Course record SPAN
SPAN 1020
Beginning Spanish 2
University of Colorado Boulder
1,451 grades68 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score50/100
Mixed record
Katerina Santiesteban 34 grades · 1 term 3.66GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Santiesteban vs. the course average
A
+21.5
B
−12.0
C
−5.0
D
−1.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 1 of 35 enrolled.
Overall4.29 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.17
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.24
Collaboration4.72
Connection4.65
Contribution4.36
Discussion4.74
Inclusivity4.78
Grading4.21
Reflection4.69
Respect4.86
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.49
Questions4.69
Regina Gayou Tom 41 grades · 1 term 3.61GPA
41 letter grades
Compare with the course
Tom vs. the course average
A
+20.2
B
−12.0
C
−6.0
D
+0.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 41 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.43
Technology4.93
Synthesis4.51
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.42
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.58
Grading4.93
Reflection4.73
Respect4.90
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.85
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.78
Questions4.90
Alex Felipe Bermudez Manjarres 38 grades · 1 term 3.55GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Manjarres vs. the course average
A
+10.5
B
−3.0
C
−3.0
D
−1.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.67 / 5
23 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.99
Technology4.88
Synthesis4.37
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.73
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.48
Grading4.52
Reflection4.75
Respect4.78
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.24
Questions4.80
Elizabeth Huard 64 grades · 1 term 3.55GPA
64 letter grades
Compare with the course
Huard vs. the course average
A
+12.4
B
−7.9
C
same
D
−1.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
1.5% withdrew · 1 of 65 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
39 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.42
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.84
Connection4.50
Contribution4.71
Discussion4.78
Inclusivity4.55
Grading4.63
Reflection4.92
Respect4.92
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.63
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.78
Questions4.99
Charles Toye 74 grades · 1 term 3.51GPA
74 letter grades
Compare with the course
Toye vs. the course average
A
+9.7
B
−3.7
C
−2.8
D
−1.7
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 4 of 78 enrolled.
Overall4.80 / 5
42 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.65
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.52
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.57
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.77
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.70
Reflection4.79
Respect4.77
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.85
Questions4.71
Edgar Vargas Blanco 50 grades · 1 term 3.47GPA
50 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blanco vs. the course average
A
+8.1
B
−2.7
C
−4.9
D
−1.7
F
+1.2
Difference in percentage points.
5.7% withdrew · 3 of 53 enrolled.
Overall4.59 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.50
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.71
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.63
Contribution4.81
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.32
Reflection4.77
Respect4.92
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.83
Questions4.87
Hannah Patricia Cunningham 55 grades · 1 term 3.39GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Cunningham vs. the course average
A
+5.7
B
−4.9
C
+1.8
D
−1.7
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
1.8% withdrew · 1 of 56 enrolled.
Madison Elyse Elson 38 grades · 1 term 3.32GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Elson vs. the course average
A
same
B
−3.0
C
+7.5
D
−1.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.83 / 5
30 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.74
Technology4.98
Synthesis4.78
Collaboration4.98
Connection4.89
Contribution4.93
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.91
Reflection4.91
Respect4.98
Creativity4.83
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.89
Questions4.98
Erick Garcia Pineda 57 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Pineda vs. the course average
A
+1.8
B
−2.1
C
−0.4
D
same
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.45
Technology4.55
Synthesis4.79
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.65
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.93
Grading4.88
Reflection4.81
Respect4.98
Creativity4.91
Feedback4.91
Interaction4.93
Challenge4.95
Questions4.95
Eduardo Montes Romero 37 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Romero vs. the course average
A
+7.0
B
−7.8
C
−0.1
D
−1.7
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
5.1% withdrew · 2 of 39 enrolled.
Overall4.71 / 5
31 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.15
Technology4.95
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.25
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.62
Grading4.88
Reflection4.72
Respect4.80
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.70
Questions4.98
Daniel Berjano Rodriguez 36 grades · 1 term 3.30GPA
36 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rodriguez vs. the course average
A
+0.4
B
+1.1
C
−2.6
D
+1.1
F
same
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.39 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology3.00
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.60
Contribution4.10
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.30
Reflection3.90
Respect4.70
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.10
Questions4.80
Karen L Malcolm 54 grades · 1 term 3.26GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Malcolm vs. the course average
A
−2.3
B
+3.0
C
+0.2
D
−1.7
F
+0.9
Difference in percentage points.
