Course record PHIL
PHIL 1000
Introduction to Philosophy
University of Colorado Boulder
3,076 grades54 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score32/100
Below average
Michael Scott Sechman 79 grades · 1 term 3.84GPA
79 letter grades
Compare with the course
Sechman vs. the course average
A
+43.2
B
−24.5
C
−12.5
D
−3.2
F
−3.0
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 79 enrolled.
Overall4.33 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.82
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.74
Collaboration3.15
Connection4.29
Contribution4.54
Discussion4.25
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.50
Reflection4.36
Respect4.69
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.18
Interaction3.85
Challenge4.78
Questions4.26
Wayne Nicholas Hardaker 35 grades · 1 term 3.60GPA
35 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hardaker vs. the course average
A
+26.0
B
−8.9
C
−9.6
D
−3.2
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.9% withdrew · 3 of 38 enrolled.
Overall3.86 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.74
Technology3.97
Synthesis4.38
Collaboration2.15
Connection4.45
Contribution3.04
Discussion3.42
Inclusivity4.45
Grading3.85
Reflection4.28
Respect4.49
Creativity3.38
Feedback3.92
Interaction4.12
Challenge3.99
Questions4.07
Andrew David Chapman 70 grades · 1 term 3.57GPA
70 letter grades
Compare with the course
Chapman vs. the course average
A
+28.9
B
−17.5
C
−6.8
D
−3.2
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
1.4% withdrew · 1 of 71 enrolled.
Overall4.61 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.32
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.35
Reflection4.80
Respect4.88
Creativity4.38
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.59
Questions4.67
Javier Acevedo De La Torre 34 grades · 1 term 3.56GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Torre vs. the course average
A
+22.2
B
−8.2
C
−9.5
D
−0.3
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.6% withdrew · 2 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.13 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration3.30
Connection4.30
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.30
Grading3.80
Reflection4.20
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.70
Interaction3.50
Challenge4.70
Questions4.20
Tyler Porter 137 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
137 letter grades
Compare with the course
Porter vs. the course average
A
+20.3
B
−6.2
C
−10.3
D
−2.5
F
−1.3
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 137 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
87 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.61
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.49
Collaboration4.42
Connection4.66
Contribution4.27
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.56
Grading4.56
Reflection4.62
Respect4.68
Creativity4.34
Feedback4.16
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.73
Questions4.69
Eric C Brown 75 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
75 letter grades
Compare with the course
Brown vs. the course average
A
+19.9
B
−6.7
C
−9.8
D
−3.2
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 2 of 77 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology3.40
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.15
Connection4.80
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.40
Reflection4.75
Respect4.95
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.05
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Colin C Smith 115 grades · 1 term 3.43GPA
115 letter grades
Compare with the course
Smith vs. the course average
A
+19.8
B
−11.2
C
−7.3
D
+1.1
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 3 of 118 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.10
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.50
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.10
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.90
Michael J Zerella 42 grades · 1 term 3.33GPA
42 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zerella vs. the course average
A
+14.1
B
−6.1
C
−5.3
D
−3.2
F
+0.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 42 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.21
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration3.51
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.60
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.21
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.20
Questions4.90
Timothy M Walsh 39 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
39 letter grades
Compare with the course
Walsh vs. the course average
A
+18.7
B
−14.1
C
−7.4
D
−3.2
F
+6.0
Difference in percentage points.
2.5% withdrew · 1 of 40 enrolled.
Overall4.87 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Thomas Anthony Bonn 54 grades · 1 term 3.27GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bonn vs. the course average
A
+8.3
B
−3.2
C
−3.2
D
−1.4
F
−0.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 3 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.40
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.75
Grading3.95
Reflection4.45
Respect4.85
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.65
Questions4.60
Heather A Demarest 323 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
323 letter grades
Compare with the course
Demarest vs. the course average
A
+9.7
B
−4.3
C
−4.4
D
−1.1
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.7% withdrew · 16 of 339 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
173 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.21
Synthesis4.58
Collaboration4.56
Connection4.80
Contribution4.49
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.24
Reflection4.59
Respect4.63
Creativity3.74
Feedback3.88
Interaction4.73
Challenge4.59
Questions4.46
Jonathyn C Zapf 135 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
135 letter grades
Compare with the course
Zapf vs. the course average
A
+10.1
B
−8.7
C
−1.4
D
−1.0
F
+1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 6 of 141 enrolled.
