Course record GEEN
GEEN 1400
Engineering Projects
University of Colorado Boulder
2,599 grades69 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score61/100
Strong
Arielle Melissa Blum 31 grades · 1 term 3.98GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blum vs. the course average
A
+18.8
B
−14.9
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.35 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.25
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.11
Inclusivity3.44
Grading3.59
Reflection4.12
Respect4.29
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.11
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.35
Questions4.04
Jeffrey Foster Glusman 28 grades · 1 term 3.96GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Glusman vs. the course average
A
+15.2
B
−11.4
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.30
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.90
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Azadeh Bolhari 31 grades · 1 term 3.94GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bolhari vs. the course average
A
+15.6
B
−11.7
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.
Overall3.86 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.21
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity3.71
Grading3.58
Reflection3.71
Respect4.42
Creativity4.38
Feedback3.77
Interaction4.73
Challenge3.89
Questions3.74
Grace Ellen Burleson 31 grades · 1 term 3.94GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Burleson vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
−8.5
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
91 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.61
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.60
Reflection4.34
Respect4.68
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.44
Questions4.76
Keith Thomas Regner 30 grades · 1 term 3.92GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Regner vs. the course average
A
+12.1
B
−8.3
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Carmen Consuelo Pacheco 95 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
95 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pacheco vs. the course average
A
+7.2
B
−5.5
C
−0.8
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.1% withdrew · 2 of 97 enrolled.
Corey Matthew Trujillo 29 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Trujillo vs. the course average
A
+15.4
B
−11.5
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.20
Questions4.80
Karen Marie Crofton 30 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Crofton vs. the course average
A
+8.8
B
−8.3
C
+0.4
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.87 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Melissa Christine Davis 147 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
147 letter grades
Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A
+13.4
B
−12.9
C
−1.6
D
−0.5
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 2 of 149 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
99 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.81
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.70
Contribution4.86
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.89
Grading4.59
Reflection4.59
Respect4.75
Creativity4.76
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.68
Questions4.83
Emma Nicole Briggs 29 grades · 1 term 3.81GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Briggs vs. the course average
A
+5.0
B
−1.1
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.90
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Malinda Schaefer Zarske 56 grades · 1 term 3.79GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zarske vs. the course average
A
+8.1
B
−6.0
C
−2.9
D
+1.3
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Jeffrey Steven Knutsen 52 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A
+1.5
B
−3.4
C
+2.8
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.35
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.15
Inclusivity3.98
Grading3.42
Reflection3.94
Respect4.34
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.72
Questions4.28
John K Mah 98 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mah vs. the course average
A
+3.5
B
−0.6
C
−1.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.0% withdrew · 1 of 99 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.99
Connection4.71
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.54
Inclusivity3.92
Grading4.42
Reflection4.51
Respect4.90
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.71
Questions4.72
Bernard Amadei 84 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Amadei vs. the course average
A
+3.3
B
−3.0
C
−1.7
D
+1.9
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 1 of 85 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.66
Technology3.94
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.93
Connection4.55
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.12
Inclusivity4.54
Grading3.48
Reflection4.27
Respect4.75
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.67
Questions4.34
Robert F Hodgkinson 57 grades · 1 term 3.77GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hodgkinson vs. the course average
A
+3.0
B
−4.4
C
+2.3
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology4.89
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.81
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.02
Grading4.49
Reflection4.31
Respect4.79
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.69
Questions4.89
Sarah Calve 83 grades · 1 term 3.76GPA
83 letter grades
Compare with the course
Calve vs. the course average
A
+0.7
B
+0.7
C
−0.5
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 83 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
81 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.48
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.69
Contribution4.48
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.48
Grading3.79
Reflection4.30
Respect4.22
Creativity4.73
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.32
Questions3.99
Wei Tan 53 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tan vs. the course average
A
−0.1
B
+0.2
C
+0.8
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 53 enrolled.
Overall3.73 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology3.05
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.39
Connection3.12
Contribution4.27
Discussion2.96
Inclusivity3.03
Grading2.21
Reflection3.12
Respect4.29
Creativity4.28
Feedback2.78
Interaction4.35
Challenge3.46
Questions2.68
James Harper 27 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Harper vs. the course average
A
−7.1
B
+11.0
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
55 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.88
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.50
Reflection4.69
Respect4.89
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.62
Questions4.81
Joan Kathryn Tisdale 237 grades · 1 term 3.74GPA
237 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tisdale vs. the course average
A
+1.9
B
−2.3
C
+0.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 3 of 240 enrolled.
