Course record ENGL
ENGL 4039
Capstone in Literary Studies
University of Colorado Boulder
411 grades25 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score62/100
Strong
Benjamin John Robertson 25 grades · 1 term 3.90GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Robertson vs. the course average
A
+23.7
B
−21.9
C
−0.6
D
−0.2
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.95
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.67
Contribution4.86
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.87
Grading4.64
Reflection4.95
Respect4.88
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.95
Questions4.95
Martin Bickman 57 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bickman vs. the course average
A
+15.5
B
−9.6
C
−4.6
D
−0.2
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.82
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.98
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.71
Grading3.12
Reflection4.07
Respect4.98
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.76
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.08
Questions4.36
Catherine Labio 34 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Labio vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−4.3
C
−4.6
D
−0.2
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 34 enrolled.
Overall3.99 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.54
Technology1.58
Synthesis2.57
Collaboration3.05
Connection2.06
Contribution3.54
Discussion2.08
Inclusivity2.56
Grading2.07
Reflection4.03
Respect4.51
Creativity4.51
Feedback2.56
Interaction4.51
Challenge3.05
Questions2.07
Katherine C. Little 29 grades · 1 term 3.63GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Little vs. the course average
A
+10.5
B
−11.6
C
−1.2
D
−0.2
F
+2.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.90 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.85
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.77
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.91
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.95
Questions5.00
Nan Goodman 41 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Goodman vs. the course average
A
−21.0
B
+17.1
C
+5.1
D
−0.2
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 2 of 43 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology2.91
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.29
Connection4.69
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.89
Grading3.21
Reflection4.69
Respect4.30
Creativity4.39
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.80
Questions4.11
Nicole M Wright 25 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wright vs. the course average
A
−24.3
B
+22.1
C
−0.6
D
−0.2
F
+3.0
Difference in percentage points.
7.4% withdrew · 2 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology4.01
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.98
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.89
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.91
Creativity4.89
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.89
Questions4.68
Paul Bruce Youngquist 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Thora Brylowe 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.93GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.80
Reflection5.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.30
Mary K Klages 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.91GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.90 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
John A Stevenson 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.74GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall5.00 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jeremy F Green 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.69GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.99
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.89
Collaboration3.99
Connection4.99
Contribution4.99
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.10
Reflection4.79
Respect4.90
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.89
Questions4.50
Jillian Heydt-Stevenson 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.63GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.42
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.45
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.85
Reflection4.91
Respect4.88
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.15
Challenge5.00
Questions4.63
Jason Daniel Gladstone 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.53GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Kelly K Hurley 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.53GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.40
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Lauren Dembowitz 13 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.52GPA
13 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 13 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Janice Chiew Ling Ho 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.35GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Karen S Jacobs 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.34GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 2 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.71
Technology2.93
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.21
Connection4.21
Contribution4.71
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.61
Grading2.74
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.22
Feedback3.05
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.61
Questions4.41
Jane Marie Garrity 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.21GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.89 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.99
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.79
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.51
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.99
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Laura Ann Winkiel 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.90GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall3.50 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology2.31
Synthesis3.17
Collaboration3.46
Connection3.16
Contribution2.79
Discussion2.78
Inclusivity3.89
Grading1.86
Reflection2.47
Respect4.23
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.08
Interaction3.24
Challenge3.08
Questions3.08
Ramesh Kumar Mallipeddi 4 reported responses 4.97Eval / 5
Overall4.97 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Cheryl A Higashida 12 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Maria A. Windell 7 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection5.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Emily Marie Harrington 10 reported responses 4.98Eval / 5
Overall4.98 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Dianne Inglis 3 reported responses 3.25Eval / 5
Overall3.25 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.30
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.00
Contribution3.70
Discussion2.50
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.30
Reflection4.00
Respect3.70
Creativity3.70
Feedback2.30
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.30
Questions3.30
Katie Little 8 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.