Course record MATH
MATH 2510
Introduction to Statistics
University of Colorado Boulder
6,105 grades47 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score16/100
Needs work
Martha Marie Rooney 100 grades · 1 term 3.42GPA
100 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rooney vs. the course average
A
+33.3
B
−20.2
C
−4.5
D
−3.9
F
−4.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 3 of 103 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.40
Michael James Wheeler 156 grades · 1 term 3.12GPA
156 letter grades
Compare with the course
Wheeler vs. the course average
A
+6.0
B
+5.5
C
−5.3
D
−1.1
F
−5.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.1% withdrew · 5 of 161 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
143 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.89
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration3.79
Connection3.87
Contribution3.71
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.52
Grading4.45
Reflection4.23
Respect4.56
Creativity4.04
Feedback4.19
Interaction4.39
Challenge4.41
Questions4.79
Elizabeth L. Goggin 202 grades · 1 term 3.11GPA
202 letter grades
Compare with the course
Goggin vs. the course average
A
+12.3
B
−2.0
C
−5.6
D
−1.9
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 14 of 216 enrolled.
Erik Royd Feirin Knutsen 29 grades · 1 term 3.11GPA
29 letter grades
Compare with the course
Knutsen vs. the course average
A
+0.8
B
+12.1
C
−0.3
D
−6.9
F
−5.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.3% withdrew · 1 of 30 enrolled.
Overall4.02 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.45
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.50
Contribution3.40
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity3.25
Grading4.55
Reflection3.90
Respect4.45
Creativity3.65
Feedback3.20
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.15
Questions4.40
Joseph Benjamin Timmer 210 grades · 1 term 2.97GPA
210 letter grades
Compare with the course
Timmer vs. the course average
A
+3.4
B
−0.9
C
−0.8
D
+1.2
F
−2.9
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 3 of 213 enrolled.
Overall4.24 / 5
153 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.91
Technology4.72
Synthesis3.84
Collaboration4.17
Connection3.77
Contribution3.96
Discussion4.63
Inclusivity3.26
Grading4.48
Reflection4.13
Respect4.57
Creativity4.07
Feedback4.12
Interaction4.51
Challenge4.33
Questions4.70
Wafa Yacoub 1,141 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
1,141 letter grades
Compare with the course
Yacoub vs. the course average
A
+5.6
B
−2.4
C
−0.6
D
−1.9
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 51 of 1,192 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
765 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.65
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.10
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.83
Inclusivity3.51
Grading4.63
Reflection4.46
Respect4.80
Creativity4.21
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.52
Questions4.74
Zahra Ibrahim Khalifa 329 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
329 letter grades
Compare with the course
Khalifa vs. the course average
A
+1.9
B
+0.6
C
+0.1
D
−1.4
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 11 of 340 enrolled.
Overall3.90 / 5
193 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.98
Technology4.50
Synthesis3.87
Collaboration2.64
Connection4.09
Contribution3.79
Discussion4.10
Inclusivity3.17
Grading4.40
Reflection4.21
Respect4.46
Creativity3.78
Feedback3.59
Interaction3.82
Challenge4.46
Questions4.13
Albany Rose Thompson 30 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Thompson vs. the course average
A
+6.3
B
−2.8
C
−4.2
D
−0.2
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
11.8% withdrew · 4 of 34 enrolled.
Jonathan Adam Belcher 79 grades · 1 term 2.91GPA
79 letter grades
Compare with the course
Belcher vs. the course average
A
+4.3
B
+3.1
C
−7.4
D
−0.6
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 4 of 83 enrolled.
Overall3.90 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.55
Technology4.37
Synthesis3.30
Collaboration3.74
Connection3.55
Contribution3.31
Discussion4.09
Inclusivity2.76
Grading4.03
Reflection3.79
Respect4.36
Creativity3.64
Feedback3.55
Interaction4.21
Challenge4.00
Questions4.41
Jun S Hong 84 grades · 1 term 2.89GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hong vs. the course average
A
−1.6
B
+1.9
C
+1.6
D
−0.9
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 5 of 89 enrolled.
