Course record CSCI
CSCI 1200
Introduction to Computational Thinking
University of Colorado Boulder
689 grades26 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2025
Flunk Score20/100
Below average
James E Dykes 176 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
176 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dykes vs. the course average
A
+11.7
B
−2.6
C
−4.6
D
−1.7
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 8 of 184 enrolled.
Sourav Chakraborty 165 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
165 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chakraborty vs. the course average
A
+10.8
B
−3.2
C
−6.7
D
−3.3
F
+2.3
Difference in percentage points.
11.3% withdrew · 21 of 186 enrolled.
Overall3.83 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.20
Connection3.75
Contribution3.45
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.65
Grading3.75
Reflection3.85
Respect4.40
Creativity4.35
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.95
Challenge4.20
Questions3.75
William Warren Wright 182 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
182 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wright vs. the course average
A
−14.1
B
+8.9
C
+5.6
D
+3.2
F
−3.6
Difference in percentage points.
10.3% withdrew · 21 of 203 enrolled.
Overall3.55 / 5
78 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.75
Technology4.10
Synthesis2.85
Collaboration3.30
Connection3.10
Contribution2.70
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity2.45
Grading3.20
Reflection3.90
Respect4.20
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.45
Challenge3.90
Questions4.20
David J Wooten 166 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
166 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wooten vs. the course average
A
−7.7
B
−3.9
C
+5.4
D
+1.5
F
+4.7
Difference in percentage points.
12.2% withdrew · 23 of 189 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.00
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.00
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.20
Questions4.30
Aditi Prakash 21 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.47
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.57
Grading3.63
Reflection4.03
Respect4.63
Creativity3.93
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.53
Challenge3.73
Questions4.40
Siddartha Shankar 64 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
64 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.88
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.28
Reflection4.47
Respect4.85
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.65
Questions4.63
Daniel Torres 28 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.65
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.10
Reflection4.25
Respect4.65
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.50
Questions4.45
Chinmay Agrawal 8 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution3.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.70
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.10
Questions4.60
Tavishi Priyam 25 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.70
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.25
Reflection4.40
Respect4.35
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.45
Questions4.45
Jim Dykes 141 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
141 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration3.28
Connection3.77
Contribution3.54
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity3.15
Grading4.28
Reflection3.84
Respect4.61
Creativity4.28
Feedback3.32
Interaction3.98
Challenge4.06
Questions4.35
Samagna Talanki Sreenivasa Murthy 31 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.65
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.05
Reflection4.05
Respect4.75
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Julie Jarzemsky 24 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.70
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Anna Zavei-Boroda 9 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.00
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.20
Questions4.30
Michelle Ramsahoye 19 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.70
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity2.85
Grading4.15
Reflection4.25
Respect4.55
Creativity4.25
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.90
Questions4.20
Marie Grace 28 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.75
Technology4.25
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.10
Contribution3.55
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.30
Grading3.65
Reflection3.95
Respect4.25
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.55
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.05
Questions4.25
Bhargav Shandilya 21 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.40
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Marie Mcgregor 4 reported responses 3.61Eval / 5
Overall3.61 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.50
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity1.00
Grading4.00
Reflection3.20
Respect3.70
Creativity3.70
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
Kevin Lane 3 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.30
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.30
Maria Valentini 11 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Almene De Meran Meguimtsop 8 reported responses 3.47Eval / 5
Overall3.47 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.10
Contribution3.90
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.20
Reflection3.60
Respect4.00
Creativity3.90
Feedback2.40
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.50
Questions3.80
Richard Terrile 8 reported responses 4.01Eval / 5
Overall4.01 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.10
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.40
Reflection3.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.10
Interaction3.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Yi-Shiuan Tung 5 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.20
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Miles Mena 6 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.60
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity1.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.70
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Jannatun Naim 8 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.80
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.20
Hubery Hu 12 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.10
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Nick Cooper 8 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.90
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.60
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.