Course record MATH

MATH 1300

Calculus 1

University of Colorado Boulder

4,675 grades136 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score14/100
Needs work

Professors 136 of 136

Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 27 grades · 1 term 3.00GPA
48.1% A
25.9% B
14.8% C
7.4% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A +26.8
B −4.6
C −10.9
D −3.4
F −8.0

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.

Jordan Daniel Dubeau 42 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
42.9% A
26.2% B
19.0% C
7.1% D
4.8% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dubeau vs. the course average
A +21.6
B −4.4
C −6.6
D −3.6
F −6.9

Difference in percentage points.

4.5% withdrew · 2 of 44 enrolled.

Rebecah Helen Storms 28 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
42.9% A
25.0% B
21.4% C
3.6% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Storms vs. the course average
A +21.6
B −5.5
C −4.2
D −7.2
F −4.6

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.

Justin Todd Willson 84 grades · 1 term 2.81GPA
39.3% A
25.0% B
23.8% C
6.0% D
6.0% F

84 letter grades

Compare with the course
Willson vs. the course average
A +18.0
B −5.5
C −1.9
D −4.8
F −5.7

Difference in percentage points.

1.2% withdrew · 1 of 85 enrolled.

Edouard Pierre Heitzmann 27 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
29.6% A
25.9% B
33.3% C
7.4% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Heitzmann vs. the course average
A +8.3
B −4.6
C +7.7
D −3.4
F −8.0

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Jue Xiong 38 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
34.2% A
34.2% B
18.4% C
7.9% D
5.3% F

38 letter grades

Compare with the course
Xiong vs. the course average
A +12.9
B +3.7
C −7.2
D −2.9
F −6.4

Difference in percentage points.

7.3% withdrew · 3 of 41 enrolled.

Sangman Lee 75 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
26.7% A
38.7% B
21.3% C
8.0% D
5.3% F

75 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A +5.4
B +8.1
C −4.3
D −2.8
F −6.4

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 5 of 80 enrolled.

Sarah Arpin 26 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
38.5% A
19.2% B
30.8% C
3.8% D
7.7% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Arpin vs. the course average
A +17.2
B −11.3
C +5.1
D −6.9
F −4.0

Difference in percentage points.

10.3% withdrew · 3 of 29 enrolled.

Chase Edward Meadors 26 grades · 1 term 2.70GPA
34.6% A
34.6% B
15.4% C
11.5% D
3.8% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Meadors vs. the course average
A +13.3
B +4.1
C −10.3
D +0.8
F −7.9

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

Patrick Thaxton Newberry 138 grades · 1 term 2.65GPA
26.1% A
36.2% B
26.1% C
4.3% D
7.2% F

138 letter grades

Compare with the course
Newberry vs. the course average
A +4.8
B +5.7
C +0.4
D −6.4
F −4.5

Difference in percentage points.

6.1% withdrew · 9 of 147 enrolled.

Rebecca Anne Deland 42 grades · 1 term 2.64GPA
31.0% A
31.0% B
23.8% C
7.1% D
7.1% F

42 letter grades

Compare with the course
Deland vs. the course average
A +9.6
B +0.4
C −1.9
D −3.6
F −4.6

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 3 of 45 enrolled.

Summer Haag 30 grades · 1 term 2.63GPA
30.0% A
26.7% B
36.7% C
0.0% D
6.7% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Haag vs. the course average
A +8.7
B −3.9
C +11.0
D −10.8
F −5.0

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.

Braden Loil Balentine 53 grades · 1 term 2.61GPA
28.3% A
32.1% B
20.8% C
9.4% D
9.4% F

53 letter grades

Compare with the course
Balentine vs. the course average
A +7.0
B +1.5
C −4.9
D −1.3
F −2.3

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 2 of 55 enrolled.

Bob Kuo 28 grades · 1 term 2.59GPA
21.4% A
32.1% B
39.3% C
7.1% D
0.0% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kuo vs. the course average
A +0.1
B +1.6
C +13.6
D −3.6
F −11.7

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.

Harrison Edward Stalvey 159 grades · 1 term 2.57GPA
23.9% A
35.2% B
24.5% C
8.8% D
7.5% F

159 letter grades

Compare with the course
Stalvey vs. the course average
A +2.6
B +4.7
C −1.1
D −2.0
F −4.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 11 of 170 enrolled.

