Course record MATH
MATH 2130
Introduction to Linear Algebra for Non-Mathematics Majors
University of Colorado Boulder
1,552 grades44 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score23/100
Below average
Jeffrey S Fox 217 grades · 1 term 3.98GPA
217 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fox vs. the course average
A
+51.2
B
−26.4
C
−15.7
D
−4.8
F
−4.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 13 of 230 enrolled.
Overall3.06 / 5
64 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.61
Technology2.39
Synthesis2.64
Collaboration2.23
Connection2.35
Contribution2.66
Discussion3.07
Inclusivity2.39
Grading2.23
Reflection2.80
Respect3.68
Creativity2.68
Feedback2.17
Interaction3.10
Challenge2.92
Questions2.32
Nhan Du Vi Nguyen 81 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
81 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nguyen vs. the course average
A
+24.5
B
−7.9
C
−7.1
D
−4.8
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.2% withdrew · 1 of 82 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.58
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.79
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity3.83
Grading4.84
Reflection4.86
Respect4.94
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.89
Challenge4.72
Questions4.79
Zheng Zhang 32 grades · 1 term 3.41GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zhang vs. the course average
A
+4.8
B
+8.0
C
−3.2
D
−4.8
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 2 of 34 enrolled.
Pedro Jose Berrizbeitia 77 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
77 letter grades
Compare with the course
Berrizbeitia vs. the course average
A
+24.4
B
−10.8
C
−14.4
D
−0.9
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
6.1% withdrew · 5 of 82 enrolled.
Overall2.54 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.46
Technology1.75
Synthesis2.30
Collaboration2.02
Connection2.88
Contribution2.45
Discussion2.88
Inclusivity2.88
Grading1.77
Reflection2.68
Respect3.54
Creativity2.16
Feedback1.69
Interaction3.28
Challenge2.46
Questions3.50
Yining Zhang 45 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
45 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zhang vs. the course average
A
+13.9
B
−2.0
C
−9.1
D
−2.5
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 2 of 47 enrolled.
Overall4.28 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration3.30
Connection3.50
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity2.70
Grading4.80
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.60
Interaction3.40
Challenge4.20
Questions5.00
Florencia Orosz 62 grades · 1 term 3.34GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Orosz vs. the course average
A
+1.7
B
+13.9
C
−7.7
D
−3.2
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 2 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.41 / 5
48 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration4.89
Connection3.97
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.69
Grading4.48
Reflection4.69
Respect4.79
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.49
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.69
Questions4.80
Kevin W Manley 29 grades · 1 term 3.21GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Manley vs. the course average
A
−6.9
B
+18.4
C
−8.8
D
+2.1
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
46 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.00
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.35
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.75
Questions4.80
Peter Mayr 27 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mayr vs. the course average
A
−3.9
B
+10.6
C
+2.8
D
−4.8
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
18.2% withdrew · 6 of 33 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.90
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.80
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.90
Questions4.60
Vlad Dumitru Margarint 28 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Margarint vs. the course average
A
−5.5
B
+9.3
C
+2.1
D
−1.2
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
12.5% withdrew · 4 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.17 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration2.80
Connection3.90
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.40
Reflection4.00
Respect4.80
Creativity3.70
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.20
Questions4.20
Tianyuan Xu 32 grades · 1 term 3.15GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Xu vs. the course average
A
−4.6
B
+8.0
C
+3.0
D
−4.8
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 2 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.90
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.90
Respect4.70
Creativity3.60
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Rodrigo Ribeiro 33 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ribeiro vs. the course average
A
+9.3
B
−2.2
C
−9.7
D
−1.7
F
+4.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 2 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.23 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration2.60
Connection3.80
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.20
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.70
Michael C Woodbury 31 grades · 1 term 3.06GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Woodbury vs. the course average
A
−19.3
B
+34.9
C
−9.3
D
−4.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.1% withdrew · 2 of 33 enrolled.
Overall3.07 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.10
Technology3.10
Synthesis2.80
Collaboration4.00
Connection2.50
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity3.70
Grading1.90
Reflection2.90
Respect3.80
Creativity3.20
Feedback2.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.20
Questions3.60
Sheagan Abdallah Karan Arlene John 32 grades · 1 term 3.03GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
John vs. the course average
A
−13.9
B
+14.2
C
+6.2
D
−1.6
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 2 of 34 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology3.39
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration3.75
Connection3.41
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.02
Reflection4.20
Respect4.27
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.48
Questions4.67
Sebastian Ben Casalaina-Martin 62 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
62 letter grades
Compare with the course
Casalaina-Martin vs. the course average
A
−14.5
B
+18.7
C
+0.4
D
−4.8
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
7.5% withdrew · 5 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.34 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.18
Connection4.49
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity3.98
Grading4.79
Reflection4.69
Respect4.89
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.87
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.80
Questions4.31
Patrick Michael Wynne 36 grades · 1 term 2.94GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wynne vs. the course average
A
−17.8
B
+20.8
C
+0.9
D
−2.0
F
−2.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 36 enrolled.