Overall4.43 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.63
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.66
Grading4.04
Reflection4.32
Respect4.77
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.48
Questions4.69
Melinda J Piket-May 46 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
46 letter grades
Compare with the course
Piket-May vs. the course average
A
−7.3
B
+11.2
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 46 enrolled.
Katherine Ramos 300 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
300 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ramos vs. the course average
A
−4.2
B
+5.1
C
−0.6
D
−0.1
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
1.3% withdrew · 4 of 304 enrolled.
Overall4.01 / 5
299 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology3.77
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.59
Connection3.89
Contribution4.26
Discussion3.50
Inclusivity3.52
Grading3.61
Reflection3.73
Respect3.79
Creativity3.96
Feedback3.52
Interaction4.32
Challenge3.78
Questions3.43
Chantal Iribagiza 28 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Iribagiza vs. the course average
A
−2.6
B
+2.9
C
+0.6
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall3.33 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology2.84
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration4.51
Connection3.89
Contribution4.45
Discussion3.31
Inclusivity3.90
Grading1.72
Reflection3.02
Respect3.09
Creativity2.96
Feedback2.35
Interaction4.19
Challenge3.41
Questions2.83
Christopher T Senseney 89 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
89 letter grades
Compare with the course
Senseney vs. the course average
A
+4.2
B
−3.7
C
−2.9
D
+2.9
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.2% withdrew · 2 of 91 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
96 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.64
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.12
Reflection4.01
Respect4.64
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.33
Questions4.29
Carlo Salvinelli 29 grades · 1 term 3.70GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Salvinelli vs. the course average
A
−1.9
B
−1.1
C
+4.0
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.75
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.10
Reflection4.30
Respect4.75
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Jun Wang 28 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wang vs. the course average
A
+1.0
B
−4.2
C
+4.2
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall3.28 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.70
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity3.40
Grading2.10
Reflection3.40
Respect3.60
Creativity3.70
Feedback2.90
Interaction3.70
Challenge3.40
Questions3.70
Daniel Adam Godrick 115 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
115 letter grades
Compare with the course
Godrick vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
+7.7
C
−0.3
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 1 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
90 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.55
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.87
Grading3.71
Reflection4.52
Respect4.60
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.72
Questions4.78
Desiree Chalyn Beardmore 51 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Beardmore vs. the course average
A
+1.2
B
−3.2
C
+3.0
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 52 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.60
Grading5.00
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Virginia Lea Ferguson 26 grades · 1 term 3.67GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ferguson vs. the course average
A
−0.4
B
+0.5
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
+3.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.47
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.03
Grading3.89
Reflection4.22
Respect4.60
Creativity4.45
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.42
Questions4.47
Kaushik Jayaram 57 grades · 1 term 3.67GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jayaram vs. the course average
A
+3.0
B
−2.6
C
−2.9
D
−0.5
F
+3.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 3 of 60 enrolled.
Overall4.08 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.11
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.41
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity3.92
Grading3.62
Reflection3.91
Respect4.75
Creativity4.56
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.01
Questions3.76
Rebecca L.D. Komarek 29 grades · 1 term 3.62GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Komarek vs. the course average
A
−5.3
B
+2.3
C
+0.5
D
+3.0
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Angela R Bielefeldt 112 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
112 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bielefeldt vs. the course average
A
−8.0
B
+4.7
C
+3.3
D
−0.5
F
+0.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 4 of 116 enrolled.