Ezzeddine El Sai 80 grades · 1 term 2.56GPA
22.5% A
33.8% B
30.0% C
6.3% D
7.5% F

80 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sai vs. the course average
A +1.2
B +3.2
C +4.3
D −4.5
F −4.2

Difference in percentage points.

7.0% withdrew · 6 of 86 enrolled.

Andre Charles Davis 26 grades · 1 term 2.55GPA
11.5% A
46.2% B
30.8% C
11.5% D
0.0% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A −9.8
B +15.6
C +5.1
D +0.8
F −11.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.

Mengxiao Sun 106 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
28.3% A
25.5% B
28.3% C
9.4% D
8.5% F

106 letter grades

Compare with the course
Sun vs. the course average
A +7.0
B −5.1
C +2.6
D −1.3
F −3.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 4 of 110 enrolled.

Patrick Michael Wynne 28 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
21.4% A
35.7% B
21.4% C
14.3% D
7.1% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wynne vs. the course average
A +0.1
B +5.2
C −4.2
D +3.5
F −4.6

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 2 of 30 enrolled.

Krisztina E Dearborn 54 grades · 1 term 2.53GPA
24.1% A
35.2% B
22.2% C
9.3% D
9.3% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dearborn vs. the course average
A +2.8
B +4.6
C −3.4
D −1.5
F −2.4

Difference in percentage points.

1.8% withdrew · 1 of 55 enrolled.

Joo Young Kim 142 grades · 1 term 2.51GPA
24.6% A
32.4% B
26.8% C
7.0% D
9.2% F

142 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kim vs. the course average
A +3.3
B +1.8
C +1.1
D −3.7
F −2.5

Difference in percentage points.

4.7% withdrew · 7 of 149 enrolled.

Adrian Edward Neff 61 grades · 1 term 2.48GPA
24.6% A
27.9% B
29.5% C
6.6% D
11.5% F

61 letter grades

Compare with the course
Neff vs. the course average
A +3.3
B −2.7
C +3.8
D −4.2
F −0.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.2% withdrew · 4 of 65 enrolled.

Cinea N Jenkins 26 grades · 1 term 2.48GPA
19.2% A
46.2% B
11.5% C
7.7% D
15.4% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jenkins vs. the course average
A −2.1
B +15.6
C −14.1
D −3.1
F +3.7

Difference in percentage points.

3.7% withdrew · 1 of 27 enrolled.

Benjamin Nicholas Kitchen 83 grades · 1 term 2.47GPA
21.7% A
34.9% B
24.1% C
9.6% D
9.6% F

83 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kitchen vs. the course average
A +0.4
B +4.4
C −1.6
D −1.1
F −2.1

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 6 of 89 enrolled.

Aidan Powers 31 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
16.1% A
35.5% B
32.3% C
9.7% D
6.5% F

31 letter grades

Compare with the course
Powers vs. the course average
A −5.2
B +4.9
C +6.6
D −1.1
F −5.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.1% withdrew · 2 of 33 enrolled.

Stephanie Youngmi Oh 28 grades · 1 term 2.46GPA
21.4% A
28.6% B
32.1% C
14.3% D
3.6% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Oh vs. the course average
A +0.1
B −2.0
C +6.5
D +3.5
F −8.1

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.

Christopher James Keala Eblen 103 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
24.3% A
31.1% B
23.3% C
12.6% D
8.7% F

103 letter grades

Compare with the course
Eblen vs. the course average
A +3.0
B +0.5
C −2.4
D +1.8
F −3.0

Difference in percentage points.

4.6% withdrew · 5 of 108 enrolled.

Daniel Lyness 93 grades · 1 term 2.45GPA
23.7% A
33.3% B
23.7% C
8.6% D
10.8% F

93 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lyness vs. the course average
A +2.4
B +2.8
C −2.0
D −2.2
F −0.9

Difference in percentage points.

1.1% withdrew · 1 of 94 enrolled.

Connor Alexander Mccranie 82 grades · 1 term 2.44GPA
24.4% A
32.9% B
17.1% C
15.9% D
9.8% F

82 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mccranie vs. the course average
A +3.1
B +2.4
C −8.6
D +5.1
F −1.9

Difference in percentage points.

6.8% withdrew · 6 of 88 enrolled.

Isabelle Kraus 27 grades · 1 term 2.43GPA
14.8% A
44.4% B
14.8% C
22.2% D
3.7% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Kraus vs. the course average
A −6.5
B +13.9
C −10.9
D +11.4
F −8.0

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.

