Course record ENGL
ENGL 1800
American Ethnic Literatures
University of Colorado Boulder
612 grades23 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score47/100
Mixed record
Marie Jaquelin Pelzer 52 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pelzer vs. the course average
A
+24.8
B
−15.9
C
−5.6
D
−1.5
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 2 of 54 enrolled.
Raza Ali Hasan 59 grades · 1 term 3.72GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hasan vs. the course average
A
+18.2
B
−5.4
C
−7.5
D
−1.5
F
−3.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 59 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration3.68
Connection4.65
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.99
Grading4.87
Reflection4.68
Respect4.97
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.87
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.14
Questions4.99
Rachel Franklin Wood 51 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wood vs. the course average
A
+20.6
B
−17.6
C
−1.6
D
−1.5
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 3 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.35
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.45
Reflection4.80
Respect4.95
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.65
Questions4.60
Hannah C Blanning 28 grades · 1 term 3.57GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blanning vs. the course average
A
+8.1
B
−2.5
C
−3.9
D
−1.5
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Cheryl A Higashida 26 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Higashida vs. the course average
A
−6.0
B
+14.9
C
−7.5
D
−1.5
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Tarren Lee Andrews 102 grades · 1 term 3.38GPA
102 letter grades
Compare with the course
Andrews vs. the course average
A
+3.9
B
−4.9
C
+3.3
D
−0.5
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 4 of 106 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.57
Connection4.85
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.99
Grading4.72
Reflection4.89
Respect5.00
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.87
Questions4.85
Michael Schrimper 119 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
119 letter grades
Compare with the course
Schrimper vs. the course average
A
−13.6
B
+17.1
C
−0.8
D
−1.5
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 5 of 124 enrolled.
Overall4.34 / 5
64 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.41
Connection4.64
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.30
Reflection4.63
Respect4.84
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.55
Questions4.49
John R Pugh 26 grades · 1 term 3.07GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pugh vs. the course average
A
−6.0
B
−4.4
C
+4.0
D
−1.5
F
+7.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.
Adam Francis Bradley 44 grades · 1 term 2.49GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bradley vs. the course average
A
−34.8
B
+6.6
C
+15.2
D
+7.6
F
+5.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 1 of 45 enrolled.
Jillian Heydt-Stevenson 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.45GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 2 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology1.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration3.10
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.10
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.50
Lukas Jedediah Devries 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.38GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.80
Questions4.50
Maria A. Windell 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.17GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 2 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology2.53
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration3.23
Connection4.75
Contribution4.02
Discussion4.18
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.88
Reflection4.02
Respect4.93
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.14
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.05
Questions4.18
Jarad Robert Krywicki 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.11GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Andrew Luis Escanuela 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.60GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
6.3% withdrew · 1 of 16 enrolled.
Overall4.87 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Matthew Scott Tettleton 3 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.54
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Julia Charles 3 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Jack Pugh 6 reported responses 3.76Eval / 5
Overall3.76 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.30
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.70
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.20
Grading3.70
Reflection3.20
Respect4.50
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.80
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.70
Questions4.00
Jaquelin Pelzer 19 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology3.75
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.05
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity4.85
Grading3.65
Reflection4.30
Respect4.75
Creativity3.55
Feedback2.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.10
Questions3.80
Justin Michael Saxby 45 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.02
Synthesis4.94
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.88
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.45
Reflection4.92
Respect5.00
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.86
Questions4.71
Bk Clapham 18 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology4.12
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration3.68
Connection4.74
Contribution3.99
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.37
Reflection3.98
Respect4.38
Creativity4.15
Feedback3.34
Interaction4.31
Challenge4.23
Questions3.84
Kika Meeks Dorsey 12 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Jared Taylor 25 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.60
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.55
Reflection4.65
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.55
Questions4.80
Kaige Sellers 27 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.60
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.85
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.65
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.