Course record COEN

COEN 1830

Special Topics

University of Colorado Boulder

1,541 grades75 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2025
Flunk Score55/100
Mixed record

Professors 75 of 75

Aaron Asmundson 43 grades · 1 term 3.98GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Asmundson vs. the course average
A +19.1
B −12.3
C −3.6
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 43 enrolled.

Sarah Stanford-Mcintyre 42 grades · 1 term 3.91GPA
95.2% A
2.4% B
2.4% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Stanford-Mcintyre vs. the course average
A +14.3
B −9.9
C −1.3
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

2.3% withdrew · 1 of 43 enrolled.

Angela Lea Thieman Dino 36 grades · 1 term 3.86GPA
94.4% A
2.8% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
2.8% F

36 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dino vs. the course average
A +13.5
B −9.5
C −3.6
D −0.8
F +0.4

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 36 enrolled.

Zorana Popovic 25 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
92.0% A
8.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Popovic vs. the course average
A +11.1
B −4.3
C −3.6
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.

Joel E. Swanson 45 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
93.3% A
4.4% B
2.2% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

45 letter grades

Compare with the course
Swanson vs. the course average
A +12.4
B −7.8
C −1.4
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 45 enrolled.

Rhonda Olcott Hoenigman 42 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
90.5% A
7.1% B
2.4% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hoenigman vs. the course average
A +9.6
B −5.1
C −1.3
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.

Laura Macdonald 42 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
92.9% A
2.4% B
2.4% C
0.0% D
2.4% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Macdonald vs. the course average
A +11.9
B −9.9
C −1.3
D −0.8
F same

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.

Malkanthi Lisa Dealwis 48 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
77.1% A
18.8% B
2.1% C
2.1% D
0.0% F

48 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dealwis vs. the course average
A −3.8
B +6.5
C −1.6
D +1.2
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 48 enrolled.

Maribeth Bleymaier Oscamou 43 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
88.4% A
4.7% B
0.0% C
2.3% D
4.7% F

43 letter grades

Compare with the course
Oscamou vs. the course average
A +7.5
B −7.6
C −3.6
D +1.5
F +2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 43 enrolled.

Paul Jordan Diduch 46 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
69.6% A
26.1% B
4.3% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

46 letter grades

Compare with the course
Diduch vs. the course average
A −11.4
B +13.8
C +0.7
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 46 enrolled.

Maura Darcy Hollister 64 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
84.4% A
7.8% B
1.6% C
1.6% D
4.7% F

64 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hollister vs. the course average
A +3.5
B −4.5
C −2.1
D +0.7
F +2.4

Difference in percentage points.

3.0% withdrew · 2 of 66 enrolled.

Diane Elizabeth Sieber 74 grades · 1 term 3.58GPA
71.6% A
23.0% B
4.1% C
0.0% D
1.4% F

74 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sieber vs. the course average
A −9.3
B +10.7
C +0.4
D −0.8
F −1.0

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 74 enrolled.

Catherine H Ambler 46 grades · 1 term 3.58GPA
60.9% A
39.1% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

46 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ambler vs. the course average
A −20.1
B +26.9
C −3.6
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 46 enrolled.

Alexandre Priou 37 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
59.5% A
35.1% B
5.4% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

37 letter grades

Compare with the course
Priou vs. the course average
A −21.5
B +22.9
C +1.8
D −0.8
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.

Andrea Kowalchuk 127 grades · 1 term 3.38GPA
59.8% A
29.1% B
7.1% C
1.6% D
2.4% F

127 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kowalchuk vs. the course average
A −21.1
B +16.9
C +3.5
D +0.7
F same

Difference in percentage points.

2.3% withdrew · 3 of 130 enrolled.

Kevin Arlington Lobdell 25 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
72.0% A
12.0% B
4.0% C
0.0% D
12.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lobdell vs. the course average
A −8.9
B −0.3
C +0.4
D −0.8
F +9.7

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.

Alexandra Voorhees 36 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
58.3% A
22.2% B
8.3% C
2.8% D
8.3% F

36 letter grades

Compare with the course
Voorhees vs. the course average
A −22.6
B +10.0
C +4.7
D +1.9
F +6.0

Difference in percentage points.

5.3% withdrew · 2 of 38 enrolled.

Malinda Schaefer Zarske 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.

Fernando L. Rosario-Ortiz 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Azadeh Bolhari 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Melinda J Piket-May 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.

Matthew Lawrence Young 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.99GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Charles Bruce Musgrave 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.96GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Amber Cardamone 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.94GPA
100.0% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

14 letter grades · Limited sample

12.5% withdrew · 2 of 16 enrolled.

Sharon E Anderson 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.90GPA
95.0% A
0.0% B
5.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.

Jennifer G Scheib 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.89GPA
91.7% A
8.3% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.