Overall3.82 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.68
Technology4.60
Synthesis3.72
Collaboration3.23
Connection3.69
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.83
Inclusivity3.23
Grading4.11
Reflection3.51
Respect4.11
Creativity3.49
Feedback3.23
Interaction3.73
Challenge3.74
Questions4.41
Michael J Daniel 119 grades · 1 term 2.88GPA
119 letter grades
Compare with the course
Daniel vs. the course average
A
+6.6
B
−5.1
C
−4.9
D
+1.5
F
+1.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.5% withdrew · 11 of 130 enrolled.
Overall3.29 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.88
Technology3.53
Synthesis2.72
Collaboration3.68
Connection2.85
Contribution3.10
Discussion3.40
Inclusivity2.42
Grading3.48
Reflection3.15
Respect3.83
Creativity3.03
Feedback2.58
Interaction4.03
Challenge3.28
Questions3.85
Zabedah Binti Saad M.S. 929 grades · 1 term 2.85GPA
929 letter grades
Compare with the course
M.S. vs. the course average
A
−1.0
B
+3.2
C
−1.0
D
−1.1
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 67 of 996 enrolled.
Braden Loil Balentine 340 grades · 1 term 2.83GPA
340 letter grades
Compare with the course
Balentine vs. the course average
A
−2.2
B
+0.9
C
+3.1
D
−0.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
5.0% withdrew · 18 of 358 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
323 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.09
Technology4.82
Synthesis4.11
Collaboration3.87
Connection3.91
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.14
Grading4.59
Reflection4.27
Respect4.57
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.42
Challenge4.40
Questions4.82
Xingzhou Yang 383 grades · 1 term 2.78GPA
383 letter grades
Compare with the course
Yang vs. the course average
A
−5.0
B
+3.8
C
+1.3
D
−1.7
F
+1.6
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 18 of 401 enrolled.
Overall3.85 / 5
190 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology4.32
Synthesis3.56
Collaboration3.99
Connection3.21
Contribution3.58
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.91
Grading4.31
Reflection3.98
Respect4.24
Creativity3.72
Feedback3.84
Interaction4.11
Challenge4.09
Questions4.42
Nicholas A Matteo 199 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
199 letter grades
Compare with the course
Matteo vs. the course average
A
−6.6
B
+2.5
C
+4.6
D
+0.1
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 10 of 209 enrolled.
Overall3.97 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.65
Technology4.43
Synthesis3.67
Collaboration4.29
Connection3.59
Contribution3.82
Discussion4.44
Inclusivity3.59
Grading4.31
Reflection3.96
Respect4.31
Creativity3.74
Feedback3.64
Interaction4.33
Challenge4.12
Questions4.14
Yamir Elena Carvajal-Bakke 137 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
137 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carvajal-Bakke vs. the course average
A
+5.0
B
−10.6
C
+0.8
D
+4.1
F
+0.8
Difference in percentage points.
8.7% withdrew · 13 of 150 enrolled.
Overall3.61 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.21
Technology4.11
Synthesis3.09
Collaboration3.09
Connection3.37
Contribution3.50
Discussion3.83
Inclusivity3.08
Grading3.80
Reflection3.75
Respect3.86
Creativity3.62
Feedback2.92
Interaction3.94
Challenge3.78
Questions3.42
Sarah Arpin 28 grades · 1 term 2.76GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Arpin vs. the course average
A
−5.1
B
−4.0
C
+11.1
D
+0.2
F
−2.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 28 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.40
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Sandra S Williams 422 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
422 letter grades
Compare with the course
Williams vs. the course average
A
−4.3
B
+0.3
C
+1.9
D
+2.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 20 of 442 enrolled.
Overall3.98 / 5
151 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.76
Technology4.56
Synthesis3.57
Collaboration4.43
Connection3.51
Contribution3.88
Discussion4.36
Inclusivity2.99
Grading4.28
Reflection4.02
Respect4.30
Creativity3.69
Feedback3.63
Interaction4.45
Challenge4.04
Questions4.46
Bernard Gillett 66 grades · 1 term 2.75GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Gillett vs. the course average
A
−0.4
B
−5.8
C
+5.2
D
+2.2
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
8.3% withdrew · 6 of 72 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.76
Synthesis4.46
Collaboration4.27
Connection4.58
Contribution4.73
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.79
Reflection4.82
Respect4.84
Creativity4.33
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.79
Challenge4.79
Questions4.85
Derek J Eby 303 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
303 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eby vs. the course average
A
−2.4
B
+0.5
C
−1.7
D
+2.3
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
6.2% withdrew · 20 of 323 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
239 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.82
Technology4.56
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration3.47
Connection3.89
Contribution3.68
Discussion4.47
Inclusivity2.88
Grading4.32
Reflection4.22
Respect4.40
Creativity4.16
Feedback3.85
Interaction4.18
Challenge4.15
Questions4.40
Christal Jane Aquinto 101 grades · 1 term 2.69GPA
101 letter grades
Compare with the course
Aquinto vs. the course average
A
+5.9
B
−4.5
C
−8.6
D
−3.9
F
+11.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 7 of 108 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
69 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.59
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.71
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.56
Reflection4.59
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.53
Interaction4.65
Challenge4.66
Questions4.81
Mateo P Muro 61 grades · 1 term 2.68GPA
61 letter grades
Compare with the course
Muro vs. the course average
A
−12.4
B
+6.5
C
+5.5
D
+2.9
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 3 of 64 enrolled.
