Course record GRMN
GRMN 1010
Beginning German 1
University of Colorado Boulder
575 grades30 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score38/100
Below average
Timothy Jay Mcfarland 52 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mcfarland vs. the course average
A
+27.8
B
−11.0
C
−10.9
D
−3.5
F
−2.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 4 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.96
Connection4.49
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.75
Reflection4.83
Respect4.96
Creativity4.81
Feedback4.76
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.82
Questions4.85
Fallon Elisabeth Hovland 25 grades · 1 term 3.37GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hovland vs. the course average
A
+12.7
B
−0.2
C
−4.9
D
−5.4
F
−2.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 1 of 26 enrolled.
Elisa Bumblies 49 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bumblies vs. the course average
A
+11.8
B
+0.5
C
−8.8
D
−1.3
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
9.3% withdrew · 5 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.16
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.36
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.53
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.27
Grading4.68
Reflection4.77
Respect4.76
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.94
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.66
Questions4.94
Sean S Bray 26 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bray vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
+2.4
C
−5.2
D
+2.3
F
−2.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.15
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.05
Grading4.65
Reflection4.80
Respect4.85
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions4.90
Iwo Hasenkamp 33 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hasenkamp vs. the course average
A
−13.0
B
+10.3
C
+8.3
D
+0.7
F
−6.3
Difference in percentage points.
8.3% withdrew · 3 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.64 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.40
Contribution4.45
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.75
Reflection4.50
Respect4.75
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.60
Questions4.85
Trevor A Kenny 40 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kenny vs. the course average
A
+4.2
B
−14.7
C
+7.1
D
+2.1
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.35
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.65
Questions4.90
Janine Marie Kennedy 36 grades · 1 term 2.84GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kennedy vs. the course average
A
−7.2
B
+3.9
C
+1.0
D
+2.9
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 1 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.74
Connection4.52
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.68
Reflection4.81
Respect4.81
Creativity4.61
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.76
Questions4.90
Katrin Kirsten Gielde 60 grades · 1 term 2.79GPA
60 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gielde vs. the course average
A
−6.6
B
+2.8
C
−2.9
D
+1.3
F
+5.4
Difference in percentage points.
11.8% withdrew · 8 of 68 enrolled.
Oliver Ozellis 28 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ozellis vs. the course average
A
−4.0
B
−3.6
C
+5.0
D
+1.8
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology3.65
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.60
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.25
Grading4.90
Reflection4.75
Respect4.95
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.80
Questions4.95
Alexander Roberto Sellers 51 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sellers vs. the course average
A
−11.9
B
+3.1
C
+4.8
D
+0.5
F
+3.5
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 4 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration4.74
Connection4.22
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.57
Reflection4.33
Respect4.76
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.24
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.70
Questions4.61
Rohini Chandra 37 grades · 1 term 2.55GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chandra vs. the course average
A
−16.3
B
+3.0
C
+6.0
D
+2.7
F
+4.5
Difference in percentage points.
11.9% withdrew · 5 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.02
Collaboration4.94
Connection3.88
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.52
Reflection4.24
Respect4.82
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.72
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.60
Questions4.88
Johanna Katharina Willruth 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.38GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
6.7% withdrew · 1 of 15 enrolled.
Kyra Virginia Houle 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.33GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
11.1% withdrew · 2 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.62 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.20
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Taylor Duncan Budde 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.26GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 16 enrolled.
Mari Mccarville 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.24GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Alexandria Renee Koch 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.05GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
12.5% withdrew · 2 of 16 enrolled.
Stefan Daniel Bongers 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.91GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.70
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions5.00
Leilani Kay Spurlock 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.83GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.30
Contribution4.40
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Erik Ingolf Harald Floeter 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.67GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
7.7% withdrew · 1 of 13 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.05
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.95
Grading4.20
Reflection4.35
Respect4.80
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.55
Questions4.85
Nadia Schuman 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.44GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.40
Reflection4.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Katrin Kirsten Gjelde 45 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
45 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.44
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.42
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.59
Reflection4.62
Respect4.88
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.49
Questions4.87
Alex Koch 26 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.68
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.12
Grading4.49
Reflection4.36
Respect4.74
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.73
Questions4.68
Elisa Nastasia Maiete Riga 12 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.75
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.85
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Maycee Roshel 34 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.46
Contribution4.74
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.36
Grading4.77
Reflection4.69
Respect4.92
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.89
Questions4.93
Pascal Edenhart 20 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.84
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.92
Reflection4.68
Respect4.84
Creativity4.84
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.86
Questions5.00
Amy Jo Griffin 23 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.88
Technology4.42
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.53
Connection4.05
Contribution4.45
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.06
Grading4.49
Reflection4.27
Respect4.30
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.23
Questions4.53
Hannah Horn 5 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.50
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.85
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.85
Eva Helga Marie Freiin Von Campenhausen 8 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.20
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.40
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Benjamin Kirchoff 7 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection3.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.70
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Constanze Felber 16 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.65
Connection3.90
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.15
Grading3.85
Reflection3.75
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.55
Challenge4.30
Questions4.45
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.