
−2.4
C
−0.3
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.1% withdrew · 1 of 90 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.96
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.86
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.62
Reflection4.63
Respect4.78
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.56
Questions4.61
Daniel W Rankin 49 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rankin vs. the course average
A
−0.5
B
+5.9
C
−3.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 2 of 51 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology4.98
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.86
Contribution4.94
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.52
Reflection4.92
Respect4.84
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.98
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.96
Questions5.00
Laura Kay Devendorf 55 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Devendorf vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
+0.2
C
+3.6
D
+0.7
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.99
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.18
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.84
Reflection4.92
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.63
Questions4.41
Michael Rivera 35 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rivera vs. the course average
A
−7.8
B
+7.5
C
−0.9
D
−1.1
F
+2.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 2 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration3.74
Connection4.29
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity2.98
Grading4.80
Reflection4.59
Respect4.61
Creativity4.82
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.57
Questions4.50
David Andrew Schaal 85 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
85 letter grades
Compare with the course
Schaal vs. the course average
A
−11.5
B
+4.0
C
+2.2
D
+3.6
F
+1.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 85 enrolled.
Overall4.10 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.52
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration3.04
Connection3.06
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.67
Grading3.07
Reflection3.59
Respect4.55
Creativity4.21
Feedback3.72
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.11
Questions4.45
Wayne Allen Seltzer 26 grades · 1 term 3.44GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Seltzer vs. the course average
A
−20.6
B
+10.6
C
+11.7
D
−1.1
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 26 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.87
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.90
Contribution4.94
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.77
Reflection4.87
Respect4.94
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.92
Questions4.80
Mark D Gross 92 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
92 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gross vs. the course average
A
−31.0
B
+22.3
C
+9.3
D
−1.1
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
11.5% withdrew · 12 of 104 enrolled.
Overall4.07 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.26
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.80
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.11
Grading3.41
Reflection4.46
Respect4.60
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.60
Questions4.23
Daniel Leithinger 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.03
Connection5.00
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.03
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.03
Respect4.51
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.03
Challenge4.51
Questions4.03
Danielle N Szafir 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall5.00 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Joshua Knowles 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.98GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall3.36 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology2.80
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.50
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.80
Grading2.30
Reflection3.00
Respect4.50
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.00
Questions3.20
Grace Leslie 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.97GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.98
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.91
Grading3.22
Reflection4.41
Respect5.00
Creativity4.96
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.41
Questions5.00
Carson J Bruns 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.86GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
6.7% withdrew · 1 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.90
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Joel E. Swanson 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.82GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.60
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.21
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.43
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.78
Questions4.43
Elizabeth Striegl 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.81GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.
Amy Catherine Banic 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.80GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
9.1% withdrew · 1 of 11 enrolled.
Overall3.30 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading2.00
Reflection3.00
Respect5.00
Creativity2.00
Feedback1.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions3.00
Charlotte Hult 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.78GPA
21 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 21 enrolled.
Overall3.33 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.90
Grading1.80
Reflection3.10
Respect3.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback2.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.40
Questions3.50
Sasha Nicole De Koninck 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.76GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
7.7% withdrew · 1 of 13 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
John David Weiss 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.67GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading3.50
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Larissa L Schwartz 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.61GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.00
Respect4.40
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.90
Questions4.40
David Lobser 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.59GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
11.8% withdrew · 2 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.30
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.40
Enric Granzotto Llagostera 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.46GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Anthony Thomas Pinter 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.43GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.92
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.56
Grading4.64
Reflection4.79
Respect4.88
Creativity4.64
Feedback4.84
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.80
Questions4.88
Kevin J. Hoth 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.07GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.99
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.46
Connection4.06
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.93
Grading3.81
Reflection4.34
Respect4.82
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.30
Questions4.24
John Francis Knowles 4 reported responses 3.20Eval / 5
Overall3.20 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology2.80
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.50
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.30
Grading2.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity2.30
Feedback2.50
Interaction4.30
Challenge2.30
Questions3.00
Howard Kramer 7 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.77
Contribution4.98
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity4.97
Grading3.45
Reflection3.99
Respect5.00
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.22
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.48
Questions4.99
Arielle Elizabeth Hein 3 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.70
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading5.00
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Matthew Robert Bethancourt 5 reported responses 4.91Eval / 5
Overall4.91 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.93
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.93
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.93
Creativity4.93
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.93
Questions5.00
Tran Bao Quoc Do 6 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.70
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Gabor Molnar 1 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Eldy Lazaro Vasquez 5 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.20
August John Black 5 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.80
Libi Rose Striegl 6 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Sharri Zamore 12 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.94
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.96
Contribution4.87
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.61
Reflection4.86
Respect4.96
Creativity4.94
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.89
Questions4.13
Annie Linda Margaret 6 reported responses 4.98Eval / 5
Overall4.98 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Yuval Benari 15 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Zack Jacobson-Weaver 16 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.85
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.85
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.80
Questions4.40
Ryo Suzuki 22 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.18
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.04
Connection4.72
Contribution3.15
Discussion3.76
Inclusivity3.17
Grading3.34
Reflection3.70
Respect4.61
Creativity3.78
Feedback3.05
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.05
Questions3.72
Gabriel Goehring Johnson 1 reported responses 3.25Eval / 5
Overall3.25 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration1.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading2.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.