Matthew Carter Pierson 52 grades · 1 term 2.43GPA
26.9% A
25.0% B
26.9% C
5.8% D
15.4% F

52 letter grades

Compare with the course
Pierson vs. the course average
A +5.6
B −5.5
C +1.3
D −5.0
F +3.7

Difference in percentage points.

1.9% withdrew · 1 of 53 enrolled.

Michael B Noyes 144 grades · 1 term 2.41GPA
21.5% A
30.6% B
28.5% C
9.7% D
9.7% F

144 letter grades

Compare with the course
Noyes vs. the course average
A +0.2
B same
C +2.8
D −1.1
F −2.0

Difference in percentage points.

4.6% withdrew · 7 of 151 enrolled.

Maggie Kay Reardon 57 grades · 1 term 2.41GPA
21.1% A
40.4% B
14.0% C
7.0% D
17.5% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Reardon vs. the course average
A −0.3
B +9.8
C −11.6
D −3.8
F +5.8

Difference in percentage points.

6.6% withdrew · 4 of 61 enrolled.

Richard Dyer 109 grades · 1 term 2.39GPA
21.1% A
34.9% B
23.9% C
6.4% D
13.8% F

109 letter grades

Compare with the course
Dyer vs. the course average
A −0.2
B +4.3
C −1.8
D −4.4
F +2.1

Difference in percentage points.

4.4% withdrew · 5 of 114 enrolled.

S Ira Becker 104 grades · 1 term 2.38GPA
25.0% A
26.9% B
26.9% C
7.7% D
13.5% F

104 letter grades

Compare with the course
Becker vs. the course average
A +3.7
B −3.6
C +1.3
D −3.1
F +1.8

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 7 of 111 enrolled.

James Wilson Woodcock 31 grades · 1 term 2.36GPA
9.7% A
38.7% B
38.7% C
6.5% D
6.5% F

31 letter grades

Compare with the course
Woodcock vs. the course average
A −11.6
B +8.2
C +13.0
D −4.3
F −5.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.1% withdrew · 2 of 33 enrolled.

Alessandra Kimberley Graf 285 grades · 1 term 2.35GPA
22.5% A
28.4% B
28.4% C
8.8% D
11.9% F

285 letter grades

Compare with the course
Graf vs. the course average
A +1.2
B −2.1
C +2.8
D −2.0
F +0.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.6% withdrew · 20 of 305 enrolled.

Camilo Mesa 75 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
16.0% A
40.0% B
20.0% C
13.3% D
10.7% F

75 letter grades

Compare with the course
Mesa vs. the course average
A −5.3
B +9.5
C −5.7
D +2.6
F −1.0

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 5 of 80 enrolled.

Albert Bronstein 74 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
33.8% A
18.9% B
16.2% C
10.8% D
20.3% F

74 letter grades

Compare with the course
Bronstein vs. the course average
A +12.5
B −11.6
C −9.5
D same
F +8.6

Difference in percentage points.

7.5% withdrew · 6 of 80 enrolled.

Christal Jane Aquinto 57 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
21.1% A
31.6% B
24.6% C
7.0% D
15.8% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Aquinto vs. the course average
A −0.3
B +1.0
C −1.1
D −3.8
F +4.1

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 2 of 59 enrolled.

Courtney Lee Hauf 59 grades · 1 term 2.27GPA
18.6% A
30.5% B
27.1% C
11.9% D
11.9% F

59 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hauf vs. the course average
A −2.7
B same
C +1.5
D +1.1
F +0.2

Difference in percentage points.

4.8% withdrew · 3 of 62 enrolled.

Joseph Hennessey Macula 28 grades · 1 term 2.25GPA
10.7% A
42.9% B
28.6% C
3.6% D
14.3% F

28 letter grades

Compare with the course
Macula vs. the course average
A −10.6
B +12.3
C +2.9
D −7.2
F +2.6

Difference in percentage points.

3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.

Calum Ieuan Shearer 59 grades · 1 term 2.25GPA
20.3% A
20.3% B
39.0% C
10.2% D
10.2% F

59 letter grades

Compare with the course
Shearer vs. the course average
A −1.0
B −10.2
C +13.3
D −0.6
F −1.5

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 4 of 63 enrolled.