3.6% withdrew · 2 of 56 enrolled.
Overall4.37 / 5
58 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.08
Technology4.09
Synthesis4.31
Collaboration4.82
Connection4.43
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.58
Inclusivity3.94
Grading4.10
Reflection4.51
Respect4.54
Creativity4.49
Feedback4.22
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.47
Questions4.50
Andoni Perez-Lopez 57 grades · 1 term 3.25GPA
57 letter grades
Compare with the course
Perez-Lopez vs. the course average
A
−5.3
B
+4.9
C
+1.4
D
−1.7
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
1.7% withdrew · 1 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.68 / 5
47 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.14
Technology4.83
Synthesis4.27
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.50
Contribution4.57
Discussion4.93
Inclusivity4.37
Grading4.82
Reflection4.62
Respect4.89
Creativity4.69
Feedback4.78
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.73
Questions4.88
Rocio Gavira Dominguez 38 grades · 1 term 3.24GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Dominguez vs. the course average
A
+5.3
B
−10.9
C
+2.3
D
+0.9
F
+2.4
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.82 / 5
53 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.24
Technology4.74
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.83
Connection4.47
Contribution4.74
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.64
Reflection4.58
Respect4.66
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.65
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.65
Questions4.83
Scott Alan Spanbauer 31 grades · 1 term 3.23GPA
31 letter grades
Compare with the course
Spanbauer vs. the course average
A
−3.1
B
+2.4
C
−1.2
D
+4.7
F
−2.8
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 31 enrolled.
Overall4.69 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.76
Technology4.52
Synthesis4.04
Collaboration4.89
Connection4.42
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.12
Grading4.62
Reflection4.44
Respect4.62
Creativity4.52
Feedback4.54
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.33
Questions5.00
Derrek Robert Powell 32 grades · 1 term 3.20GPA
32 letter grades
Compare with the course
Powell vs. the course average
A
+1.5
B
−7.9
C
+4.7
D
+1.4
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
11.1% withdrew · 4 of 36 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.62
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.98
Contribution4.82
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.59
Reflection4.92
Respect5.00
Creativity4.62
Feedback4.62
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.92
Questions5.00
Geoffrey Miller 123 grades · 1 term 3.17GPA
123 letter grades
Compare with the course
Miller vs. the course average
A
−5.0
B
+1.0
C
+2.1
D
−0.1
F
+2.1
Difference in percentage points.
3.9% withdrew · 5 of 128 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
103 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.96
Synthesis4.57
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.53
Contribution4.52
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.49
Grading4.87
Reflection4.46
Respect4.70
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.59
Interaction4.69
Challenge4.52
Questions4.89
Brandon James Grenier 38 grades · 1 term 3.16GPA
38 letter grades
Compare with the course
Grenier vs. the course average
A
−10.5
B
+10.2
C
−0.4
D
+0.9
F
−0.2
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.31 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.27
Synthesis4.23
Collaboration4.73
Connection4.47
Contribution4.47
Discussion4.43
Inclusivity4.33
Grading4.23
Reflection4.47
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.80
Interaction4.70
Challenge4.27
Questions4.50
Kelly Dawn Noe 54 grades · 1 term 3.09GPA
54 letter grades
Compare with the course
Noe vs. the course average
A
−15.3
B
+10.4
C
+3.9
D
−1.7
F
+2.7
Difference in percentage points.
5.3% withdrew · 3 of 57 enrolled.
Overall4.60 / 5
51 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology4.54
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.59
Contribution4.20
Discussion4.95
Inclusivity4.59
Grading4.06
Reflection4.89
Respect4.99
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.20
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Elisabetta Rodio 56 grades · 1 term 2.95GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rodio vs. the course average
A
−27.5
B
+21.5
C
+1.6
D
+3.6
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 2 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
36 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.56
Technology4.84
Synthesis4.47
Collaboration4.76
Connection4.55
Contribution4.74
Discussion4.92
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.78
Reflection4.80
Respect4.78
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.98
Challenge4.72
Questions4.96
Carrie Chorba Fross 37 grades · 1 term 2.79GPA
37 letter grades
Compare with the course
Fross vs. the course average
A
−30.9
B
+16.6
C
+8.0
D
+3.7
F
+2.6
Difference in percentage points.
2.6% withdrew · 1 of 38 enrolled.
