Course record BUSM
BUSM 4010
Entrepreneurship and Innovation
University of Colorado Boulder
3,546 grades63 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score56/100
Mixed record
Maxwell Blumenthal 29 grades · 1 term 3.96GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blumenthal vs. the course average
A
+35.9
B
−33.4
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
110 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.76
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.29
Grading3.91
Reflection4.54
Respect4.62
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.07
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.60
Questions4.41
Kevin Baum 48 grades · 1 term 3.90GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Baum vs. the course average
A
+35.9
B
−33.4
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.77
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.15
Reflection4.46
Respect4.42
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.49
Questions4.54
Thomas W Virden 430 grades · 1 term 3.87GPA
430 letter grades
Compare with the course
Virden vs. the course average
A
+27.5
B
−25.0
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.2% withdrew · 1 of 431 enrolled.
Overall4.84 / 5
133 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology4.94
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.96
Connection4.96
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.82
Reflection4.88
Respect4.94
Creativity4.94
Feedback4.95
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.88
Questions4.93
Matt Mccall 100 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mccall vs. the course average
A
+24.9
B
−22.4
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 100 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.26
Collaboration4.24
Connection4.47
Contribution4.03
Discussion3.88
Inclusivity3.72
Grading3.16
Reflection4.03
Respect4.23
Creativity4.24
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.17
Questions3.93
Ronald Scott Gwozdz 329 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
329 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gwozdz vs. the course average
A
+20.7
B
−18.5
C
−2.2
D
+0.2
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.3% withdrew · 1 of 330 enrolled.
Overall4.21 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology3.96
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.38
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity4.42
Grading2.88
Reflection3.85
Respect4.88
Creativity4.38
Feedback3.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.15
Questions4.62
Alexandra C Loken 98 grades · 1 term 3.79GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Loken vs. the course average
A
+18.5
B
−16.0
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.0% withdrew · 1 of 99 enrolled.
Overall4.43 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.81
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.13
Reflection4.40
Respect4.58
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.51
Questions4.42
Briana Noelle Boehmer 118 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Boehmer vs. the course average
A
+18.1
B
−17.3
C
−0.5
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.8% withdrew · 1 of 119 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.91
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.78
Reflection4.83
Respect4.94
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.82
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.82
Questions4.88
Tara O'Brien 50 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
O'Brien vs. the course average
A
+11.9
B
−9.4
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 50 enrolled.
Overall3.94 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.47
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration4.42
Connection3.89
Contribution3.92
Discussion3.47
Inclusivity3.36
Grading2.75
Reflection3.42
Respect3.56
Creativity3.76
Feedback2.83
Interaction4.03
Challenge3.42
Questions3.02
David Brown 91 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
91 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
+18.3
B
−18.0
C
same
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.1% withdrew · 1 of 92 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
166 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.90
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.71
Grading4.66
Reflection4.82
Respect4.94
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.86
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.87
Questions4.95
Megan Darnell 48 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Darnell vs. the course average
A
+13.0
B
−14.6
C
+1.9
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.62
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.43
Reflection4.58
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.68
Questions4.48
Hunter Thomas Albright 80 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Albright vs. the course average
A
+15.9
B
−15.9
C
+0.3
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 80 enrolled.
Overall3.43 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.80
Contribution4.10
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading2.30
Reflection3.10
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback2.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.40
Questions3.40
Elizabeth Anne Schwaab Embry 50 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
Embry vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
−5.4
C
−0.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.74 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
George F Douaire 55 grades · 1 term 3.64GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Douaire vs. the course average
A
−0.5
B
+3.0
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.83
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.21
Grading4.19
Reflection4.61
Respect4.42
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.38
Questions4.62
Jon Simon Gillespie-Brown 57 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gillespie-Brown vs. the course average
A
+9.6
B
−8.8
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.84
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.79
Contribution4.91
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.70
Reflection4.77
Respect4.77
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.79
Questions4.91
Sarabeth Berk 34 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Berk vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
−1.0
C
+3.7
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall3.99 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.86
Synthesis3.81
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.16
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.08
Inclusivity3.55
Grading3.04
Reflection3.63
Respect3.70
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.39
Challenge3.50
Questions3.58
Leigh Heeter Fiske 259 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
259 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fiske vs. the course average
A
−5.4
B
+6.8
C
−1.5
D
−0.1
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 4 of 263 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
137 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.79
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.33
Reflection4.64
Respect4.73
Creativity4.92
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.57
Questions4.71
Hannah C Drain 48 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Drain vs. the course average
A
−10.0
B
+12.5
C
−2.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Eric Brandon Bruno 39 grades · 1 term 3.51GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bruno vs. the course average
A
−10.3
B
+10.2
C
+0.3
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 39 enrolled.
Michael P Jennings 45 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jennings vs. the course average
A
−4.1
B
−2.3
C
+4.4
D
−0.1
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 45 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Hector Rodriguez Gomez 49 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gomez vs. the course average
A
−0.9
B
−10.9
C
+12.1
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 49 enrolled.