Corey Francis Lyons 95 grades · 1 term 2.24GPA
20.0% A
31.6% B
20.0% C
13.7% D
14.7% F

95 letter grades

Compare with the course
Lyons vs. the course average
A −1.3
B +1.0
C −5.7
D +2.9
F +3.0

Difference in percentage points.

7.8% withdrew · 8 of 103 enrolled.

Alexandru Nita 239 grades · 1 term 2.22GPA
13.8% A
31.4% B
30.1% C
14.2% D
10.5% F

239 letter grades

Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A −7.5
B +0.8
C +4.5
D +3.4
F −1.2

Difference in percentage points.

5.9% withdrew · 15 of 254 enrolled.

Hunter Mcclain Davenport 137 grades · 1 term 2.20GPA
14.6% A
33.6% B
23.4% C
16.1% D
12.4% F

137 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davenport vs. the course average
A −6.7
B +3.0
C −2.3
D +5.3
F +0.7

Difference in percentage points.

5.5% withdrew · 8 of 145 enrolled.

William Eli Orvis 79 grades · 1 term 2.18GPA
19.0% A
25.3% B
25.3% C
12.7% D
17.7% F

79 letter grades

Compare with the course
Orvis vs. the course average
A −2.3
B −5.2
C −0.4
D +1.9
F +6.0

Difference in percentage points.

9.2% withdrew · 8 of 87 enrolled.

Euijin Hong 54 grades · 1 term 2.16GPA
11.1% A
31.5% B
33.3% C
13.0% D
11.1% F

54 letter grades

Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A −10.2
B +0.9
C +7.7
D +2.2
F −0.6

Difference in percentage points.

5.3% withdrew · 3 of 57 enrolled.

Andrew Ward Doumont 81 grades · 1 term 2.16GPA
18.5% A
27.2% B
25.9% C
12.3% D
16.0% F

81 letter grades

Compare with the course
Doumont vs. the course average
A −2.8
B −3.4
C +0.3
D +1.6
F +4.3

Difference in percentage points.

4.7% withdrew · 4 of 85 enrolled.

Champ Davis 57 grades · 1 term 2.16GPA
19.3% A
28.1% B
24.6% C
15.8% D
12.3% F

57 letter grades

Compare with the course
Davis vs. the course average
A −2.0
B −2.5
C −1.1
D +5.0
F +0.6

Difference in percentage points.

6.6% withdrew · 4 of 61 enrolled.

Charlotte M Crotwell 32 grades · 1 term 2.15GPA
12.5% A
34.4% B
25.0% C
15.6% D
12.5% F

32 letter grades

Compare with the course
Crotwell vs. the course average
A −8.8
B +3.8
C −0.7
D +4.8
F +0.8

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.

Breeann Meralou Wilson 29 grades · 1 term 2.14GPA
27.6% A
10.3% B
34.5% C
10.3% D
17.2% F

29 letter grades

Compare with the course
Wilson vs. the course average
A +6.3
B −20.2
C +8.8
D −0.4
F +5.5

Difference in percentage points.

6.5% withdrew · 2 of 31 enrolled.

Julia Victoria Truman 77 grades · 1 term 2.04GPA
13.0% A
26.0% B
32.5% C
11.7% D
16.9% F

77 letter grades

Compare with the course
Truman vs. the course average
A −8.3
B −4.6
C +6.8
D +0.9
F +5.2

Difference in percentage points.

6.1% withdrew · 5 of 82 enrolled.

Nicholas Church Jamesson 25 grades · 1 term 2.02GPA
12.0% A
32.0% B
24.0% C
16.0% D
16.0% F

25 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jamesson vs. the course average
A −9.3
B +1.5
C −1.7
D +5.2
F +4.3

Difference in percentage points.

10.7% withdrew · 3 of 28 enrolled.

Elizabeth Scott-Janda 335 grades · 1 term 2.01GPA
12.2% A
29.9% B
26.3% C
14.9% D
16.7% F

335 letter grades

Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A −9.1
B −0.7
C +0.6
D +4.1
F +5.0

Difference in percentage points.

6.7% withdrew · 24 of 359 enrolled.

Sarada Anoushka Nerella Kameswari Umamaheshwar 26 grades · 1 term 1.90GPA
3.8% A
34.6% B
30.8% C
11.5% D
19.2% F

26 letter grades

Compare with the course
Umamaheshwar vs. the course average
A −17.5
B +4.1
C +5.1
D +0.8
F +7.5

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 2 of 28 enrolled.