Overall4.53 / 5
117 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.61
Collaboration3.15
Connection4.52
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.32
Inclusivity4.18
Grading4.42
Reflection4.61
Respect4.68
Creativity4.71
Feedback4.23
Interaction4.23
Challenge4.62
Questions4.71
Daniel Douglas Carr 126 grades · 1 term 3.19GPA
126 letter grades
Compare with the course
Carr vs. the course average
A
−4.1
B
+6.6
C
+1.8
D
−2.4
F
−1.8
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 8 of 134 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
120 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration4.38
Connection4.54
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.66
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.44
Reflection4.63
Respect4.82
Creativity3.94
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.72
Questions4.60
Matthew Shields 72 grades · 1 term 3.18GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Shields vs. the course average
A
+3.2
B
+0.1
C
−6.9
D
+5.1
F
−1.4
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 3 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.75 / 5
50 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.85
Technology4.75
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.70
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.65
Reflection4.90
Respect4.95
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.75
Questions4.80
Eric Juneghon Lee 116 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
116 letter grades
Compare with the course
Lee vs. the course average
A
−1.5
B
+0.7
C
+5.6
D
−2.4
F
−2.5
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 6 of 122 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
105 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.44
Synthesis4.22
Collaboration4.65
Connection4.44
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity3.85
Grading4.34
Reflection4.57
Respect4.43
Creativity3.82
Feedback4.15
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.81
Questions4.74
Wen Xu 63 grades · 1 term 3.08GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Xu vs. the course average
A
+3.8
B
−6.1
C
+0.2
D
same
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 3 of 66 enrolled.
Overall4.32 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.27
Technology3.39
Synthesis4.32
Collaboration3.41
Connection3.69
Contribution4.13
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity3.58
Grading3.45
Reflection3.88
Respect4.26
Creativity3.92
Feedback3.35
Interaction4.17
Challenge4.02
Questions3.79
Mark King Boespflug 72 grades · 1 term 3.05GPA
72 letter grades
Compare with the course
Boespflug vs. the course average
A
+3.2
B
−6.9
C
−1.4
D
+5.1
F
−0.1
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 3 of 75 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
60 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.35
Synthesis4.45
Collaboration3.65
Connection4.60
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.35
Reflection4.60
Respect4.75
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.65
Questions4.70
Gail E. Linsenbard 248 grades · 1 term 3.04GPA
248 letter grades
Compare with the course
Linsenbard vs. the course average
A
−0.3
B
−5.6
C
+7.3
D
−0.8
F
−0.6
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 10 of 258 enrolled.
Overall3.93 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.02
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.74
Collaboration3.14
Connection4.20
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.83
Inclusivity4.18
Grading3.95
Reflection3.94
Respect4.14
Creativity3.54
Feedback2.93
Interaction4.02
Challenge4.19
Questions4.09
Andrew Raymond Young 64 grades · 1 term 2.99GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Young vs. the course average
A
−9.5
B
+9.1
C
−1.5
D
−0.1
F
+2.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.5% withdrew · 3 of 67 enrolled.
Matthias P Steup 66 grades · 1 term 2.96GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Steup vs. the course average
A
same
B
−11.9
C
+7.2
D
+5.9
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
7.0% withdrew · 5 of 71 enrolled.
Overall4.46 / 5
107 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.69
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration3.75
Connection4.58
Contribution4.34
Discussion4.04
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.47
Respect4.24
Creativity4.35
Feedback4.01
Interaction3.95
Challenge4.71
Questions4.53
Garrett Zantow Bredeson 326 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
326 letter grades
Compare with the course
Bredeson vs. the course average
A
−18.4
B
+14.4
C
+5.3
D
−0.2
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 9 of 335 enrolled.