Overall4.92 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.95
Contribution4.85
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.90
Reflection4.95
Respect4.90
Creativity4.85
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Daniel Amarelo Montero 34 grades · 1 term 2.72GPA
34 letter grades
Compare with the course
Montero vs. the course average
A
−31.4
B
+17.4
C
+9.7
D
+1.2
F
+3.1
Difference in percentage points.
8.1% withdrew · 3 of 37 enrolled.
Blanca Berjano Rodriguez 40 grades · 1 term 2.70GPA
40 letter grades
Compare with the course
Rodriguez vs. the course average
A
−27.9
B
+3.3
C
+16.6
D
+5.8
F
+2.2
Difference in percentage points.
4.8% withdrew · 2 of 42 enrolled.
Eduardo Alejandro Ramirez-Bello 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 4.00GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Kelsey M Trevino 20 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.82GPA
20 letter grades · Limited sample
4.8% withdrew · 1 of 21 enrolled.
Lucia N/A Escamilla Gonzalez 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.68GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.92 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.90
Collaboration5.00
Connection5.00
Contribution4.90
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Andres Vazquez 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.68GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Blake A Delong 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.64GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall3.95 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology3.70
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration3.70
Connection3.70
Contribution3.70
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity4.00
Grading3.70
Reflection3.70
Respect4.70
Creativity3.70
Feedback3.70
Interaction5.00
Challenge3.70
Questions4.70
Ana Isabel Rocha Santos 13 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.64GPA
13 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 13 enrolled.
Overall4.79 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.40
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.80
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Maria Elizabeth Neill 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.63GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Rebeca Andrea Orellana Capriles 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.58GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Lauren Hoos 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.58GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.85 / 5
16 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect4.80
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Robert Charles Pritchard 14 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.57GPA
14 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 14 enrolled.
Overall4.54 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.80
Synthesis3.90
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.00
Contribution4.60
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.10
Grading4.70
Reflection4.60
Respect4.60
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.30
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Brittany Frodge 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.55GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
5.0% withdrew · 1 of 20 enrolled.
Overall4.76 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.60
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.50
Reflection4.90
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Gabriela Alejandra Buitron Vera 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.48GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
5.6% withdrew · 1 of 18 enrolled.
Maxwell T Moloney 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.38GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Urszula Agnieszka Adamska 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.33GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Princess Christine Dickens 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.31GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Antonio Berbel Viudez 16 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.09GPA
16 letter grades · Limited sample
5.9% withdrew · 1 of 17 enrolled.
Overall4.44 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.40
Contribution4.80
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.10
Reflection4.40
Respect4.50
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.20
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.50
Questions4.40
Maria Vazquez 15 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.94GPA
15 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 15 enrolled.
Overall4.97 / 5
5 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
Challenge4.80
Questions5.00
Jose Luis N/A Toledano Llorente 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.82GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
5.3% withdrew · 1 of 19 enrolled.
Sandra Caldere Mejias 17 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.70GPA
17 letter grades · Limited sample
5.6% withdrew · 1 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.81 / 5
21 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.68
Technology4.85
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.95
Connection4.75
Contribution4.91
Discussion4.98
Inclusivity4.83
Grading4.85
Reflection4.82
Respect5.00
Creativity4.82
Feedback4.62
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.78
Questions4.98
Hannah Patricia Brett 14 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
14 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.69
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.77
Collaboration4.85
Connection4.31
Contribution4.65
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.85
Reflection4.85
Respect4.77
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.77
Interaction4.92
Challenge4.92
Questions4.85
Nancy Zoila Bocanegra 35 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.73
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration4.99
Connection4.86
Contribution4.91
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.92
Grading4.87
Reflection4.72
Respect4.95
Creativity4.74
Feedback4.96
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.95
Questions4.92
Robert Charles Pritchard Iv 6 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.20
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.30
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.70
Challenge5.00
Questions4.80
Blanca Berjano 37 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
37 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.53
Technology4.62
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.86
Connection4.54
Contribution4.69
Discussion4.81
Inclusivity4.51
Grading4.44
Reflection4.58
Respect4.90
Creativity4.66
Feedback4.56
