Course record EDUC
EDUC 3013
School and Society
University of Colorado Boulder
3,135 grades66 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score71/100
Strong
Francisco Luis Torres 25 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Torres vs. the course average
A
+20.2
B
−14.4
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.
Brenda Aguirre 25 grades · 1 term 3.99GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aguirre vs. the course average
A
+20.2
B
−14.4
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.
Andrea Marie Lemahieu Glaws 52 grades · 1 term 3.91GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Glaws vs. the course average
A
+18.2
B
−14.4
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.90 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.85
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.92
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.82
Questions4.82
Iman Fagan 43 grades · 1 term 3.89GPA
43 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fagan vs. the course average
A
+13.2
B
−9.8
C
−1.1
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.4% withdrew · 2 of 45 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.98
Contribution4.95
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.95
Respect5.00
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.91
Questions4.82
Nancy Emerson Kress 77 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
77 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kress vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
−7.9
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 78 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.95
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.05
Reflection4.85
Respect4.85
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.02
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.52
Questions4.70
Jackquelin Quinn Bristol 153 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
153 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bristol vs. the course average
A
+11.0
B
−7.9
C
−1.4
D
−0.3
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 1 of 154 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
119 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.92
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.44
Reflection4.82
Respect4.93
Creativity4.70
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.75
Questions4.58
Daniela Maria Harton 48 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Harton vs. the course average
A
+9.7
B
−8.2
C
+0.8
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.86 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.84
Collaboration4.96
Connection4.97
Contribution4.95
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.77
Reflection4.95
Respect4.96
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.84
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.93
Questions4.91
Kirsten Musetti 27 grades · 1 term 3.83GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Musetti vs. the course average
A
+12.8
B
−14.4
C
+4.0
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.
Tarah Michelle Donoghue 125 grades · 1 term 3.83GPA
125 letter grades
Compare with the course
Donoghue vs. the course average
A
+11.4
B
−9.6
C
−1.8
D
−0.3
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 4 of 129 enrolled.
Overall4.84 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.92
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.86
Grading4.69
Reflection4.66
Respect4.86
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.66
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.70
Questions4.92
Tamara L Milbourn 51 grades · 1 term 3.83GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Milbourn vs. the course average
A
+12.3
B
−6.6
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 51 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.26
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.49
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.04
Reflection4.34
Respect4.52
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.17
Questions4.21
Enrique J Lopez 51 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lopez vs. the course average
A
+10.4
B
−10.5
C
+2.5
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 51 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
119 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.39
Connection4.90
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.41
Reflection4.86
Respect4.94
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.86
Questions4.75
Blanca E Trejo 45 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Trejo vs. the course average
A
+9.0
B
−7.8
C
+1.1
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 46 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.92
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.92
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.70
Reflection4.85
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.92
Questions4.90
Chelsea Desalvo 27 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Desalvo vs. the course average
A
+12.8
B
−10.7
C
−3.4
D
−0.3
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.
Michelle Frierson 143 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
143 letter grades
Compare with the course
Frierson vs. the course average
A
+5.5
B
−3.2
C
−0.6
D
−0.3
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 2 of 145 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.82
Collaboration4.93
Connection5.00
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.99
Grading4.75
Reflection4.90
Respect4.99
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.90
Questions4.86
Christine Marie Zabala 74 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zabala vs. the course average
A
+13.4
B
−11.7
C
−3.4
D
+1.1
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 1 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.87 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.82
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.77
Reflection4.85
Respect4.92
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.75
Questions4.77
Hayley Breden 47 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
47 letter grades
Compare with the course
Breden vs. the course average
A
+9.5
B
−8.0
C
−1.3
D
+1.8
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 3 of 50 enrolled.
