Course record MCEN
MCEN 4228
Special Topics in Mechanical Engineering
University of Colorado Boulder
1,755 grades59 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score62/100
Strong
Kaushik Jayaram 42 grades · 1 term 3.96GPA
42 letter grades
Compare with the course
Jayaram vs. the course average
A
+19.0
B
−15.8
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.30
Questions4.50
Sumeet Chaudhary 34 grades · 1 term 3.96GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chaudhary vs. the course average
A
+16.0
B
−12.9
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.13
Technology3.88
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.14
Contribution4.12
Discussion4.01
Inclusivity3.99
Grading3.77
Reflection4.08
Respect4.35
Creativity3.37
Feedback3.61
Interaction4.34
Challenge3.73
Questions3.79
Carmen Consuelo Pacheco 161 grades · 1 term 3.91GPA
161 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pacheco vs. the course average
A
+12.8
B
−9.6
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 161 enrolled.
Overall4.11 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.30
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect3.80
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.20
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Michael P. Hannigan 118 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
118 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hannigan vs. the course average
A
+9.7
B
−8.2
C
−0.5
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 2 of 120 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
24 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.89
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.95
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.51
Reflection4.18
Respect5.00
Creativity4.89
Feedback4.82
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.84
Questions4.94
Jenifer L Blacklock 63 grades · 1 term 3.88GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blacklock vs. the course average
A
+11.0
B
−9.5
C
−0.6
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.6% withdrew · 1 of 64 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology4.63
Synthesis3.93
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.74
Contribution4.28
Discussion4.26
Inclusivity4.44
Grading4.09
Reflection4.41
Respect4.74
Creativity4.28
Feedback4.09
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.59
Questions4.64
Longji Cui 30 grades · 1 term 3.87GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cui vs. the course average
A
+5.6
B
−2.5
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 30 enrolled.
Overall3.79 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.66
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.52
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity3.73
Grading3.17
Reflection4.67
Respect4.79
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.27
Interaction4.26
Challenge4.56
Questions4.72
Jean R Hertzberg 78 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
78 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hertzberg vs. the course average
A
+4.9
B
−1.7
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 2 of 80 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection3.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.40
Grading3.90
Reflection4.10
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.70
Xiaoyun Ding 33 grades · 1 term 3.85GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ding vs. the course average
A
+15.9
B
−12.8
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 33 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.46
Technology3.99
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration4.68
Connection4.48
Contribution4.56
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.02
Grading3.24
Reflection3.91
Respect4.71
Creativity4.34
Feedback3.16
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.48
Questions3.19
Wei Tan 33 grades · 1 term 3.82GPA
33 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tan vs. the course average
A
+6.9
B
−6.7
C
+0.9
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 33 enrolled.
Overall4.24 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.26
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.60
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.38
Grading3.94
Reflection3.69
Respect5.00
Creativity4.55
Feedback3.48
Interaction4.49
Challenge4.20
Questions4.45
Maureen Ellen Lynch 72 grades · 1 term 3.78GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lynch vs. the course average
A
+2.3
B
+0.8
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 72 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology3.99
Synthesis4.12
Collaboration4.54
Connection4.18
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity3.92
Grading3.88
Reflection4.12
Respect4.95
Creativity4.72
Feedback3.61
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.49
Questions4.73
Janet Tsai 132 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
132 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tsai vs. the course average
A
+3.1
B
−3.7
C
+0.9
D
−0.3
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
0.8% withdrew · 1 of 133 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
56 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.91
Contribution4.89
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.67
Reflection4.90
Respect4.93
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.47
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.84
Questions4.88
Daniel J. Riffell 56 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Riffell vs. the course average
A
−2.5
B
+3.8
C
−0.4
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.79
Connection4.99
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.89
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.50
Reflection4.79
Respect4.87
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.69
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.72
Questions4.95
Robert Bruce Maccurdy 44 grades · 1 term 3.75GPA
44 letter grades
Compare with the course
Maccurdy vs. the course average
A
+12.2
B
−13.6
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
+3.9
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 2 of 46 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.23
Connection4.54
Contribution4.65
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.00
Reflection4.54
Respect4.88
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.31
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.77
Questions4.77
Joseph Samuel Rubaker 31 grades · 1 term 3.73GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rubaker vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
−2.9
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
+2.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Travis Rick Rupp 28 grades · 1 term 3.71GPA
28 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rupp vs. the course average
A
+4.7
B
−5.1
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
+2.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 1 of 29 enrolled.
Overall3.84 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.30
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration3.40
Connection3.50
Contribution3.90
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity3.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.00
Respect4.70
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.10
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.40
Questions4.40
Gregory James Hampson 64 grades · 1 term 3.69GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hampson vs. the course average
A
−4.5
B
+4.5
C
+1.0
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 1 of 65 enrolled.
