Course record CINE
CINE 2000
Moving Image Foundations I
University of Colorado Boulder
563 grades21 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score65/100
Strong
Mckenzie Blake 34 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blake vs. the course average
A
+24.0
B
−18.8
C
−3.2
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.11
Connection3.84
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.22
Grading4.69
Reflection4.10
Respect4.91
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.35
Questions4.60
Laura Rachel Conway 61 grades · 1 term 3.79GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Conway vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
−4.1
C
+0.1
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 62 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.42
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.24
Reflection4.73
Respect4.99
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.94
Questions4.77
Skinner Myers 53 grades · 1 term 3.79GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Myers vs. the course average
A
+14.5
B
−13.2
C
−3.2
D
−1.1
F
+2.9
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 3 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.71
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.79
Grading4.86
Reflection4.77
Respect4.98
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.64
Questions4.92
Donald R Yannacito 60 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
60 letter grades
Compare with the course
Yannacito vs. the course average
A
+10.6
B
−8.8
C
+0.1
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 61 enrolled.
Overall4.88 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.68
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.67
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.54
Reflection4.94
Respect4.91
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.96
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.96
Questions4.83
Sarah Jane Biagini 58 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
58 letter grades
Compare with the course
Biagini vs. the course average
A
+3.3
B
+1.9
C
−3.2
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 3 of 61 enrolled.
Overall3.92 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.04
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration3.97
Connection3.41
Contribution3.74
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity3.46
Grading3.36
Reflection3.94
Respect4.37
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.03
Questions3.83
Kelly L Sears 49 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sears vs. the course average
A
−2.6
B
+5.7
C
−1.2
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
5.8% withdrew · 3 of 52 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration3.96
Connection3.88
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity4.17
Grading4.02
Reflection4.21
Respect4.68
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.55
Questions4.74
Eileen Richardson 27 grades · 1 term 3.54GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Richardson vs. the course average
A
−13.1
B
+10.8
C
+4.2
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
10.0% withdrew · 3 of 30 enrolled.
Benjamin Hernstrom 81 grades · 1 term 3.54GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hernstrom vs. the course average
A
−1.9
B
−0.3
C
−0.7
D
+2.6
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.4% withdrew · 2 of 83 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.43
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.53
Grading4.34
Reflection4.58
Respect4.88
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.59
Questions4.75
Emily Margaret Van Loan 29 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Loan vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
+1.9
C
+3.7
D
+2.4
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.85
Connection4.24
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.70
Reflection4.39
Respect4.92
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.47
Questions4.55
Emilie Rose Upczak 26 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Upczak vs. the course average
A
−14.5
B
+11.9
C
+4.5
D
−1.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.47
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.78
Contribution4.96
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.34
Reflection4.74
Respect4.87
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.53
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.96
Questions4.87
Jonathan Ellis Gluckstern 39 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gluckstern vs. the course average
A
−27.3
B
+14.5
C
+7.1
D
+1.5
F
+4.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology4.03
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.52
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.22
Inclusivity4.01
Grading4.03
Reflection3.82
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.03
Questions4.51
Kimberly A Shively 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.65GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
5.6% withdrew · 1 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Madeline Plumley 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.62GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
11.8% withdrew · 2 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.20
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.20
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Jonathan Brooks Gerlach 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.46GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
6.7% withdrew · 1 of 15 enrolled.
Eileen Roscina Shoup 28 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology4.47
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration4.44
Connection3.81
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.25
Grading3.95
Reflection4.37
Respect4.53
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.01
Questions4.59
Emett Tyler Casey 23 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.96
Collaboration4.61
Connection4.74
Contribution4.96
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.61
Reflection4.87
Respect5.00
Creativity4.87
Feedback4.74
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.87
Questions4.91
Chris Pearce 26 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.28
Connection4.45
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.10
Reflection4.64
Respect4.70
Creativity4.96
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.81
Questions4.50
Eileen Roscina 16 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.95
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.85
Reflection4.30
Respect4.40
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.55
Challenge3.85
Questions3.95
Nicholas Pope 4 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Cal Young 13 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Andy Uhrich 12 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.60
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge5.00
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.