Overall3.79 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.40
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.20
Connection2.90
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.70
Grading3.50
Reflection4.10
Respect4.30
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.10
Questions4.30
Bob Kuo 33 grades · 1 term 2.90GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kuo vs. the course average
A
−21.1
B
+22.1
C
+2.5
D
+1.3
F
−4.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 34 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.50
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration2.90
Connection3.50
Contribution3.50
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.10
Grading4.00
Reflection3.90
Respect4.40
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.30
Questions4.40
James Anton Rickards 65 grades · 1 term 2.86GPA
65 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rickards vs. the course average
A
−12.9
B
+5.9
C
+5.8
D
−0.2
F
+1.4
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 2 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.12 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.67
Technology4.25
Synthesis3.79
Collaboration2.52
Connection3.48
Contribution3.22
Discussion4.17
Inclusivity2.81
Grading4.37
Reflection4.22
Respect4.85
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.27
Interaction3.88
Challenge4.22
Questions4.72
Srimathy Srinivasan 59 grades · 1 term 2.78GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Srinivasan vs. the course average
A
−17.8
B
+7.5
C
+9.7
D
+2.0
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.8% withdrew · 5 of 64 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.60
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection2.40
Contribution3.80
Discussion3.90
Inclusivity3.60
Grading4.50
Reflection3.90
Respect4.70
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.90
Questions4.20
Jonathan S Wise 98 grades · 1 term 2.74GPA
98 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wise vs. the course average
A
−23.8
B
+14.4
C
+7.7
D
+2.4
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.8% withdrew · 6 of 104 enrolled.
Overall3.91 / 5
66 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology3.87
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.24
Connection3.65
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.07
Grading3.58
Reflection4.35
Respect4.84
Creativity4.62
Feedback3.52
Interaction4.59
Challenge4.39
Questions4.27
Menevse Eryuzlu 103 grades · 1 term 2.73GPA
103 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eryuzlu vs. the course average
A
−3.7
B
−10.9
C
+5.6
D
+3.0
F
+5.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.6% withdrew · 5 of 108 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.08
Collaboration4.16
Connection3.55
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.89
Reflection4.37
Respect4.78
Creativity4.79
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.29
Challenge4.58
Questions4.58
Rosa Maria Fuster Aguilera 32 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aguilera vs. the course average
A
−13.9
B
+1.7
C
+6.2
D
+7.7
F
−1.6
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.22 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.30
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.30
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions4.90
Richard Mutegeki Green 29 grades · 1 term 2.67GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Green vs. the course average
A
−20.7
B
+1.2
C
+18.8
D
+2.1
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.4% withdrew · 3 of 32 enrolled.
Overall3.55 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.40
Technology1.90
Synthesis3.10
Collaboration1.80
Connection2.90
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity3.60
Grading3.90
Reflection4.00
Respect4.40
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.50
Interaction3.60
Challenge3.60
Questions4.30
David R Grant 59 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
59 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grant vs. the course average
A
−19.5
B
+4.1
C
+9.7
D
+0.3
F
+5.4
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 4 of 63 enrolled.
Overall4.14 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.21
Technology2.87
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.37
Connection3.45
Contribution4.05
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity2.74
Grading4.50
Reflection4.35
Respect4.95
Creativity4.23
Feedback3.65
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.13
Questions4.75
Su-Ion Ih 43 grades · 1 term 2.62GPA
43 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ih vs. the course average
A
−27.4
B
+8.5
C
+19.2
D
−0.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
10.4% withdrew · 5 of 48 enrolled.
Overall3.63 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology3.09
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration3.54
Connection3.33
Contribution4.41
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity2.99
Grading3.96
Reflection4.28
Respect4.37
Creativity3.95
Feedback3.75
Interaction4.15
Challenge4.37
Questions4.72
Marcos Mazari Armida 31 grades · 1 term 2.55GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Armida vs. the course average
A
−12.8
B
−10.3
C
+13.3
D
+8.1
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 1 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.20
Connection2.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.20
Grading4.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.90
Rachel Louise Rossetti 30 grades · 1 term 2.39GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rossetti vs. the course average
A
−25.0
B
−6.4
C
+27.6
D
−4.8
F
+8.6
Difference in percentage points.