Overall4.57 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.97
Technology4.08
Synthesis4.97
Collaboration4.89
Connection5.00
Contribution4.95
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.95
Grading3.18
Reflection4.96
Respect5.00
Creativity4.98
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.99
Challenge5.00
Questions4.99
Debanjan Mukherjee 105 grades · 1 term 3.68GPA
105 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mukherjee vs. the course average
A
+0.9
B
−2.5
C
+0.7
D
−0.3
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.4% withdrew · 6 of 111 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.29
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.77
Contribution4.44
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.42
Grading4.00
Reflection4.75
Respect4.42
Creativity3.47
Feedback3.98
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.98
Questions4.64
Shalom D Ruben 110 grades · 1 term 3.57GPA
110 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ruben vs. the course average
A
−4.7
B
−1.3
C
+4.2
D
+1.5
F
+0.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.9% withdrew · 1 of 111 enrolled.
Overall3.92 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology4.21
Synthesis4.87
Collaboration4.80
Connection5.00
Contribution4.94
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.08
Grading3.08
Reflection4.87
Respect4.78
Creativity4.02
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.16
Questions4.23
Francois Barthelat 48 grades · 1 term 3.55GPA
48 letter grades
Compare with the course
Barthelat vs. the course average
A
−14.4
B
+17.5
C
−2.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.0% withdrew · 1 of 49 enrolled.
Overall4.15 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.73
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.06
Collaboration4.17
Connection4.54
Contribution4.08
Discussion4.45
Inclusivity4.24
Grading3.26
Reflection4.17
Respect4.39
Creativity4.07
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.03
Challenge4.38
Questions3.79
Alaa Abdalla Ahmed Ph.D. 77 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
77 letter grades
Compare with the course
Ph.D. vs. the course average
A
−8.3
B
+3.6
C
+0.4
D
+1.0
F
+3.2
Difference in percentage points.
3.8% withdrew · 3 of 80 enrolled.
Franck J. Vernerey 58 grades · 1 term 3.51GPA
58 letter grades
Compare with the course
Vernerey vs. the course average
A
−22.4
B
+22.1
C
−2.2
D
+1.4
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
6.5% withdrew · 4 of 62 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.71
Technology4.06
Synthesis4.14
Collaboration4.07
Connection4.28
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.72
Grading3.71
Reflection4.14
Respect4.82
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.06
Challenge4.50
Questions4.28
Leopold Gideon Beuken 30 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
30 letter grades
Compare with the course
Beuken vs. the course average
A
−17.7
B
+7.5
C
+11.2
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.2% withdrew · 1 of 31 enrolled.
Peter Michael Himpsel 50 grades · 1 term 3.35GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
Himpsel vs. the course average
A
−29.0
B
+26.2
C
+3.8
D
−0.3
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 50 enrolled.
Overall4.56 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.91
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.80
Contribution4.95
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.83
Reflection4.81
Respect4.93
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.51
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.90
Questions4.95
Lucy Y Pao 27 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
27 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pao vs. the course average
A
−29.2
B
+21.2
C
+5.2
D
+3.4
F
−0.7
Difference in percentage points.
15.6% withdrew · 5 of 32 enrolled.
Overall3.55 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection3.00
Contribution1.00
Discussion3.00
Grading3.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.00
Questions5.00
Julie Elizabeth Steinbrenner 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Daniel W Knight 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.98GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.70 / 5
32 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.79
Synthesis4.88
Collaboration4.99
Connection4.95
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.96
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.70
Reflection4.12
Respect5.00
Creativity4.92
Feedback4.78
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.88
Questions4.94
Derek T Reamon 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.93GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.46
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.35
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.13
Reflection4.85
Respect4.72
Creativity4.78
Feedback4.29
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Melanie A Peddle 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.82GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.11
Technology4.07
Synthesis3.98
Collaboration3.98
Connection5.00
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity3.54
Grading3.98
Reflection3.24
Respect3.72
Creativity3.99
Feedback3.58
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.12
Questions4.19
Greg A Vanderbeek 24 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.78GPA
24 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 24 enrolled.
Overall4.25 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology4.22
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.85
Contribution4.46
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity4.65
Grading3.38
Reflection4.22
Respect4.31
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.39
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.22
Questions3.93
William George Newhall 22 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.74GPA
22 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 22 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.23
Connection5.00
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.23
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.23
Reflection4.12
Respect5.00
Creativity4.23
Feedback3.46
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.23
Questions4.23
Andrew Joseph Affrunti 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.73GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.45
Connection4.88
Contribution4.45
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.07
Reflection4.95
Respect4.77
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.88
Questions4.95
Massimo Ruzzene 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.70GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
12.5% withdrew · 2 of 16 enrolled.
Daven Ker Henze 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.63GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
10.5% withdrew · 2 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.72 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.50
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.50
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Sarah Calve 13 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.59GPA
13 letter grades · Limited sample
13.3% withdrew · 2 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.74 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.38
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration3.77
Connection4.85
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.85
Reflection4.38
Respect4.85
Creativity4.54
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.38
Questions5.00
Heather Johanna Swenson 12 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.59GPA
12 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 12 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.14
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.25
Connection4.63
Contribution4.31
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.63
Reflection4.39
Respect4.96
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.70
Questions4.65
Yifu Ding 23 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.56GPA
23 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 23 enrolled.