Ian D Miller 104 grades · 1 term 1.82GPA
12.5% A
22.1% B
26.0% C
20.2% D
19.2% F

104 letter grades

Compare with the course
Miller vs. the course average
A −8.8
B −8.4
C +0.3
D +9.4
F +7.5

Difference in percentage points.

7.1% withdrew · 8 of 112 enrolled.

Joel Ron Ornstein 76 grades · 1 term 1.80GPA
10.5% A
28.9% B
18.4% C
18.4% D
23.7% F

76 letter grades

Compare with the course
Ornstein vs. the course average
A −10.8
B −1.6
C −7.2
D +7.6
F +12.0

Difference in percentage points.

7.3% withdrew · 6 of 82 enrolled.

Jennifer Michelle Gensler 27 grades · 1 term 1.76GPA
18.5% A
22.2% B
7.4% C
18.5% D
33.3% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Gensler vs. the course average
A −2.8
B −8.3
C −18.3
D +7.7
F +21.6

Difference in percentage points.

0.0% withdrew · 0 of 27 enrolled.

Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 27 grades · 1 term 1.74GPA
18.5% A
11.1% B
29.6% C
14.8% D
25.9% F

27 letter grades

Compare with the course
Carvajal-Bakke vs. the course average
A −2.8
B −19.4
C +4.0
D +4.0
F +14.2

Difference in percentage points.

3.6% withdrew · 1 of 28 enrolled.

Colin Montgomery Jackson 30 grades · 1 term 1.65GPA
6.7% A
16.7% B
40.0% C
16.7% D
20.0% F

30 letter grades

Compare with the course
Jackson vs. the course average
A −14.6
B −13.9
C +14.3
D +5.9
F +8.3

Difference in percentage points.

6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.

Yi Moon Maung 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.81GPA
40.9% A
27.3% B
18.2% C
4.5% D
9.1% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

12.0% withdrew · 3 of 25 enrolled.

Rachel Marie Chaiser 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.79GPA
25.0% A
45.8% B
20.8% C
8.3% D
0.0% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.

Gabriel Anthony Lopez 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.56GPA
36.4% A
22.7% B
18.2% C
9.1% D
13.6% F

22 letter grades · Limited sample

4.3% withdrew · 1 of 23 enrolled.

Matthew Paul Watson 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.45GPA
16.7% A
37.5% B
29.2% C
12.5% D
4.2% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

4.0% withdrew · 1 of 25 enrolled.

Samuel Thomas Reeder 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.41GPA
33.3% A
16.7% B
25.0% C
16.7% D
8.3% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

11.1% withdrew · 3 of 27 enrolled.

Zahra Ibrahim Khalifa 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.41GPA
13.0% A
47.8% B
21.7% C
4.3% D
13.0% F

23 letter grades · Limited sample

8.0% withdrew · 2 of 25 enrolled.

Alexander Ney Lajeunesse 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.40GPA
9.1% A
45.5% B
27.3% C
18.2% D
0.0% F

11 letter grades · Limited sample

15.4% withdrew · 2 of 13 enrolled.

Carlos Enrique Pinilla Suarez 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.39GPA
20.8% A
25.0% B
41.7% C
8.3% D
4.2% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

7.7% withdrew · 2 of 26 enrolled.

Igor E Rumanov 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.07GPA
15.0% A
20.0% B
35.0% C
25.0% D
5.0% F

20 letter grades · Limited sample

9.1% withdrew · 2 of 22 enrolled.

Jonathan Randall Quartin 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 1.86GPA
16.7% A
25.0% B
20.8% C
4.2% D
33.3% F

24 letter grades · Limited sample

7.7% withdrew · 2 of 26 enrolled.

Ilia Dimitrov Mishev 19 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5

19 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.45
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity2.85
Grading4.75
Reflection4.40
Respect4.85
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.75
Questions4.75
Ira Becker 32 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5

32 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.35
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.30
Contribution3.30
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.95
Grading3.90
Reflection3.75
Respect4.35
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.25
Challenge3.85
Questions4.40
Emily Ann Montelius 49 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.67
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.23
Contribution3.57
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.90
Reflection3.93
Respect4.50
Creativity4.23
Feedback3.97
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.10
Questions4.40
Alexander Nita 127 reported responses 3.89Eval / 5
Overall3.89 / 5

