Course record FREN
FREN 2110
Second-Year French Grammar Review and Reading 1
University of Colorado Boulder
533 grades19 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score39/100
Below average
Emily E Martin 124 grades · 1 term 3.50GPA
124 letter grades
Compare with the course
Martin vs. the course average
A
+26.0
B
−9.1
C
−11.2
D
−4.9
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.6% withdrew · 6 of 130 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
79 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.48
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity4.53
Grading4.63
Reflection4.83
Respect4.98
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.93
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.82
Questions4.97
Florent Philippe Rethore 76 grades · 1 term 3.10GPA
76 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rethore vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
+6.8
C
−1.8
D
−0.9
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.2% withdrew · 5 of 81 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.15
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.21
Grading4.64
Reflection4.53
Respect4.89
Creativity4.29
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.62
Questions4.78
Ismael Ichola 25 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ichola vs. the course average
A
−11.3
B
+23.5
C
−9.6
D
−4.9
F
+2.3
Difference in percentage points.
10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.
Overall3.86 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.55
Collaboration4.60
Connection3.95
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.25
Grading3.15
Reflection3.60
Respect4.60
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.05
Questions3.80
Leah K Powers 62 grades · 1 term 3.02GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Powers vs. the course average
A
+3.4
B
−5.0
C
+0.1
D
+3.2
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.1% withdrew · 4 of 66 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
52 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.27
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.61
Grading4.80
Reflection4.65
Respect4.84
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.78
Questions4.84
Elizabeth French Rose 37 grades · 1 term 2.82GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rose vs. the course average
A
−10.9
B
+10.8
C
−6.8
D
+5.9
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 37 enrolled.
Juan Edgar Jimenez Diaz 36 grades · 1 term 2.81GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Diaz vs. the course average
A
−21.4
B
+17.8
C
+7.4
D
−2.1
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 1 of 37 enrolled.
Loredana Alina Van Nelson 130 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
130 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nelson vs. the course average
A
−10.7
B
−5.9
C
+10.8
D
+3.6
F
+2.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.3% withdrew · 3 of 133 enrolled.
Jocelyn Anne Sutton Franklin 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.11GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.95
Questions4.95
Fawzia Ahmad 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.90GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
6.3% withdrew · 1 of 16 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.50
Reflection3.80
Respect5.00
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.50
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.00
Questions3.50
Laurie Ann Rech 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.52GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.00
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.90
Alina Van Nelson 124 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5
124 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.32
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.46
Grading4.50
Reflection4.67
Respect4.91
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.72
Questions4.74
Danica Petrovska 7 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Flo Rethore 41 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.62
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.69
Reflection4.87
Respect4.84
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.76
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.84
Questions4.83
Miranda P Paikowski 16 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.25
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.85
Reflection4.55
Respect4.85
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.45
Questions4.85
Juliette J Andre 44 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.54
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.73
Reflection4.75
Respect4.87
Creativity4.68
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.83
Questions4.91
Sandrine Florence Vandermarliere 11 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.10
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Sophie Rose 12 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.50
Technology3.60
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.10
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity3.40
Grading3.30
Reflection3.60
Respect3.90
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.40
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.90
Questions4.10
Lea Caulet 43 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.20
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.62
Reflection4.30
Respect4.72
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.67
Questions4.89
Audrey Burba 17 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.30
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.