Course record MATH
MATH 1150
Precalculus Mathematics
University of Colorado Boulder
2,144 grades55 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score10/100
Needs work
Lifeng Han 28 grades · 1 term 2.44GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Han vs. the course average
A
+6.0
B
+9.4
C
−8.4
D
−2.1
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.
Overall3.62 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration4.60
Connection2.80
Contribution3.70
Discussion3.70
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.20
Reflection3.70
Respect4.50
Creativity3.30
Feedback2.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.70
Questions3.80
Patrick Thaxton Newberry 62 grades · 1 term 2.40GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Newberry vs. the course average
A
+2.4
B
+5.6
C
+1.1
D
−1.9
F
−7.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.8% withdrew · 6 of 68 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.25
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration4.38
Connection3.25
Contribution4.11
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.08
Grading4.41
Reflection4.14
Respect4.65
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.31
Questions4.79
Jonathan Adam Belcher 119 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
119 letter grades
Compare with the course
Belcher vs. the course average
A
+4.8
B
−2.2
C
−1.1
D
+1.2
F
−2.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 7 of 126 enrolled.
Overall3.90 / 5
93 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.58
Technology3.97
Synthesis3.28
Collaboration3.91
Connection2.71
Contribution3.08
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity2.91
Grading4.12
Reflection3.82
Respect4.59
Creativity3.69
Feedback3.67
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.18
Questions4.47
Susan Fraley Hallowell 26 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hallowell vs. the course average
A
+3.8
B
−3.0
C
+8.3
D
−8.7
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.25 / 5
273 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.82
Collaboration3.91
Connection3.23
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity2.95
Grading4.41
Reflection4.24
Respect4.50
Creativity3.88
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.42
Questions4.59
Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 26 grades · 1 term 2.28GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
+8.6
C
−3.2
D
−1.0
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall3.83 / 5
65 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology3.83
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration4.03
Connection2.70
Contribution3.57
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.70
Reflection3.83
Respect4.40
Creativity3.67
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.97
Questions4.10
Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 242 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
242 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carvajal-Bakke vs. the course average
A
+2.0
B
+1.9
C
−1.9
D
+0.9
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 12 of 254 enrolled.
Overall3.62 / 5
144 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.64
Technology3.80
Synthesis3.56
Collaboration3.38
Connection3.15
Contribution3.47
Discussion4.59
Inclusivity3.19
Grading3.62
Reflection3.64
Respect4.40
Creativity3.64
Feedback3.44
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.17
Questions3.87
Euijin Hong 25 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−3.4
B
+2.1
C
+13.7
D
−12.4
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 25 enrolled.
Overall2.95 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.40
Technology3.20
Synthesis2.10
Collaboration3.00
Connection2.20
Contribution2.50
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity1.50
Grading3.10
Reflection3.00
Respect4.00
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.40
Interaction3.30
Challenge3.00
Questions3.30
Kevin W Manley 401 grades · 1 term 2.24GPA
401 letter grades
Compare with the course
Manley vs. the course average
A
+1.8
B
+1.3
C
−2.4
D
+0.3
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 19 of 420 enrolled.
Overall4.19 / 5
355 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.18
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.54
Connection3.34
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.40
Reflection4.38
Respect4.83
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.53
Questions4.71
Alessandra Kimberley Graf 51 grades · 1 term 2.23GPA
51 letter grades
Compare with the course
Graf vs. the course average
A
+8.1
B
−12.3
C
+5.1
D
−6.6
F
+5.7
Difference in percentage points.
7.3% withdrew · 4 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.06 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.15
Connection3.35
Contribution3.65
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.75
Grading4.05
Reflection4.15
Respect4.25
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.25
Questions4.35
Jun S Hong 653 grades · 1 term 2.19GPA
653 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−0.5
B
+2.3
C
−0.6
D
−1.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 50 of 703 enrolled.
Overall3.81 / 5
594 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.39
Synthesis3.72
Collaboration4.05
Connection3.30
Contribution3.69
Discussion4.29
Inclusivity3.04
Grading4.17
Reflection3.97
Respect4.34
Creativity3.76
Feedback3.78
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.18
Questions4.31
Nicholas A Matteo 53 grades · 1 term 2.16GPA
53 letter grades
Compare with the course
Matteo vs. the course average
A
−2.2
B
+2.2
C
+0.1
D
+0.6
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
10.2% withdrew · 6 of 59 enrolled.
Overall3.74 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.49
Technology3.85
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration4.08
Connection3.07
Contribution3.39
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.55
Grading3.78
Reflection4.12
Respect4.57
Creativity3.54
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.39
Challenge4.15
Questions4.34
Christal Jane Aquinto 63 grades · 1 term 2.15GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aquinto vs. the course average
A
−1.1
B
+1.8
C
+0.7
D
−6.9
F
+5.5
Difference in percentage points.
11.3% withdrew · 8 of 71 enrolled.
