Course record JRNL
JRNL 2000
Reporting and Writing
University of Colorado Boulder
608 grades30 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score46/100
Mixed record
Jan Whitt 34 grades · 1 term 4.00GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Whitt vs. the course average
A
+38.0
B
−29.1
C
−6.7
D
−0.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.1% withdrew · 3 of 37 enrolled.
Rania Ms Al Namara 49 grades · 1 term 3.80GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Namara vs. the course average
A
+31.9
B
−27.1
C
−6.7
D
−0.3
F
+2.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.43 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.91
Technology3.57
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.05
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity4.32
Grading3.73
Reflection4.09
Respect4.83
Creativity4.36
Feedback3.74
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.09
Questions4.37
Beth A Potter 35 grades · 1 term 3.74GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Potter vs. the course average
A
+18.0
B
−12.0
C
−3.9
D
−0.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 1 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.02 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.15
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.65
Reflection3.60
Respect4.50
Creativity3.75
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge3.90
Questions4.25
Carlos Eduardo Back Vianna 50 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vianna vs. the course average
A
+20.0
B
−15.1
C
−2.7
D
−0.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 3 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.86 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.51
Connection4.93
Contribution4.95
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.91
Grading4.95
Reflection4.85
Respect4.92
Creativity4.88
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.85
Questions4.98
Miles Patrick Davis 29 grades · 1 term 3.65GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A
+7.0
B
−5.0
C
+0.2
D
−0.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 29 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.63
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.73
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.30
Reflection4.47
Respect4.90
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.67
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.50
Questions4.77
Christine M Larson 55 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Larson vs. the course average
A
+1.6
B
same
C
−1.3
D
−0.3
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
3.5% withdrew · 2 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
122 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.57
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.35
Connection4.82
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.69
Reflection4.51
Respect4.81
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.65
Questions4.72
Nicola Jana Redl 37 grades · 1 term 3.42GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Redl vs. the course average
A
+0.2
B
+0.6
C
−1.3
D
−0.3
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Michelle Rossi 52 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
52 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rossi vs. the course average
A
−10.1
B
+7.4
C
+4.8
D
−0.3
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.7% withdrew · 2 of 54 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.99
Technology3.78
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration3.74
Connection4.44
Contribution4.26
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity4.17
Grading4.04
Reflection3.89
Respect4.06
Creativity4.04
Feedback3.58
Interaction3.98
Challenge3.89
Questions3.96
Mushfique Wadud 53 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wadud vs. the course average
A
−5.4
B
−0.8
C
+2.7
D
+1.6
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.9% withdrew · 1 of 54 enrolled.
Overall3.72 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.26
Technology2.71
Synthesis3.12
Collaboration3.66
Connection3.91
Contribution3.37
Discussion3.36
Inclusivity3.52
Grading3.12
Reflection3.26
Respect3.35
Creativity3.47
Feedback3.28
Interaction3.35
Challenge3.12
Questions3.72
Dacia Leigh Johnson 32 grades · 1 term 3.04GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Johnson vs. the course average
A
−21.4
B
+11.5
C
+5.8
D
−0.3
F
+4.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.88
Technology4.91
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.43
Connection4.95
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.93
Reflection4.55
Respect4.95
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.91
Questions4.55
Marina Dmukhovskaya 35 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dmukhovskaya vs. the course average
A
−39.1
B
+33.7
C
+1.8
D
+2.5
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 2 of 37 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.12
Synthesis4.09
Collaboration4.18
Connection4.68
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity4.08
Grading4.43
Reflection4.11
Respect4.35
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.33
Questions4.41
Bradley S Cochi 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.80GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Muhammad Ali 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.64GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology3.92
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.78
Connection4.86
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.42
Inclusivity4.57
Grading3.72
Reflection3.58
Respect4.77
Creativity4.17
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.65
Questions4.78
Sima R Bhowmik 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.47GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.30
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.30
Reflection3.80
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Matt Reichel 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.29GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.51 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.35
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration3.74
Connection4.74
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.39
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.87
Reflection4.35
Respect4.61
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.39
Questions4.13
Shreyoshi Ghosh 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.29GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.30
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.20
Reflection3.90
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.10
Questions4.10
Angie I Chuang 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.21GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.01
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Amanda Katie Clark 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.16GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
10.5% withdrew · 2 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.77 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.20
Connection5.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.60
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Angelica Lolita Kalika 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.14GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
10.0% withdrew · 2 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.87 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.60
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.20
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Tammy R Matthews 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.02GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
8.3% withdrew · 1 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.95 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Elizabeth A Skewes 1 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Reflection5.00
Interaction5.00
Nicky Redl 32 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.47
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.37
Reflection4.62
Respect4.50
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.27
Questions4.75
Ever Josue Figueroa 14 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.85
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.55
Respect5.00
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Nihal Alaqabawy 38 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.17
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.43
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.34
Inclusivity4.28
Grading3.75
Reflection4.43
Respect4.50
Creativity4.51
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.32
Questions4.49
Wen Lei 8 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.10
Questions4.50
Ashley Carter 15 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.70
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.90
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Hannah Ha 27 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.22
Connection4.17
Contribution4.19
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.12
Grading3.92
Reflection4.09
Respect4.50
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.48
Hina Ali 26 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.18
Contribution3.98
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.24
Reflection4.11
Respect4.55
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.36
Questions4.48
Dennis Okeke 31 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.88
Contribution4.72
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.35
Reflection4.59
Respect4.92
Creativity4.88
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.72
Questions4.72
Nori Pachot Soto 15 reported responses 4.53Eval / 5
Overall4.53 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.00
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.60
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.