Overall4.56 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.14
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.54
Contribution4.58
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.93
Grading3.72
Reflection4.16
Respect4.52
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.39
Questions4.41
Michael A. Soltys 151 grades · 1 term 3.59GPA
151 letter grades
Compare with the course
Soltys vs. the course average
A
−5.0
B
+1.0
C
+2.4
D
+1.5
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 4 of 155 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
67 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.51
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.68
Collaboration4.82
Connection4.74
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity3.91
Grading4.37
Reflection4.49
Respect4.71
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.68
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.67
Questions4.66
Derek T Reamon 56 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Reamon vs. the course average
A
−6.2
B
+2.9
C
+2.4
D
−0.5
F
+1.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection3.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.09
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.10
Questions4.70
Madhur B Atreya 29 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Atreya vs. the course average
A
−12.2
B
+9.2
C
+4.0
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
151 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration4.89
Connection4.45
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.20
Reflection4.36
Respect4.79
Creativity4.73
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.55
Questions4.75
Kathryn Anne Wingate 30 grades · 1 term 3.52GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wingate vs. the course average
A
−7.9
B
+5.1
C
+0.4
D
−0.5
F
+2.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Paul Tooraj Kooros 59 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kooros vs. the course average
A
−33.7
B
+29.1
C
+5.6
D
−0.5
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 60 enrolled.
Overall3.80 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology3.75
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.30
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.14
Inclusivity3.67
Grading2.53
Reflection3.80
Respect4.50
Creativity4.44
Feedback3.48
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.28
Questions4.41
Skyler Jordan Kern 30 grades · 1 term 3.22GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kern vs. the course average
A
−34.5
B
+21.7
C
+10.4
D
+2.9
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.70
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.50
Reflection3.30
Respect4.70
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.50
Questions3.80
Scott Christian Rowe 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.90GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
4.2% withdrew · 1 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.30
Reflection3.80
Respect4.40
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Jessica Fitzgerald 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.79GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.30
Reflection4.10
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Mary Elyssa Mcguinn 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.78GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.10
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.40
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Jennifer Lynn Taylor 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.72GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
4.2% withdrew · 1 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.86 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Jeremy Koch 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.49GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.56 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Melinda Piket 24 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology3.65
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.55
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.25
Reflection4.25
Respect4.70
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.45
Questions4.20
Malinda Ruth Schaefer 20 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Carmen Pacheco-Borden 34 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.73
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.82
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.35
Reflection4.70
Respect4.82
Creativity4.76
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.77
Desi C Beardmore 10 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.10
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Joany Tisdale 130 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
130 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.76
Collaboration4.97
Connection4.87
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.49
Reflection4.55
Respect4.91
Creativity4.92
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.80
Questions4.81
Mike Soltys 83 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
83 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.40
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.42
Reflection4.27
Respect4.57
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.68
Challenge4.53
Questions4.65
Mo Woods Iii 18 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.60
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Erik Knudsen 23 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.56
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.78
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.68
Inclusivity3.87
Grading4.59
Reflection4.55
Respect4.68
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.66
Questions4.68
Taylor Sharpe 66 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.84
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.16
Reflection4.54
Respect4.73
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.61
Questions4.76
Christopher Spagnoletti 11 reported responses 4.59Eval / 5
Overall4.59 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Caitlin Adams 28 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Giulia Brachi 28 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.60
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Samuel Armistead 22 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Leila Saleh 26 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.98
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.65
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.75
Grading4.98
Reflection4.62
Respect4.88
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.70
Questions4.88
Diane Jung 19 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.10
Reflection4.30
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.80
Questions4.40
Nick A. Stites 19 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.50
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.70
Questions4.40
Kelsea Souders 25 reported responses 4.34Eval / 5
Overall4.34 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.60
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.20
Reflection3.90
Respect4.40
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
Calvin Wynn 41 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology4.08
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.77
Connection4.04
Contribution4.19
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.06
Reflection3.98
Respect4.11
Creativity3.62
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.69
Challenge3.88
Questions4.11
Sobia Anjum 27 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.60
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.20
Reflection4.10
Respect4.60
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Alia Khan 29 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Tina Smilkstein 13 reported responses 3.69Eval / 5
Overall3.69 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.30
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.20
Contribution4.20
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity4.00
Grading2.50
Reflection3.80
Respect4.30
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.60
Questions3.50
Charles M Hoke 13 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.60
Reflection4.50
Respect4.60
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Susan Reynolds 10 reported responses 3.25Eval / 5
Overall3.25 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.50
Contribution4.20
Discussion2.90
Inclusivity4.10
Grading2.10
Reflection3.90
Respect3.20
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.80
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.30
Questions3.10
Daniel W Rankin 21 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Daniel Donado Quintero 22 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.20
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.70
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.30
Questions4.60
Ehsan Keyvani Someh 25 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.50
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.40
Questions3.80
Olivia Wilburn 10 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.80
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.