Overall4.18 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.31
Technology3.96
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration3.68
Connection3.83
Contribution3.94
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity3.33
Grading4.41
Reflection4.11
Respect4.83
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.58
Questions4.60
Harrison Edward Stalvey 74 grades · 1 term 2.03GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Stalvey vs. the course average
A
−3.2
B
−8.3
C
+7.5
D
+6.6
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
12.9% withdrew · 11 of 85 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
157 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.19
Technology4.18
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.55
Contribution4.29
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity3.37
Grading4.35
Reflection4.42
Respect4.69
Creativity4.14
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.47
Questions4.56
Jaekang Lee 26 grades · 1 term 2.00GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
−6.8
C
+8.3
D
+2.8
F
−0.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall3.70 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration3.90
Connection2.70
Contribution3.30
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity2.40
Grading3.80
Reflection3.90
Respect4.20
Creativity3.30
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.70
Questions3.80
Alexandru Nita 27 grades · 1 term 1.94GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A
−4.3
B
−15.1
C
+18.1
D
+2.1
F
−0.9
Difference in percentage points.
10.0% withdrew · 3 of 30 enrolled.
Del K Ebadi 123 grades · 1 term 1.83GPA
123 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ebadi vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
−3.9
C
−4.4
D
+9.6
F
+5.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.9% withdrew · 12 of 135 enrolled.
Overall3.81 / 5
100 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.44
Collaboration4.18
Connection2.96
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity3.36
Grading3.88
Reflection3.79
Respect4.44
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.08
Questions4.15
Anthony Gene Wilkie 25 grades · 1 term 1.82GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wilkie vs. the course average
A
−3.4
B
−5.9
C
+5.7
D
−8.4
F
+12.0
Difference in percentage points.
10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.
Overall2.94 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.70
Technology3.00
Synthesis2.40
Collaboration3.50
Connection2.10
Contribution2.80
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity2.00
Grading2.60
Reflection3.10
Respect3.30
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.70
Interaction3.50
Challenge3.00
Questions3.30
Julia Victoria Truman 26 grades · 1 term 1.72GPA
26 letter grades
Compare with the course
Truman vs. the course average
A
same
B
−10.7
C
−10.9
D
+6.7
F
+14.9
Difference in percentage points.
7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.
Overall2.96 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.93
Technology2.93
Synthesis2.55
Collaboration3.95
Connection2.25
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.05
Inclusivity2.20
Grading2.68
Reflection3.15
Respect3.33
Creativity2.83
Feedback2.42
Interaction3.78
Challenge2.83
Questions3.18
Mateo P Muro 25 grades · 1 term 1.55GPA
25 letter grades
Compare with the course
Muro vs. the course average
A
−11.4
B
−13.9
C
+9.7
D
+7.6
F
+8.0
Difference in percentage points.
10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.04 / 5
201 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.82
Collaboration4.01
Connection3.10
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity3.49
Grading4.24
Reflection4.07
Respect4.68
Creativity4.09
Feedback4.28
Interaction4.32
Challenge4.25
Questions4.54
Zahra Ibrahim Khalifa 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.35GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
15.4% withdrew · 4 of 26 enrolled.
Overall3.29 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.70
Technology3.20
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration3.60
Connection2.10
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity1.80
Grading3.40
Reflection3.20
Respect4.00
Creativity2.20
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.80
Challenge3.40
Questions3.90
Yi Moon Maung 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.22GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
17.9% withdrew · 5 of 28 enrolled.
Lee Forrest Roberson 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 1.75GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
14.3% withdrew · 4 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.38 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.10
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.60
Questions4.50
Peter Robert Rock Ii 86 reported responses 3.86Eval / 5
Overall3.86 / 5
86 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration4.33
Connection2.57
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.50
Grading3.80
Reflection3.73
Respect4.47
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.93
Questions4.27
Ruofan Li 151 reported responses 3.61Eval / 5
Overall3.61 / 5
151 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.41
Technology4.01
Synthesis3.42
Collaboration4.11
Connection3.00
Contribution3.58
Discussion3.98
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.66
Reflection3.73
Respect4.44
Creativity3.55
Feedback3.43
Interaction4.29
Challenge3.79
Questions4.17
Albany Rose Thompson 82 reported responses 3.82Eval / 5
Overall3.82 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology3.87
Synthesis3.03
Collaboration3.80
Connection2.50
Contribution3.37
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity2.53
Grading3.73
Reflection3.50
Respect4.47
Creativity3.57
Feedback3.83
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.00
Questions4.33
Ali Lotfi 235 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5
235 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.69
Technology3.92
Synthesis3.72
Collaboration4.11
Connection3.17
Contribution3.78
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.93
Grading3.73
Reflection3.97
Respect4.25
Creativity3.62
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.31
Challenge3.99
Questions4.30
Hunter Mcclain Davenport 4 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.38
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.31
Grading5.00
Reflection4.88
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Zhanerke Temirgaliyeva 5 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.60
Connection3.80
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Harold L Jordan 102 reported responses 3.99Eval / 5
Overall3.99 / 5
102 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.48
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.33
Collaboration3.95
Connection2.80
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.55
Grading4.03
Reflection3.85
Respect4.40
Creativity3.78
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.12
Questions4.43
Maggie Kay Reardon 163 reported responses 4.09Eval / 5
Overall4.09 / 5
163 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.42
Collaboration4.15
Connection3.00
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity2.52
Grading4.29
Reflection3.92
Respect4.49
Creativity4.12
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.26