Overall4.55 / 5
223 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.31
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.78
Connection4.67
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.65
Reflection4.78
Respect4.80
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.21
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.84
Questions4.86
Shane Bodhi Melnitzer 410 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
410 letter grades
Compare with the course
Melnitzer vs. the course average
A
−11.8
B
+8.0
C
+2.9
D
+1.2
F
−0.3
Difference in percentage points.
4.9% withdrew · 21 of 431 enrolled.
Overall4.45 / 5
281 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.79
Technology4.39
Synthesis4.69
Collaboration4.13
Connection4.60
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.51
Grading4.18
Reflection4.70
Respect4.78
Creativity3.99
Feedback3.87
Interaction4.63
Challenge4.70
Questions4.54
Austin Carter Andrews 38 grades · 1 term 2.93GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Andrews vs. the course average
A
−29.6
B
+31.1
C
+5.9
D
−3.2
F
−4.2
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.40 / 5
20 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.20
Reflection4.20
Respect4.70
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Owen Henry Forbes 66 grades · 1 term 2.92GPA
66 letter grades
Compare with the course
Forbes vs. the course average
A
−25.7
B
+29.0
C
−1.9
D
−1.7
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 2 of 68 enrolled.
Overall4.26 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.55
Technology3.85
Synthesis4.25
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.45
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.15
Reflection4.15
Respect4.55
Creativity4.05
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.35
Challenge4.25
Questions4.30
Michael Huemer 131 grades · 1 term 2.77GPA
131 letter grades
Compare with the course
Huemer vs. the course average
A
−24.8
B
+17.3
C
+7.4
D
+1.4
F
−1.2
Difference in percentage points.
8.4% withdrew · 12 of 143 enrolled.
Overall3.97 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology3.78
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration3.38
Connection4.61
Contribution3.86
Discussion3.85
Inclusivity4.71
Grading3.60
Reflection4.44
Respect4.71
Creativity3.78
Feedback3.56
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.32
Questions4.25
Evan Jaymes Frook 56 grades · 1 term 2.71GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Frook vs. the course average
A
−18.6
B
−0.7
C
+17.9
D
+0.4
F
+1.1
Difference in percentage points.
6.7% withdrew · 4 of 60 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.81
Technology4.24
Synthesis4.55
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.28
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.86
Inclusivity4.44
Grading3.94
Reflection4.54
Respect4.59
Creativity4.24
Feedback3.93
Interaction4.46
Challenge4.58
Questions4.75
Martin Robert Eyestone 84 grades · 1 term 1.95GPA
84 letter grades
Compare with the course
Eyestone vs. the course average
A
−15.7
B
−21.6
C
−0.6
D
+13.4
F
+24.3
Difference in percentage points.
13.4% withdrew · 13 of 97 enrolled.
Wyatt Monroe Mcdaniel 26 reported responses 4.22Eval / 5
Overall4.22 / 5
26 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.47
Technology4.33
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.23
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.13
Grading3.97
Reflection4.37
Respect4.33
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.37
Challenge4.27
Questions4.37
Caleb M Pickard 35 reported responses 4.62Eval / 5
Overall4.62 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.76
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.85
Collaboration4.48
Connection4.58
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.82
Grading4.40
Reflection4.63
Respect4.72
Creativity4.81
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.71
Questions4.75
Benjamin Francis Mahlberg 1 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
1 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
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Stephen Thomas Troy 15 reported responses 4.81Eval / 5
Overall4.81 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.87
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.83
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.83
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.70
Reflection4.87
Respect4.83
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.93
Questions4.93
Paige Massey 19 reported responses 4.40Eval / 5
Overall4.40 / 5
19 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.47
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.13
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity3.23
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.77
Challenge4.47
Questions4.97
Robert C Pasnau 30 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.80
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.50
Jennifer Joyce Gallagher 41 reported responses 4.72Eval / 5
Overall4.72 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.83
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.33
Contribution4.77
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.47
Grading4.60
Reflection4.77
Respect4.77
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.73
Questions4.90
Amanda Michelle Loeffelholz 23 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.13
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.67
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.60
Reflection4.97
Respect4.97
Creativity4.37
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.90
Questions4.93
Kyle Nathaneal York 31 reported responses 4.36Eval / 5
Overall4.36 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.03
Synthesis4.53
Collaboration3.73
Connection4.40
Contribution4.17
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.33
Grading3.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity3.73
Feedback4.50
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.40
Questions4.53
Charlie Roberts 25 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology3.33
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.53