Sriram Sankaranarayanan 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.82GPA
95.5% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
4.5% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Meagan A Goulian 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.79GPA
87.5% A
4.2% B
8.3% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.

Rae Anne Brendecke 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.79GPA
87.0% A
8.7% B
4.3% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Andrew S Wingfield 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.77GPA
88.9% A
11.1% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

18 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.

Gabrielle Joleene Jutte 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.76GPA
82.6% A
17.4% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Murray William Cox 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.72GPA
81.8% A
18.2% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.

Keith Robert Molenaar 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.72GPA
89.5% A
0.0% B
5.3% C
5.3% D
0.0% F

19 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.

Clayton H Lewis 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.70GPA
90.0% A
0.0% B
5.0% C
5.0% D
0.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.

Amy Elizabeth Moreno 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.67GPA
87.0% A
4.3% B
4.3% C
0.0% D
4.3% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Terri Wright 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.66GPA
85.0% A
10.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
5.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.

Scot Ray Douglass 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.65GPA
91.3% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
8.7% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Rebecca L.D. Komarek 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.63GPA
86.4% A
4.5% B
0.0% C
9.1% D
0.0% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.

Stephen R Becker 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.61GPA
82.4% A
11.8% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
5.9% F

17 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.

Janet Tsai 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.60GPA
80.0% A
13.3% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
6.7% F

15 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 15 enrolled.

Erica Schomer 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.57GPA
91.7% A
0.0% B
0.0% C
0.0% D
8.3% F

12 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.

Carmen Consuelo Pacheco 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.56GPA
78.9% A
5.3% B
10.5% C
5.3% D
0.0% F

19 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.

Shelly Lynn Miller 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.53GPA
64.7% A
23.5% B
11.8% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

17 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.

Elisabeth Stade 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.52GPA
66.7% A
19.0% B
14.3% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

21 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 21 enrolled.

Katharine Wormus 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.50GPA
73.9% A
13.0% B
8.7% C
4.3% D
0.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Joshua K Mellin 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.48GPA
78.3% A
8.7% B
4.3% C
0.0% D
8.7% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.

Marisa Lynn Pisaneschi 21 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.45GPA
66.7% A
23.8% B
4.8% C
0.0% D
4.8% F

21 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 21 enrolled.

Kathleen Seppala 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.44GPA
76.5% A
11.8% B
0.0% C
5.9% D
5.9% F

17 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.

Maurice Irving Woods 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.43GPA
63.2% A
10.5% B
26.3% C
0.0% D
0.0% F

19 letter grades · Limited sample

5.0% withdrew · 1 of 20 enrolled.

Elizabeth Brister 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.38GPA
72.7% A
13.6% B
4.5% C
0.0% D
9.1% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.

Madelyn Wright 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.27GPA
77.3% A
0.0% B
9.1% C
0.0% D
13.6% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.

Kai Markus Amey 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.95GPA
45.5% A
27.3% B
18.2% C
0.0% D
9.1% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.

Maurice Irving Woods Iii 9 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5

9 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Jeremy Moore 12 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.30
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Marisa Lynn Reynolds 7 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.30
Connection5.00
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
Angela Lea Thieman Dino 27 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5

27 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.11
Connection4.48
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.93
Grading4.50
Reflection4.94
Respect4.77
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.72
Questions4.87
Lisa Malkanthi De Alwis 29 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5

29 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.68
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.41
Connection4.07
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.43
Reflection4.51
Respect4.75
Creativity4.22
Feedback3.42
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.50
Questions4.25
Carmen Pacheco-Borden 10 reported responses 3.95Eval / 5
Overall3.95 / 5

10 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.42
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.34
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.72
Grading3.81
Reflection3.85
Respect4.95
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.74
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.31
Questions4.12
Anja K. Lange 31 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5

31 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.45
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.85
Reflection4.65
Respect4.75
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.65
H C F Fredricksmeyer 33 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5

33 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.05
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.75
James Steven Byrne 37 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5

37 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.40
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions4.75
Michael N Gooseff 12 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge3.90
Questions4.60
Christopher Myers 4 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5

4 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions4.50
Kurt Karl Maute 4 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5

4 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Barbra Sobhani 6 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.30
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.70
Peter Edward Hamlington 7 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5

7 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.60
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Alfonso Gonzalo Bastias 2 reported responses 3.47Eval / 5
Overall3.47 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading1.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.50
Creativity3.00
Feedback2.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions5.00
Eric Bogatin 4 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5

4 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Erik Knudsen 17 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5

17 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Stephen M Kissler 2 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Willem A Schreuder 14 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5

14 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
James Harper 16 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5

16 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Chantal Iribagiza 12 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

12 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.00
Questions4.50
Philip Thomas Courey 13 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5

13 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.85
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.70
Reflection4.75
Respect4.70
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.55
Questions4.80
Jessica Mclaughlin 2 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Show fewer
Find a course or professor

Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.