Overall3.78 / 5
33 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.42
Technology4.44
Synthesis3.29
Collaboration3.51
Connection3.53
Contribution3.12
Discussion3.82
Inclusivity2.95
Grading4.02
Reflection3.88
Respect4.81
Creativity3.48
Feedback3.04
Interaction4.33
Challenge3.57
Questions4.42
Michelle Ann Randolph 33 grades · 1 term 2.67GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Randolph vs. the course average
A
−6.4
B
+6.3
C
−5.4
D
+5.2
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 2 of 35 enrolled.
Patrick Thaxton Newberry 172 grades · 1 term 2.67GPA
172 letter grades
Compare with the course
Newberry vs. the course average
A
−10.5
B
+4.5
C
+4.6
D
+3.0
F
−1.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.5% withdrew · 10 of 182 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.34
Technology4.72
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.38
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.46
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.80
Reflection4.41
Respect4.63
Creativity4.15
Feedback4.01
Interaction4.38
Challenge4.44
Questions4.65
Elizabeth Scott-Janda 63 grades · 1 term 2.61GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Scott-Janda vs. the course average
A
−6.7
B
−4.4
C
+7.9
D
+2.6
F
+0.6
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 64 enrolled.
Overall2.96 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.70
Technology3.05
Synthesis2.40
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.05
Contribution2.95
Discussion3.20
Inclusivity2.25
Grading2.75
Reflection3.00
Respect3.15
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.15
Interaction4.05
Challenge2.80
Questions2.60
Alexandru Nita 85 grades · 1 term 2.41GPA
85 letter grades
Compare with the course
Nita vs. the course average
A
−13.7
B
+0.3
C
+4.9
D
+1.3
F
+7.2
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 4 of 89 enrolled.
Isabelle Kraus 80 grades · 1 term 2.37GPA
80 letter grades
Compare with the course
Kraus vs. the course average
A
−10.0
B
−4.9
C
−2.5
D
+10.6
F
+6.8
Difference in percentage points.
7.0% withdrew · 6 of 86 enrolled.
Overall4.16 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.71
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration3.22
Connection3.70
Contribution4.03
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.28
Grading4.39
Reflection4.23
Respect4.38
Creativity4.37
Feedback3.99
Interaction4.24
Challenge4.42
Questions4.52
Camilo Mesa 32 grades · 1 term 2.33GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mesa vs. the course average
A
−15.0
B
+1.3
C
−1.9
D
+5.6
F
+9.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.0% withdrew · 1 of 33 enrolled.
Overall2.24 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence1.80
Technology2.80
Synthesis2.50
Collaboration2.90
Connection2.70
Contribution1.80
Discussion2.40
Inclusivity1.80
Grading2.30
Reflection2.00
Respect3.80
Creativity1.70
Feedback2.00
Interaction2.60
Challenge1.30
Questions3.60
Michael D Roy 57 grades · 1 term 2.32GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Roy vs. the course average
A
−14.4
B
−4.6
C
+7.1
D
+3.6
F
+8.3
Difference in percentage points.
9.5% withdrew · 6 of 63 enrolled.
Overall3.77 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.35
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.10
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.90
Grading3.90
Reflection3.60
Respect4.25
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.40
Challenge3.60
Questions4.35
Joel Ron Ornstein 28 grades · 1 term 2.31GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ornstein vs. the course average
A
−19.4
B
+6.7
C
+0.4
D
+0.2
F
+12.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.