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.43
Grading3.63
Reflection4.57
Respect4.67
Creativity3.77
Feedback3.73
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.53
Questions4.80
Matthew Wennemann 30 reported responses 4.44Eval / 5
Overall4.44 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology3.70
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration3.80
Connection4.53
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.47
Reflection4.73
Respect4.77
Creativity3.63
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.47
Questions4.77
Daniel Patrick Kaufman 13 reported responses 4.15Eval / 5
Overall4.15 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology2.90
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration3.76
Connection4.49
Contribution3.73
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.49
Grading3.72
Reflection4.21
Respect4.49
Creativity4.05
Feedback3.82
Interaction4.28
Challenge4.49
Questions4.01
Spencer Cardwell 23 reported responses 4.37Eval / 5
Overall4.37 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.37
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.60
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.10
Reflection4.77
Respect4.63
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.70
Interaction4.67
Challenge4.43
Questions4.67
Melanie Elizabeth Tate 34 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
34 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.72
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.62
Contribution4.59
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.47
Reflection4.65
Respect4.82
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.32
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.55
Questions4.72
Tim Burkhardt 165 reported responses 4.52Eval / 5
Overall4.52 / 5
165 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.54
Collaboration3.66
Connection4.58
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.66
Grading4.57
Reflection4.65
Respect4.80
Creativity3.84
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.67
Questions4.81
Merily Salura 11 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.50
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.90
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.50
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.80
Jackie Han 68 reported responses 4.32Eval / 5
Overall4.32 / 5
68 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.62
Technology3.60
Synthesis4.67
Collaboration4.61
Connection4.72
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.52
Inclusivity4.44
Grading4.40
Reflection4.75
Respect4.54
Creativity3.56
Feedback4.44
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.41
Questions4.51
Levi Smith 17 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology3.97
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.20
Connection4.30
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.57
Reflection4.57
Respect4.57
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.50
Questions4.67
David Mghanga Mwakima 22 reported responses 4.04Eval / 5
Overall4.04 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology3.35
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration3.90
Connection4.00
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.85
Grading3.75
Reflection4.15
Respect4.40
Creativity3.40
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.15
Questions4.35
Simon Richard Sparks 11 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration3.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.50
Grading3.70
Reflection4.80
Respect4.60
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.80
Edward Barnett Shear 81 reported responses 4.54Eval / 5
Overall4.54 / 5
81 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.77
Technology4.32
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.70
Contribution4.64
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.81
Grading4.69
Reflection4.54
Respect4.88
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.82
Questions4.80
Idowu Odeyemi 39 reported responses 4.64Eval / 5
Overall4.64 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.60
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.45
Reflection4.60
Respect4.85
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.85
Questions4.70
Alan G Sumler 6 reported responses 3.30Eval / 5
Overall3.30 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology3.20
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.00
Connection3.20
Contribution4.00
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.00
Reflection3.70
Respect3.30
Creativity2.70
Feedback2.70
Interaction4.30
Challenge3.00
Questions3.20
Hunter Jin 18 reported responses 4.49Eval / 5
Overall4.49 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.00
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.03
Connection4.50
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.47
Reflection4.67
Respect4.53
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.60
Challenge4.80
Questions4.60
Joy Webb 25 reported responses 4.80Eval / 5
Overall4.80 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.93
Technology4.77
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration4.67
Connection4.87
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.97
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.70
Reflection4.97
Respect4.87
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.87
Challenge4.90
Questions4.97
James Marks 41 reported responses 4.63Eval / 5
Overall4.63 / 5
41 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology3.95
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.30
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.45
Grading4.25
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.80
Questions4.85
Amirhossein Ajalloeian 5 reported responses 3.80Eval / 5
Overall3.80 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration3.35
Connection4.50
Contribution3.60
Discussion3.60
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.00
Reflection3.90
Respect4.25
Creativity3.50
Feedback3.35
Interaction3.85
Challenge3.60
Questions3.90
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.