Overall3.66 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.01
Synthesis4.03
Collaboration1.05
Connection4.01
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.01
Inclusivity4.50
Grading1.05
Reflection4.01
Respect5.00
Creativity1.09
Feedback1.09
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.03
Questions3.04
Kevin Terry 11 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.48GPA
11 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 11 enrolled.
Nathan John Mcneill 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.17GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.48 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.84
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.71
Connection4.98
Contribution4.07
Discussion4.91
Inclusivity4.67
Grading4.82
Reflection4.62
Respect4.94
Creativity4.81
Feedback4.48
Interaction4.82
Challenge4.85
Questions4.69
Peter Paul Mitrano 10 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.07GPA
10 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 10 enrolled.
Overall4.66 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.54
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.78
Connection4.85
Contribution4.62
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.62
Reflection4.38
Respect4.62
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.39
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.47
Questions4.39
Alaa Abdalla Ahmed 18 reported responses 3.71Eval / 5
Overall3.71 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.14
Synthesis3.43
Collaboration3.31
Connection4.29
Contribution3.86
Discussion4.55
Inclusivity3.24
Grading3.90
Reflection3.89
Respect4.67
Creativity3.53
Feedback3.27
Interaction4.27
Challenge4.43
Questions4.05
Carmen Pacheco-Borden 39 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.49
Technology4.43
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.56
Contribution4.42
Discussion4.31
Inclusivity4.39
Grading4.28
Reflection4.46
Respect4.71
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.66
Challenge4.44
Questions4.61
Rishi Raj 4 reported responses 3.57Eval / 5
Overall3.57 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.35
Technology2.85
Synthesis1.81
Collaboration2.46
Connection3.08
Contribution2.46
Discussion2.85
Inclusivity1.00
Grading3.35
Reflection3.35
Respect3.35
Creativity2.85
Feedback3.23
Interaction3.46
Challenge2.96
Questions2.96
Leo Beuken 4 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.30
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Nathalie Maria Vriend 5 reported responses 4.61Eval / 5
Overall4.61 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Emily Amaya Evans Artale 4 reported responses 4.75Eval / 5
Overall4.75 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Sam Rubaker 5 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.40
Inclusivity3.80
Grading4.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.60
Creativity4.80
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.00
Jianliang Xiao 2 reported responses 4.67Eval / 5
Overall4.67 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.00
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.50
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions5.00
Michelle M Mellenthin 4 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity5.00
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Kelvin Bates 7 reported responses 4.39Eval / 5
Overall4.39 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.70
Connection5.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.10
Grading3.60
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity3.90
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.70
Grace Ellen Burleson 4 reported responses 4.71Eval / 5
Overall4.71 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.20
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.80
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.20
Questions4.80
Nicole Xu 27 reported responses 3.83Eval / 5
Overall3.83 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology3.78
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration4.72
Connection3.96
Contribution4.30
Discussion3.05
Inclusivity3.15
Grading2.62
Reflection3.89
Respect3.83
Creativity4.22
Feedback2.82
Interaction4.58
Challenge3.85
Questions2.98
Mark A Borden 2 reported responses 4.95Eval / 5
Overall4.95 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading5.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.50
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Max Saccone 11 reported responses 4.19Eval / 5
Overall4.19 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology3.90
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.20
Connection4.40
Contribution3.60
Discussion4.50
Inclusivity2.90
Grading4.40
Reflection4.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.50
Questions4.50
Michael Warner 8 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.50
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.20
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity3.00
Grading3.40
Reflection4.40
Respect4.00
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.20
Chahat Singh 3 reported responses 3.92Eval / 5
Overall3.92 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.30
Reflection4.30
Respect4.70
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.30
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Jun Li 4 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
4 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.20
Connection5.00
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.20
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity4.20
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge5.00
Questions4.80
Virginia Lea Ferguson 7 reported responses 3.96Eval / 5
Overall3.96 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.10
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.10
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity3.80
Grading3.40
Reflection3.60
Respect4.50
Creativity3.90
Feedback3.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.00
Questions4.30
Sean Benjamin 1 reported responses 2.00Eval / 5
Overall2.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence1.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis1.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution1.00
Discussion2.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading1.00
Reflection1.00
Respect5.00
Creativity2.00
Feedback2.00
Interaction2.00
Challenge1.00
Questions3.00
Brigid Morgan Mark 1 reported responses 2.15Eval / 5
Overall2.15 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence1.00
Technology4.00
Synthesis1.00
Collaboration3.00
Connection4.00
Contribution1.00
Discussion2.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading1.00
Reflection1.00
Respect5.00
Creativity2.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction2.00
Challenge1.00
Questions3.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.