Pedro Jose Berrizbeitia 107 grades · 1 term 2.29GPA
107 letter grades
Compare with the course
Berrizbeitia vs. the course average
A
−21.6
B
+3.1
C
+5.9
D
+9.9
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
9.3% withdrew · 11 of 118 enrolled.
Overall2.75 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.05
Technology2.93
Synthesis2.17
Collaboration3.68
Connection1.60
Contribution2.17
Discussion2.78
Inclusivity2.27
Grading2.72
Reflection2.65
Respect3.62
Creativity3.38
Feedback1.65
Interaction3.45
Challenge3.10
Questions3.22
Ilia Dimitrov Mishev 38 reported responses 4.07Eval / 5
Overall4.07 / 5
38 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology3.72
Synthesis2.75
Collaboration3.81
Connection2.86
Contribution3.19
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.27
Grading3.91
Reflection3.40
Respect4.45
Creativity2.82
Feedback2.98
Interaction4.29
Challenge3.56
Questions4.02
Elizabeth Lee Grulke 111 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
111 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology4.71
Synthesis3.60
Collaboration3.14
Connection3.84
Contribution3.77
Discussion4.76
Inclusivity3.57
Grading4.52
Reflection3.94
Respect4.78
Creativity3.82
Feedback3.95
Interaction4.07
Challenge4.29
Questions4.60
Zabedah Binti Saad 490 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5
490 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.83
Technology4.45
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration3.80
Connection3.40
Contribution3.71
Discussion4.37
Inclusivity3.55
Grading4.20
Reflection4.12
Respect4.49
Creativity4.06
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.29
Challenge4.22
Questions4.47
Delphy Tsuyuko Shaulis 100 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
100 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology4.64
Synthesis3.59
Collaboration3.16
Connection3.95
Contribution3.91
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.13
Grading4.36
Reflection4.20
Respect4.26
Creativity4.03
Feedback4.02
Interaction4.24
Challenge4.23
Questions4.43
Alexander Nita 21 reported responses 3.61Eval / 5
Overall3.61 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.84
Technology4.20
Synthesis3.01
Collaboration2.08
Connection2.83
Contribution3.38
Discussion3.44
Inclusivity2.26
Grading3.03
Reflection3.51
Respect3.35
Creativity3.79
Feedback2.76
Interaction3.64
Challenge3.52
Questions3.34
Zachary Joseph Garvey 3 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Maya Ornstein 182 reported responses 3.56Eval / 5
Overall3.56 / 5
182 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.99
Technology3.75
Synthesis2.95
Collaboration3.30
Connection2.72
Contribution2.88
Discussion3.86
Inclusivity2.99
Grading3.66
Reflection3.31
Respect4.02
Creativity3.19
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.97
Challenge3.28
Questions3.56
Michael B Noyes 18 reported responses 3.87Eval / 5
Overall3.87 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.97
Technology4.93
Synthesis2.85
Collaboration3.41
Connection3.21
Contribution3.20
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity2.13
Grading4.35
Reflection4.18
Respect4.02
Creativity4.31
Feedback3.52
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.42
Questions4.66
Kevin W Manley 5 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Emily Ann Montelius 9 reported responses 4.65Eval / 5
Overall4.65 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.10
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.40
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.90
Breeann Meralou Wilson 40 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.25
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity3.90
Grading4.82
Reflection4.48
Respect4.77
Creativity4.53
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.75
Questions4.82
Jennifer Michelle Gensler 34 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.01
Collaboration4.75
Connection3.71
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity3.30
Grading4.60
Reflection4.52
Respect4.82
Creativity3.78
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.42
Questions4.72
Maggie Kay Reardon 14 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.20
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.60
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Justin Barhite 25 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.19
Collaboration3.63
Connection3.85
Contribution3.84
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity3.86
Grading4.17
Reflection4.31
Respect4.47
Creativity4.27
Feedback3.91
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.15
Questions4.76
Lee Forrest Roberson 14 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.10
Connection3.80
Contribution3.90
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.80
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.50
Questions4.80
Rebecca Machen 2 reported responses 3.42Eval / 5
Overall3.42 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection3.50
Contribution3.00
Discussion3.00
Inclusivity1.00
Grading3.50
Reflection3.00
Respect4.50
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction3.50
Challenge3.00
Questions3.50
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.