Overall3.67 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.90
Contribution3.90
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.40
Grading2.70
Reflection3.60
Respect4.10
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.80
Questions3.80
Visda Moaddeli Carson 609 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
609 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carson vs. the course average
A
−13.7
B
+13.9
C
−0.3
D
+0.2
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.5% withdrew · 3 of 612 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
320 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.63
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.15
Grading3.96
Reflection4.26
Respect4.50
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.52
Questions4.46
James Frank Moss 53 grades · 1 term 3.41GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moss vs. the course average
A
−18.8
B
+19.5
C
−0.3
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
57 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.83
Contribution4.66
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.52
Grading4.70
Reflection4.64
Respect4.75
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.77
Questions4.75
David M Cass 394 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
394 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cass vs. the course average
A
−25.3
B
+27.0
C
−1.5
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.3% withdrew · 1 of 395 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
145 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.53
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.11
Grading4.06
Reflection4.24
Respect4.37
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.25
Questions4.34
Karen Marie Crofton 159 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
159 letter grades
Compare with the course
Crofton vs. the course average
A
−22.0
B
+18.2
C
+2.2
D
+0.5
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 4 of 163 enrolled.
Overall4.09 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.45
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.35
Reflection3.85
Respect4.45
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Robert Scott Livengood 121 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
121 letter grades
Compare with the course
Livengood vs. the course average
A
−31.1
B
+26.1
C
+4.4
D
+0.7
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.8% withdrew · 1 of 122 enrolled.
Cody Moore 50 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moore vs. the course average
A
−20.1
B
+12.6
C
+7.8
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Edward William Hallen 81 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hallen vs. the course average
A
−20.9
B
+6.1
C
+15.1
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 1 of 82 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Kevin D Heupel 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.01GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Andrew Garofolo 21 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Jody Whorton 39 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.85
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.65
Elmer Feliciano Ramos 23 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.90
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.60
Questions4.30
Emma Katherine Bunch 42 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.95
Collaboration4.96
Connection4.91
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.25
Reflection4.55
Respect4.55
Creativity4.19
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.92
Questions4.75
Scott Gwozdz 90 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.53
Technology3.16
Synthesis3.99
Collaboration4.63
Connection4.09
Contribution4.04
Discussion3.44
Inclusivity3.65
Grading1.74
Reflection2.87
Respect4.47
Creativity3.45
Feedback2.43
Interaction4.55
Challenge3.35
Questions2.98
Scott Livengood 141 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
141 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.74
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.34
Reflection4.49
Respect4.76
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.51
Questions4.60
David Colina 27 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.75
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.22
Grading4.80
Reflection4.49
Respect4.67
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.62
Questions4.69
Cali Larue Harris 12 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Scott Ford 95 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
95 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.57
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity3.84
Grading3.42
Reflection3.96
Respect4.19
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.22
Questions4.15
Dor Sela 20 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Katie R Jarek 58 reported responses 3.77Eval / 5
Overall3.77 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.42
Technology3.33
Synthesis3.68
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.89
Contribution3.95
Discussion3.43
Inclusivity2.87
Grading2.40
Reflection3.46
Respect3.48
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.05
Interaction4.14
Challenge3.75
Questions2.88
Krista M Marks 9 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading3.10
Reflection4.30
Respect4.10
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.70
Questions3.60
David Matthew Bernstein 41 reported responses 3.44Eval / 5
Overall3.44 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology2.95
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration4.57
Connection3.88
Contribution3.81
Discussion3.31
Inclusivity3.51
Grading2.09
Reflection2.70
Respect4.44
Creativity3.19
Feedback2.71
Interaction4.45
Challenge3.26
Questions3.20
Evangelia L Stierwalt 20 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Luke Johnson 48 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.22
Connection4.46
Contribution4.02
Discussion3.72
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.31
Reflection4.02
Respect4.37
Creativity4.29
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.31
Challenge4.35
Questions3.85
Brittany Enterkin 58 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.69
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.23
Grading4.39
Reflection4.49
Respect4.72
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.69
Questions4.70
Brea Desiree Burger 18 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.10
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.50
Reflection3.80
Respect3.90
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.10
Questions4.20
Kyle R Duffy 42 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Kirsten Porter 16 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.20
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.50
Reflection3.60
Respect4.10
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.00
Questions3.80
Chris Ansari 9 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.30
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
Devren Jean Hobbs 22 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.35
Reflection4.25
Respect4.75
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.65
Philip Guiliano 21 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Marie Y Bahl 36 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.75
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity4.29
Grading4.44
Reflection4.57
Respect4.77
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.59
Questions4.67
Roseanne Davenport 15 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.95
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.91
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.45
Reflection4.52
Respect4.78
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.93
Questions4.68
Michael Szymanski 20 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.22
Technology3.98
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.36
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.14
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.41
Reflection3.52
Respect4.44
Creativity4.18
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.72
Challenge3.91
Questions4.09
Ben Davis 13 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.70
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Ileana Street 37 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.72
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.12
Grading4.22
Reflection4.57
Respect4.82
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.88
Questions4.81
Kent Irelan Dickson 32 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.72
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.17
Grading4.29
Reflection4.48
Respect4.82
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.78
Michael K Ruth 8 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.40
Reflection3.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.70
Questions4.50
Meredith Olenec 11 reported responses 3.19Eval / 5
Overall3.19 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.60
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity2.90
Grading2.50
Reflection2.40
Respect3.50
Creativity3.60
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.10
Questions3.00
Molly Fox 6 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.50
Reflection4.00
Respect4.20
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.00
Questions3.80
Thomas Trimmer 19 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.85
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.75
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Geoffrey Shaffer 10 reported responses 3.28Eval / 5
Overall3.28 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.70
Contribution3.70
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity2.70
Grading2.50
Reflection3.30
Respect3.70
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.30
Questions3.20
Bipul Mainali 5 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.80
Reflection3.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.00
Shannon Thomann Plumb 11 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.60
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.00
Reflection4.20
Respect4.30
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.00
Questions4.20
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.