127 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.87
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.37
Contribution3.66
Discussion4.09
Inclusivity2.87
Grading3.83
Reflection3.98
Respect4.47
Creativity3.86
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.11
Questions3.92
Spencer T Shortt 36 reported responses 4.11Eval / 5
Overall4.11 / 5

36 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.40
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity3.33
Grading4.07
Reflection4.37
Respect4.47
Creativity4.03
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.33
Questions4.40
Levi Samuel Lorenzo 20 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5

20 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.90
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Maeve Myfanwy Helen Coates Welsh 33 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5

33 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis3.53
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.43
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.17
Reflection4.13
Respect4.40
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.37
Questions4.60
Trevor Manders 31 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5

31 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.47
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.17
Connection3.37
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.13
Reflection4.00
Respect4.57
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.53
Mateo P Muro 11 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5

11 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.60
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Connor Michael Meredith 63 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5

63 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.77
Technology3.32
Synthesis2.28
Collaboration2.01
Connection2.64
Contribution2.65
Discussion3.63
Inclusivity2.83
Grading3.55
Reflection3.10
Respect3.93
Creativity3.34
Feedback3.49
Interaction2.75
Challenge3.16
Questions3.74
Elena Rodriguez Chavez 52 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5

52 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.83
Connection3.03
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity2.57
Grading4.00
Reflection4.13
Respect4.67
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.23
Questions4.37
Maung Yi Moon 44 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5

44 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.22
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration4.18
Connection3.49
Contribution4.15
Discussion4.64
Inclusivity3.12
Grading4.27
Reflection4.72
Respect4.82
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.76
Questions4.83
Nicholas Jeffrey Christoffersen 68 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.50
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.27
Reflection4.30
Respect4.50
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.53
Questions4.63
Matt Watson 145 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5

145 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration4.36
Connection3.96
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.30
Reflection4.44
Respect4.71
Creativity4.63
Feedback4.61
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.72
Questions4.80
Derek J Eby 20 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5

20 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.28
Connection3.65
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.63
Grading3.82
Reflection4.37
Respect4.55
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.91
Questions4.95
Jon Kim 145 reported responses 4.31Eval / 5
Overall4.31 / 5

145 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.28
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.35
Connection3.55
Contribution4.25
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.14
Grading4.36
Reflection4.31
Respect4.67
Creativity4.46
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.61
Challenge4.49
Questions4.73
Chris Eblen 102 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

102 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.57
Connection3.74
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.65
Reflection4.47
Respect4.70
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.81
Questions4.77
Andrew Meier 271 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5

271 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.81
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.48
Connection3.79
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity3.06
Grading4.65
Reflection4.61
Respect4.73
Creativity4.45
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.73
Questions4.80
Rebekah Yuki Jones 51 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5

51 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.35
Collaboration4.05
Connection2.60
Contribution3.45
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.85
Reflection3.80
Respect4.40
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.55
Interaction4.25
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Henry Maher 144 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5

144 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.07
Technology3.61
Synthesis3.86
Collaboration4.31
Connection3.36
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.09
Inclusivity2.99
Grading3.74
Reflection4.19
Respect4.32
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.81
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.07
Questions4.23
Nick Jamesson 81 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

81 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.76
Technology3.93
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.56
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity2.79
Grading4.16
Reflection4.23
Respect4.47
Creativity4.36
Feedback4.26
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.23
Questions4.47
Ben Kitchen 187 reported responses 4.17Eval / 5
Overall4.17 / 5

187 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology3.86
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.29
Connection3.55
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity2.69
Grading3.83
Reflection4.26
Respect4.55
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.13
Questions4.34
Paige Robertson 141 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5

141 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.88
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.38
Grading4.49
Reflection4.49
Respect4.58
Creativity4.43
Feedback4.52
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.54
Questions4.64
Eli Orvis 50 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5

50 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.04
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration4.18
Connection3.26
Contribution3.72
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity2.63
Grading4.48
Reflection4.17
Respect4.60
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.50
Questions4.72
Alex Lajeunesse 133 reported responses 4.33Eval / 5
Overall4.33 / 5

133 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.06
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration4.47
Connection3.48
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity3.06
Grading4.23
Reflection4.35
Respect4.68
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.56
Questions4.57
Robby Green 18 reported responses 3.45Eval / 5
Overall3.45 / 5

18 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.20
Collaboration2.80
Connection2.80
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity1.80
Grading3.20
Reflection3.20
Respect4.20
Creativity3.20
Feedback3.10
Interaction3.40
Challenge3.90
Questions4.10
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 14 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5

