Course record GEOG
GEOG 3053
Geographic Information Science: Mapping
University of Colorado Boulder
717 grades21 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score33/100
Below average
Sarah Marie Kelly 717 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
717 letter grades
3.8% withdrew · 28 of 745 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
189 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.13
Connection4.32
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity3.67
Grading4.51
Reflection4.33
Respect4.74
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.37
Questions4.63
Kate Carlson 19 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.17
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.53
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.23
Respect4.67
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.30
Questions4.93
Kathryn Tyler 54 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.40
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.85
Reflection4.53
Respect4.94
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.91
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.65
Questions4.93
Rachel Elizabeth Isaacs 23 reported responses 4.78Eval / 5
Overall4.78 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.39
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.95
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.98
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.74
Grading4.84
Reflection4.70
Respect4.55
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.86
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.69
Questions5.00
Andrew Eiswerth 32 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.18
Connection4.12
Contribution4.06
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.82
Grading4.32
Reflection4.20
Respect4.74
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.36
Questions4.42
Caitlin Maire Mc Shane 11 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.90
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.30
Reflection4.10
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.10
Questions3.90
Fedor Popov 11 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.90
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.70
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.20
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.10
Questions4.10
Behzad Vahedi Torghabeh 30 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.78
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration3.64
Connection4.48
Contribution3.66
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.70
Reflection4.14
Respect4.57
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.55
Questions4.83
Ryan Erickson 20 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.69
Contribution4.53
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.67
Reflection4.71
Respect4.71
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.63
Questions4.67
Teresa Bowers Chapman 11 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.96
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.69
Connection4.96
Contribution4.96
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.84
Grading4.91
Reflection4.95
Respect4.84
Creativity4.97
Feedback4.94
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.71
Questions4.94
Jiacheng Zhou 10 reported responses 3.63Eval / 5
Overall3.63 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.44
Technology4.48
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration3.95
Connection3.98
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.48
Reflection4.46
Respect4.48
Creativity3.97
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.27
Questions4.66
Michele Lissoni 24 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.33
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration3.94
Connection3.94
Contribution3.58
Discussion4.18
Inclusivity4.01
Grading4.32
Reflection4.32
Respect4.29
Creativity4.39
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Rachel Johnson 17 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.60
Connection4.25
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.85
Reflection4.25
Respect4.65
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.30
Questions4.90
Sarah Schlosser 149 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
149 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.13
Collaboration4.09
Connection4.60
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.35
Reflection4.20
Respect4.44
Creativity4.11
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.36
Challenge4.16
Questions4.41
Aleksander Berg 19 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.75
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.95
Reflection4.65
Respect4.85
Creativity4.55
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.75
Questions5.00
Yuying Ren 8 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration2.12
Connection4.77
Contribution3.19
Discussion4.28
Inclusivity4.31
Grading5.00
Reflection4.46
Respect5.00
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.15
Interaction3.38
Challenge4.91
Questions4.28
Sepideh Jalayer 37 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.81
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.47
Connection4.17
Contribution3.44
Discussion3.98
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.03
Respect4.40
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.62
Interaction4.21
Challenge3.99
Questions4.41
Luca Anna Palasti 3 reported responses 3.88Eval / 5
Overall3.88 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration1.00
Connection4.30
Contribution3.00
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity3.00
Feedback4.70
Interaction3.00
Challenge3.00
Questions4.70
Yangchengsi Zhang 42 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.55
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity4.43
Grading4.50
Reflection4.30
Respect4.86
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.84
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.48
Questions4.88
Danyan Leng 11 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.55
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity3.75
Grading4.65
Reflection4.35
Respect4.00
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.65
Interaction3.85
Challenge4.35
Questions4.45
Guo Yu 15 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.70
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.70
Reflection4.40
Respect4.95
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.85
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.