Page Valentine Regan 98 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Regan vs. the course average
A
+7.9
B
−5.2
C
−1.3
D
−0.3
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 98 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.87
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.98
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.83
Reflection4.95
Respect4.94
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.83
Questions4.94
Abraham Salvador-Jones 248 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
248 letter grades
Compare with the course
Salvador-Jones vs. the course average
A
+6.0
B
−3.5
C
−1.8
D
+0.5
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 5 of 253 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
89 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.86
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.97
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.98
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.94
Challenge4.91
Questions4.68
Brian Augustus Lightfoot 117 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
117 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lightfoot vs. the course average
A
+6.5
B
−5.0
C
+0.9
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 2 of 119 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
80 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology3.98
Synthesis4.63
Collaboration3.76
Connection4.98
Contribution4.59
Discussion3.77
Inclusivity4.72
Grading3.47
Reflection4.08
Respect4.98
Creativity3.72
Feedback3.00
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.26
Questions3.43
Robyn Tomiko 204 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
204 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tomiko vs. the course average
A
+2.5
B
−3.1
C
+2.0
D
−0.3
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.0% withdrew · 2 of 206 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
190 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.86
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.87
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.79
Reflection4.83
Respect4.93
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.74
Questions4.81
Kachine Suzanne Kulick 99 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
99 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kulick vs. the course average
A
+6.0
B
−4.3
C
−2.4
D
+0.7
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 2 of 101 enrolled.
Overall4.90 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.83
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.91
Contribution4.76
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.94
Grading4.86
Reflection4.90
Respect4.94
Creativity4.89
Feedback4.94
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.86
Questions4.99
Alexandra Federico Mcgrath 48 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcgrath vs. the course average
A
+1.4
B
+2.2
C
−1.3
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.49
Reflection4.75
Respect4.54
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.67
Questions4.85
Derek J Lefebre 73 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
73 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lefebre vs. the course average
A
+2.4
B
−3.5
C
+2.1
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 74 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.89
Connection4.85
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.64
Reflection4.75
Respect4.90
Creativity4.79
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Terrenda Corisa White 35 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
White vs. the course average
A
+0.2
B
−8.7
C
+10.9
D
−0.3
F
−2.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 1 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology2.93
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration3.24
Connection3.77
Contribution4.39
Discussion2.86
Inclusivity4.62
Grading2.62
Reflection4.08
Respect4.23
Creativity3.39
Feedback2.70
Interaction3.47
Challenge2.70
Questions3.08
Anna Louise Noble 186 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
186 letter grades
Compare with the course
Noble vs. the course average
A
−4.0
B
+4.4
C
−0.2
D
+0.3
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 6 of 192 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
63 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.75
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.62
Reflection4.74
Respect4.79
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.71
Questions4.57
Erin Roman Kurtz 53 grades · 1 term 3.58GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kurtz vs. the course average
A
−10.0
B
+10.1
C
−1.5
D
−0.3
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.86
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.36
Reflection4.72
Respect4.99
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.60
Questions4.51
Katherine Somerville 48 grades · 1 term 3.58GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Somerville vs. the course average
A
−4.8
B
+4.3
C
−1.3
D
+1.8
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.86 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.75
Connection5.00
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.77
Reflection4.92
Respect4.85
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.82
Questions4.92
Emily Yerkes 95 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
95 letter grades
Compare with the course
Yerkes vs. the course average
A
−3.0
B
+0.3
C
−2.3
D
+0.8
F
+4.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 5 of 100 enrolled.
Overall4.65 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.76
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.97
Grading4.75
Reflection4.59
Respect4.58
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.55
Questions4.88
Katayoun Mohammadi Arbati 47 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
47 letter grades
Compare with the course
Arbati vs. the course average
A
−5.4
B
−1.7
C
+5.1
D
−0.3
F
+2.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 1 of 48 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.11
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.82
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.42
Reflection4.37
Respect4.77
Creativity3.81
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.98
Challenge3.91
Questions4.29
Kyle Kopsick 167 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
167 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kopsick vs. the course average
A
−17.0
B
+14.3
C
+2.6
D
−0.3
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.6% withdrew · 1 of 168 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
224 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.53
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.79
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.42
Reflection4.71
Respect4.77
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.72
Kyla Mcclure 25 grades · 1 term 3.41GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcclure vs. the course average
A
−15.8
B
+13.6
C
+0.6
D
−0.3
F
+1.9
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.84 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Bradley C Bartels 309 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
309 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bartels vs. the course average
A
−31.6
B
+28.9
C
+1.5
D
same
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 7 of 316 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
187 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.95
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.28
Reflection4.77
Respect4.79
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.66
Questions4.73
Ana Contreras 26 grades · 1 term 3.11GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Contreras vs. the course average
A
−18.3
B
+1.0
C
+8.2
D
−0.3
F
+9.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 26 enrolled.
