Course record DNCE
DNCE 1000
Beginning Contemporary Technique
University of Colorado Boulder
679 grades27 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score64/100
Strong
Caroline Elizabeth Butcher 27 grades · 1 term 3.96GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Butcher vs. the course average
A
+16.3
B
−9.0
C
−3.5
D
−1.2
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.9% withdrew · 2 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.10
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.10
Questions4.80
Tyreis Adriel Hunte 33 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hunte vs. the course average
A
+4.2
B
+3.1
C
−3.5
D
−1.2
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
8.3% withdrew · 3 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.60
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.97
Grading4.55
Reflection4.79
Respect5.00
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.81
Questions4.63
Megan Rose Madorin 35 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Madorin vs. the course average
A
+2.1
B
−3.3
C
+5.0
D
−1.2
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 2 of 37 enrolled.
Madison G Palffy 36 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Palffy vs. the course average
A
+5.2
B
−3.4
C
−0.8
D
−1.2
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
12.2% withdrew · 5 of 41 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.30
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.20
Reflection4.65
Respect4.85
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.75
Questions4.80
Gretchen Copp Laborwit 28 grades · 1 term 3.74GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Laborwit vs. the course average
A
+5.6
B
−1.8
C
−3.5
D
−1.2
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Katerina Marie Lott 29 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lott vs. the course average
A
+2.6
B
−2.1
C
−0.1
D
−1.2
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.92 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading5.00
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Harveen Kaur Gill 27 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gill vs. the course average
A
+5.2
B
−1.6
C
−3.5
D
−1.2
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.71
Technology4.02
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration4.62
Connection3.96
Contribution4.41
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.53
Grading3.89
Reflection4.10
Respect4.75
Creativity4.14
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.40
Questions4.45
Sarah Rose Davis-Mauney 32 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Davis-Mauney vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
+6.6
C
−3.5
D
+1.9
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.
Jesus David Munoz 74 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Munoz vs. the course average
A
+5.5
B
−3.6
C
−2.2
D
−1.2
F
+1.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 3 of 77 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.21
Synthesis3.82
Collaboration4.77
Connection3.92
Contribution3.34
Discussion4.02
Inclusivity4.61
Grading3.54
Reflection4.59
Respect4.52
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.34
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.41
Questions4.50
Lauren Michelle Beale 28 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Beale vs. the course average
A
−12.2
B
+12.4
C
same
D
+2.4
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.10
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.60
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Katherine Moore 84 grades · 1 term 3.60GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moore vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
+4.1
C
same
D
−1.2
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 2 of 86 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.90
Questions4.50
Alston Tyndall 86 grades · 1 term 3.60GPA
86 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tyndall vs. the course average
A
−6.9
B
+1.5
C
+6.9
D
same
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.1% withdrew · 1 of 87 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
62 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.84
Connection3.97
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.44
Grading4.75
Reflection4.63
Respect4.93
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.64
Questions4.92
James Hoang Truong Nguyen 49 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nguyen vs. the course average
A
−4.1
B
−2.9
C
+0.5
D
+2.9
F
+3.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 2 of 51 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology3.69
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.71
Connection2.88
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.31
Grading4.33
Reflection4.25
Respect4.82
Creativity3.87
Feedback4.06
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.32
Questions4.22
Nicole Rose Shindler 26 grades · 1 term 3.46GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shindler vs. the course average
A
−2.9
B
−1.3
C
+0.3
D
−1.2
F
+5.0
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.20
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Christina Kay Mitchell 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.10
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jessica Briana Bertram 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.83GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.30
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Anna Katherine Pillot 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.80GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.53
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.68
Grading4.80
Reflection4.82
Respect5.00
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.52
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.72
Questions4.98
Christina Nelson 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.30GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.84 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.20
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.60
Reflection5.00
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Chrissy Lynn Friedman 11 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Kate Gomez Moore 21 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.02
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.28
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.65
Reflection4.90
Respect4.95
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.95
Questions4.85
Angel Anderson 45 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.12
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.32
Contribution4.51
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.53
Reflection4.72
Respect4.98
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.38
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.57
Questions4.82
Tanniqua-Kay Buchanan 34 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.28
Technology4.08
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.22
Connection3.02
Contribution4.22
Discussion4.41
Inclusivity4.42
Grading3.13
Reflection4.34
Respect4.78
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.19
Questions3.87
Michelle Ellsworth 9 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Rhianna Cranston 27 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.20
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.58
Reflection4.42
Respect4.92
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.65
Questions4.67
Lisa Engelken 16 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.10
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Jadd Tank 11 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.40
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Makisig Akin 14 reported responses 3.43Eval / 5
Overall3.43 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.20
Technology2.80
Synthesis3.40
Collaboration4.50
Connection2.20
Contribution3.70
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity3.20
Grading2.60
Reflection3.90
Respect4.30
Creativity2.70
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.40
Questions3.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.