14 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.30
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.80
Grading4.10
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.30
Interaction3.80
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Sam Reeder 82 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5

82 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.06
Connection3.64
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity2.91
Grading4.29
Reflection4.21
Respect4.77
Creativity4.42
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.41
Challenge4.51
Questions4.76
Justin Barhite 199 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5

199 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.61
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.55
Connection3.76
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity3.03
Grading4.49
Reflection4.39
Respect4.73
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.58
Questions4.86
Helena Davenport 49 reported responses 4.51Eval / 5
Overall4.51 / 5

49 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.48
Connection3.58
Contribution4.38
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.55
Respect4.88
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.62
Questions4.70
Maya Ornstein 38 reported responses 3.63Eval / 5
Overall3.63 / 5

38 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.05
Synthesis3.25
Collaboration4.41
Connection2.63
Contribution3.48
Discussion4.08
Inclusivity2.91
Grading3.57
Reflection3.82
Respect4.36
Creativity3.64
Feedback3.55
Interaction4.56
Challenge3.84
Questions4.28
Wei Jit Wu Lu 140 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5

140 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.62
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.42
Collaboration4.09
Connection2.99
Contribution3.74
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity2.37
Grading3.74
Reflection3.87
Respect4.25
Creativity4.25
Feedback3.89
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.17
Questions4.23
Taylor Rogers 103 reported responses 4.24Eval / 5
Overall4.24 / 5

103 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.22
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.96
Collaboration4.36
Connection3.73
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.11
Grading4.35
Reflection4.36
Respect4.55
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.53
Questions4.61
Jack Dalton 62 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

62 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.08
Synthesis3.99
Collaboration4.39
Connection3.47
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity3.07
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.50
Creativity4.29
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.56
Challenge4.46
Questions4.61
Anoushka Nerella Kameswari Umamaheshwar 95 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5

95 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.29
Technology4.29
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.66
Connection3.79
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity3.42
Grading3.90
Reflection4.43
Respect4.74
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.21
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.61
Questions4.73
Jasmin Millan Rodriguez 59 reported responses 4.55Eval / 5
Overall4.55 / 5

59 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.52
Connection4.22
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.97
Grading4.43
Reflection4.54
Respect4.76
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.46
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.73
Questions4.79
Basia Klos 75 reported responses 4.23Eval / 5
Overall4.23 / 5

75 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.83
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration4.13
Connection3.57
Contribution3.93
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.10
Reflection4.30
Respect4.47
Creativity4.17
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.37
Questions4.57
Tuscany Vennard Que Mccann 63 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

63 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.03
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.67
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.93
Grading4.20
Reflection4.47
Respect4.40
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.47
Questions4.67
Storey Peacock 120 reported responses 4.13Eval / 5
Overall4.13 / 5

120 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.88
Technology4.06
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.23
Connection3.47
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.27
Grading4.36
Reflection4.15
Respect4.46
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.17
Interaction4.24
Challenge4.35
Questions4.54
Sylvia Maher 82 reported responses 3.91Eval / 5
Overall3.91 / 5

82 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.59
Technology3.41
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration4.25
Connection3.16
Contribution3.46
Discussion3.83
Inclusivity2.47
Grading3.83
Reflection4.10
Respect4.38
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.45
Interaction4.50
Challenge3.61
Questions4.00
Vladislav Bukshtynov 179 reported responses 4.02Eval / 5
Overall4.02 / 5

179 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.94
Technology4.29
Synthesis3.71
Collaboration4.02
Connection3.47
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity2.94
Grading4.23
Reflection4.26
Respect4.46
Creativity4.17
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Orlando Reyes 86 reported responses 4.27Eval / 5
Overall4.27 / 5

86 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.01
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration4.37
Connection3.55
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity2.88
Grading4.30
Reflection4.38
Respect4.61
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.48
Challenge4.44
Questions4.61
Yanxin Li 76 reported responses 3.82Eval / 5
Overall3.82 / 5

76 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.23
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.30
Contribution3.93
Discussion3.67
Inclusivity3.10
Grading3.63
Reflection4.27
Respect4.03
Creativity3.77
Feedback3.47
Interaction4.57
Challenge3.53
Questions3.87
Ari Atkins 67 reported responses 4.26Eval / 5
Overall4.26 / 5