Tiera Tanksley 48 grades · 1 term 2.79GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tanksley vs. the course average
A
−21.5
B
−4.0
C
+7.0
D
−0.3
F
+18.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 3 of 51 enrolled.
Overall4.25 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology3.79
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.18
Contribution3.99
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.35
Grading3.37
Reflection4.08
Respect4.00
Creativity4.06
Feedback3.39
Interaction4.16
Challenge4.06
Questions3.18
Matthew Jayce Garcia 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Sarah E Lacour 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.87GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
9.1% withdrew · 2 of 22 enrolled.
Matthew Thomas Hastings 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.80GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.
Jacqueline G Smilack 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.78GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Marlene Sulema Palomar 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.78GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Mary Beth Leonardi 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.74GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Kathryn Elizabeth Wiley 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.52GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.
Overall4.93 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.98
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.98
Contribution4.98
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.93
Reflection4.98
Respect5.00
Creativity4.95
Feedback4.98
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.95
Questions4.98
Astrid Nicholl Sambolin-Morales 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.52GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.12 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.00
Respect4.40
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.10
Challenge4.10
Questions3.90
Elizabeth Jackson Meyer 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.05GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.83
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.88
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.35
Reflection4.69
Respect4.80
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.24
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.64
Questions4.61
Bethy Leonardi 16 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.90
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Kate Somerville 16 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Abe Salvador-Jones 153 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
153 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.41
Connection4.93
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.65
Reflection4.91
Respect4.92
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.84
Questions4.81
Hayley Ann Vatch 8 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Jackie Smilack 37 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.92
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.99
Grading4.81
Reflection4.92
Respect4.97
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.97
Challenge4.91
Questions4.92
Chelsea Kent 12 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Brenda Aguirre Ortega 47 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.59
Synthesis4.56
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.84
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.96
Grading4.35
Reflection4.51
Respect4.82
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.76
Challenge4.54
Questions4.53
Wagma Mommandi 8 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.00
Reflection4.40
Respect4.10
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.10
Challenge3.60
Questions3.40
Margarita Colindres 70 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
70 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology3.49
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.55
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity4.55
Grading3.63
Reflection4.15
Respect4.41
Creativity4.29
Feedback3.76
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.08
Questions4.02
Jonathon Sawyer 39 reported responses 4.96Eval / 5
Overall4.96 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.92
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.92
Contribution4.98
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.92
Reflection5.00
Respect4.92
Creativity4.88
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.92
Questions5.00
Peter Karanevich 50 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.92
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.95
Contribution4.91
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.87
Reflection4.79
Respect4.99
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.81
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.84
Questions4.76
Kate Baca 25 reported responses 4.83Eval / 5
Overall4.83 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.98
Connection5.00
Contribution4.95
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.75
Reflection4.85
Respect4.95
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.75
Questions4.75
Maria Vielma 18 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Franklin Chilaka 9 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Danielle Aguilar 45 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.88
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.99
Grading3.98
Reflection4.73
Respect4.88
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.61
Questions4.43
Andrea E Dyrness 2 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.50
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Monica Obregon 21 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.34
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.75
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.21
Inclusivity4.72
Grading3.96
Reflection4.55
Respect4.75
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.01
Interaction4.44
Challenge4.37
Questions4.36
Salvador Ramirez 45 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.88
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.58
Reflection4.78
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.78
Questions4.70
Madison Stockton 49 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.82
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.98
Grading4.83
Reflection4.78
Respect4.95
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.78
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.78
Questions4.95
Keith Griffin 19 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.60
Karla Trujillo 9 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Gabriela Iturralde 9 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.90
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.30
Reflection5.00
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.90
Questions4.50
Katherine Schultz 22 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.