Challenge4.33
Questions4.56
Elena Rodriguez Chavez 48 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.23
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.57
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.20
Reflection4.13
Respect4.70
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.27
Questions4.47
Alexander Nita 17 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity3.50
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Maung Yi Moon 26 reported responses 4.60Eval / 5
Overall4.60 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.56
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.48
Connection3.92
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.72
Reflection4.91
Respect4.82
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.98
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.98
Questions4.91
Howy Jordan 27 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.30
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.60
Questions4.30
Courtney Lee Hauf 122 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
122 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology3.81
Synthesis3.91
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.22
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.19
Inclusivity3.36
Grading3.72
Reflection4.08
Respect4.31
Creativity3.61
Feedback3.94
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.13
Questions4.17
Emily Ann Montelius 23 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.20
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.30
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.20
Questions4.30
Connor Alexander Mccranie 54 reported responses 3.79Eval / 5
Overall3.79 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.63
Synthesis3.37
Collaboration4.13
Connection2.77
Contribution3.63
Discussion4.03
Inclusivity2.87
Grading3.37
Reflection3.73
Respect4.40
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.97
Questions4.13
Spencer T Shortt 49 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
49 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology3.85
Synthesis3.75
Collaboration4.55
Connection3.05
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.85
Grading3.70
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.15
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.20
Questions4.40
Charlotte M Crotwell 70 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5
70 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.87
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration4.13
Connection2.87
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.07
Reflection4.03
Respect4.63
Creativity3.87
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.23
Questions4.50
Darwin Tallana 212 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
212 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.82
Technology3.89
Synthesis3.59
Collaboration4.12
Connection3.01
Contribution3.67
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity2.86
Grading4.06
Reflection3.88
Respect4.47
Creativity3.96
Feedback4.08
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.05
Questions4.36
Ben Kitchen 19 reported responses 3.36Eval / 5
Overall3.36 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology2.60
Synthesis2.90
Collaboration3.90
Connection2.80
Contribution3.40
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity2.00
Grading2.20
Reflection3.40
Respect4.20
Creativity3.10
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.90
Challenge3.70
Questions3.80
Elizabeth Lee Grulke 9 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.90
Grading5.00
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Ezzeddine El Sai 47 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.15
Connection3.35
Contribution3.65
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity2.75
Grading3.75
Reflection4.15
Respect4.25
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.40
Questions4.25
Vladislav Bukshtynov 98 reported responses 3.98Eval / 5
Overall3.98 / 5
98 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.76
Technology4.12
Synthesis3.59
Collaboration3.76
Connection2.91
Contribution3.39
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity2.03
Grading4.12
Reflection3.99
Respect4.67
Creativity3.73
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.19
Challenge4.25
Questions4.50
Adrian Edward Neff 22 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.00
Connection2.90
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity2.30
Grading4.50
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Daniel Lyness 67 reported responses 3.63Eval / 5
Overall3.63 / 5
67 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.87
Technology3.37
Synthesis2.73
Collaboration4.07
Connection2.43
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity2.13
Grading3.73
Reflection3.43
Respect4.10
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.83
Challenge3.63
Questions4.10
Champ Davis 24 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.60
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.60
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Summer Haag 92 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.28
Synthesis3.73
Collaboration3.93
Connection3.20
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity2.88
Grading4.22
Reflection4.23
Respect4.53
Creativity3.95
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.33
Questions4.57
Jon Kim 61 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5
61 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.32
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.58
Contribution4.24
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity3.54
Grading4.50
Reflection4.38
Respect4.71
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.61
Questions4.71
Isabelle Kraus 115 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
115 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.28
Collaboration4.08
Connection3.86
Contribution4.21
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.91
Grading4.64
Reflection4.46
Respect4.65
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.52
Challenge4.57
Questions4.71
Basia Klos 70 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
70 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.07
Contribution3.87
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.30
Reflection4.33
Respect4.63
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Anoushka Nerella Kameswari Umamaheshwar 54 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
54 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology3.97
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.33
Connection3.47
Contribution4.37
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.83
Reflection4.43
Respect4.50
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.27
Questions4.53
Tuscany Vennard Que Mccann 72 reported responses 4.12Eval / 5
Overall4.12 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.03
Synthesis3.85
Collaboration4.18
Connection3.30
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.63
Grading4.00
Reflection4.15
Respect4.60
Creativity4.02
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.22
Questions4.53
Daniel Moritz 19 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.00
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.10
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Joseph Hennessey Macula 2 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.