67 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.97
Synthesis3.97
Collaboration3.97
Connection3.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.03
Grading4.30
Reflection4.17
Respect4.57
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.37
Questions4.53
Ezzeddine Alsai 22 reported responses 4.08Eval / 5
Overall4.08 / 5

22 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection3.40
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.90
Reflection4.20
Respect4.60
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.30
Andrew M Stocker 6 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5

6 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.80
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Alexander Zhu 76 reported responses 3.77Eval / 5
Overall3.77 / 5

76 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.23
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.08
Connection3.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion3.43
Inclusivity2.93
Grading3.50
Reflection4.28
Respect4.03
Creativity3.83
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.33
Challenge3.70
Questions3.45
Del K Ebadi 41 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5

41 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology3.75
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.65
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity2.80
Grading3.90
Reflection4.10
Respect4.50
Creativity4.10
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.35
Questions4.25
Isis Aymara Gallardo 68 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5

68 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.13
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.15
Connection3.75
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.65
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.20
Questions4.33
Nate Ward-Chene 15 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5

15 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.25
Technology4.15
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.70
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.30
Reflection4.40
Respect4.65
Creativity3.85
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.45
Questions4.70
Jun S Hong 24 reported responses 4.16Eval / 5
Overall4.16 / 5

24 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.83
Contribution3.97
Discussion4.27
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.00
Reflection3.97
Respect4.37
Creativity4.47
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.30
Questions4.43
Elizabeth Lee Grulke 2 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5

2 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Omar Al - Khazali 99 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

99 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.95
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.94
Collaboration4.26
Connection3.49
Contribution3.81
Discussion4.69
Inclusivity2.64
Grading4.31
Reflection4.29
Respect4.70
Creativity4.32
Feedback4.45
Interaction4.31
Challenge4.48
Questions4.69
Michael James Wheeler 22 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5

22 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.86
Technology4.27
Synthesis3.89
Collaboration4.56
Connection3.35
Contribution4.04
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity2.64
Grading4.22
Reflection4.47
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.42
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.37
Questions4.85
Eskil Irgens 113 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5

113 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.96
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration4.27
Connection3.76
Contribution4.02
Discussion4.49
Inclusivity3.12
Grading4.23
Reflection4.38
Respect4.51
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.34
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.52
Questions4.56
Howy Jordan 43 reported responses 4.46Eval / 5
Overall4.46 / 5

43 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology4.67
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.03
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity2.67
Grading4.67
Reflection4.50
Respect4.77
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.43
Challenge4.43
Questions4.90
Kevin W Manley 39 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5

39 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.67
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.25
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.80
Reflection4.68
Respect4.80
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.98
Questions4.98
Xintan Xia 50 reported responses 4.35Eval / 5
Overall4.35 / 5

50 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.07
Synthesis4.07
Collaboration4.40
Connection3.57
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity2.77
Grading4.27
Reflection4.23
Respect4.63
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.30
Questions4.80
Shashi Balla 71 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

71 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.86
Technology4.03
Synthesis3.77
Collaboration4.14
Connection3.67
Contribution3.78
Discussion4.38
Inclusivity2.87
Grading4.21
Reflection4.45
Respect4.55
Creativity4.24
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.39
Questions4.61
Sandro Orjuela 44 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

44 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.63
Collaboration3.97
Connection3.67
Contribution3.57
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity2.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.13
Respect4.43
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.37
Questions4.60
Luciana Scuderi 43 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5

43 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.97
Technology4.10
Synthesis3.83
Collaboration4.07
Connection3.70
Contribution3.83
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.23
Reflection4.37
Respect4.57
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.47
Challenge4.40
Questions4.60
Uri Tomer 92 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5

92 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology3.96
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration4.36
Connection3.79
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.57
Inclusivity3.11
Grading4.29
Reflection4.47
Respect4.74
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.62
Challenge4.64
Questions4.56
Samik Dasgupta 5 reported responses 4.74Eval / 5
Overall4.74 / 5

5 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.60
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Tim J Schumacher 32 reported responses 4.58Eval / 5
Overall4.58 / 5

32 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.25
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.55
Reflection4.60
Respect4.85
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Yanxiang Wang 64 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5

64 reported responses

Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.17
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.50
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.53
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.33
Reflection4.13
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.43
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.37
Questions4.47
Show fewer
Find a course or professor

Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.