6.3% withdrew · 2 of 32 enrolled.
Overall4.07 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.80
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.40
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.60
Grading4.20
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Igor E Rumanov 49 grades · 1 term 2.34GPA
49 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rumanov vs. the course average
A
−19.8
B
−6.0
C
+2.6
D
+15.6
F
+7.5
Difference in percentage points.
12.5% withdrew · 7 of 56 enrolled.
Overall3.17 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology2.25
Synthesis3.65
Collaboration2.50
Connection2.30
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.80
Inclusivity2.75
Grading2.80
Reflection3.60
Respect3.85
Creativity3.10
Feedback2.65
Interaction3.55
Challenge3.25
Questions3.65
Rachel Marie Chaiser 31 grades · 1 term 2.32GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chaiser vs. the course average
A
−29.0
B
+2.6
C
+13.3
D
+11.4
F
+1.7
Difference in percentage points.
11.4% withdrew · 4 of 35 enrolled.
Overall3.75 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration2.70
Connection3.40
Contribution3.20
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity2.60
Grading3.60
Reflection3.90
Respect4.20
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.60
Interaction4.00
Challenge4.10
Questions4.20
Alonso Delfin Ares De Parga 66 grades · 1 term 2.25GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Parga vs. the course average
A
−19.5
B
−5.2
C
+2.5
D
+8.9
F
+13.4
Difference in percentage points.
7.0% withdrew · 5 of 71 enrolled.
Overall3.84 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.63
Technology3.82
Synthesis3.42
Collaboration2.12
Connection2.46
Contribution3.18
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity2.45
Grading3.64
Reflection3.57
Respect4.36
Creativity3.42
Feedback3.20
Interaction3.57
Challenge3.67
Questions4.21
Taylor Joseph Klotz 7 reported responses 3.84Eval / 5
Overall3.84 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.60
Connection2.70
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity4.70
Grading3.00
Reflection4.10
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.30
Questions3.90
Euijin Hong 4 reported responses 4.42Eval / 5
Overall4.42 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.80
Contribution4.30
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.50
Challenge5.00
Questions4.30
Jonathan Adam Belcher 2 reported responses 3.97Eval / 5
Overall3.97 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology3.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.50
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction1.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.00
Xingzhou Yang 10 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.30
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.40
Reflection4.10
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.30
Questions4.80
Braden Loil Balentine 10 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.99
Synthesis4.21
Collaboration4.99
Connection3.71
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity3.72
Grading4.98
Reflection4.51
Respect4.99
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.99
Challenge4.79
Questions4.99
Rebekah Yuki Jones 22 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.36
Technology4.41
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.16
Connection3.69
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.55
Reflection4.50
Respect4.77
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.56
Questions4.69
Andrew Meier 3 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.70
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction3.70
Challenge4.00
Questions4.30
Alexander Nita 1 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Technology5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection3.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Charlotte Aten 35 reported responses 4.29Eval / 5
Overall4.29 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration3.03
Connection3.58
Contribution3.95
Discussion4.56
Inclusivity3.35
Grading4.61
Reflection4.26
Respect4.69
Creativity4.47
Feedback4.37
Interaction3.86
Challenge4.77
Questions4.84
Juan Montoya 22 reported responses 4.05Eval / 5
Overall4.05 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.48
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.52
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.39
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.25
Reflection4.73
Respect4.64
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.57
Questions4.55
Spencer Daugherty 17 reported responses 4.18Eval / 5
Overall4.18 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.34
Synthesis4.39
Collaboration4.05
Connection4.05
Contribution3.89
Discussion4.05
Inclusivity4.09
Grading4.74
Reflection4.46
Respect4.91
Creativity4.22
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.39
Questions4.57
Chindu Mohanakumar 44 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
44 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology3.75
Synthesis4.59
Collaboration3.50
Connection3.87
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.01
Grading4.62
Reflection4.65
Respect4.78
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.58
Challenge4.79
Questions4.88
Zheng Xiao 18 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology3.55
Synthesis3.58
Collaboration2.84
Connection3.02
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.75
Inclusivity2.96
Grading4.32
Reflection3.86
Respect4.38
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.85
Interaction3.77
Challenge4.21
Questions3.94
Constantin Dorin Dumitrascu 28 reported responses 4.66Eval / 5
Overall4.66 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.00
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.15
Grading4.65
Reflection4.75
Respect4.75
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.95
Michael B Noyes 2 reported responses 4.85Eval / 5
Overall4.85 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.00
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.