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.77
Questions4.83
Daniel Amarelo 22 reported responses 4.43Eval / 5
Overall4.43 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.03
Technology4.45
Synthesis4.15
Collaboration4.72
Connection3.98
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.35
Grading4.49
Reflection4.53
Respect4.88
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.37
Interaction4.78
Challenge4.66
Questions4.65
Ula Adamska 13 reported responses 4.69Eval / 5
Overall4.69 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.70
Reflection4.70
Respect4.80
Creativity4.30
Feedback4.70
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.80
Daniel Berjano RodrãGuez 15 reported responses 4.50Eval / 5
Overall4.50 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.60
Connection4.30
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.70
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.70
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.10
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.70
Questions4.30
Jose Javier Rivas Rodriguez 17 reported responses 4.73Eval / 5
Overall4.73 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.50
Contribution4.40
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.60
Respect4.80
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.90
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Karen Gaston Malcolm 82 reported responses 4.45Eval / 5
Overall4.45 / 5
82 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.26
Technology4.36
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.41
Contribution4.68
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.32
Grading4.27
Reflection4.57
Respect4.71
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.41
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.52
Questions4.70
Jose Luis Toledano 7 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.75
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.75
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.65
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.50
Grading4.80
Reflection4.40
Respect5.00
Creativity4.55
Feedback4.75
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.65
Questions4.90
Margaret Herland 11 reported responses 4.93Eval / 5
Overall4.93 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.94
Technology5.00
Synthesis4.92
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.95
Contribution4.98
Discussion4.99
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.99
Reflection4.99
Respect4.99
Creativity4.99
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.95
Questions4.99
Maria Del Carmen Vidal Garcia 11 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.60
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.90
Reflection4.50
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Kiki Canales-Gutierrez 8 reported responses 4.20Eval / 5
Overall4.20 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.18
Technology3.42
Synthesis4.16
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.62
Contribution3.85
Discussion3.85
Inclusivity3.85
Grading3.42
Reflection3.39
Respect4.62
Creativity3.80
Feedback3.01
Interaction4.18
Challenge3.85
Questions2.92
Landon Byrns Helwig 15 reported responses 4.79Eval / 5
Overall4.79 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.40
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.80
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.90
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.60
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Gabriela Cecilia Huebler 72 reported responses 4.70Eval / 5
Overall4.70 / 5
72 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.28
Technology4.57
Synthesis4.42
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.62
Contribution4.78
Discussion4.73
Inclusivity4.72
Grading4.54
Reflection4.71
Respect4.79
Creativity4.41
Feedback4.62
Interaction4.74
Challenge4.66
Questions4.67
Meredith Leigh Church 5 reported responses 4.30Eval / 5
Overall4.30 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.20
Technology4.00
Synthesis3.50
Collaboration4.80
Connection3.80
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity3.50
Grading4.60
Reflection3.80
Respect4.60
Creativity4.20
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.20
Questions4.00
Carlota Soto Abraham 7 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.70
Synthesis4.00
Collaboration4.40
Connection4.60
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.30
Reflection4.60
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.70
Colleen P Dunne 15 reported responses 4.10Eval / 5
Overall4.10 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.70
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.10
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.10
Contribution4.30
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity3.90
Grading3.70
Reflection4.30
Respect4.20
Creativity4.30
Feedback3.90
Interaction4.40
Challenge4.10
Questions4.10
Ana Llanos 35 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
35 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.69
Contribution4.88
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.55
Reflection4.69
Respect4.88
Creativity4.75
Feedback4.73
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.73
Questions4.92
Viktoria Katherl 3 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.70
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.70
Reflection4.30
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Brandy Valdez 2 reported responses 4.82Eval / 5
Overall4.82 / 5
2 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.50
Connection5.00
Contribution4.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.50
Reflection4.50
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions4.50
Alexander M Cardenas 25 reported responses 4.48Eval / 5
Overall4.48 / 5
25 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology4.64
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.55
Connection4.72
Contribution4.79
Discussion4.51
Inclusivity4.63
Grading4.47
Reflection4.59
Respect4.64
Creativity4.57
Feedback4.25
Interaction4.84
Challenge4.45
Questions4.50
Miriam E Himes 13 reported responses 4.92Eval / 5
Overall4.92 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.78
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.72
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.88
Contribution4.75
Discussion4.88
Inclusivity4.88
Grading4.75
Reflection4.84
Respect5.00
Creativity4.93
Feedback4.88
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.88
Questions4.84
Karla Rosete Nunez 9 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.90
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.90
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.90
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Sophia Valdez 6 reported responses 5.00Eval / 5
Overall5.00 / 5
6 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
Zazil Collins 7 reported responses 4.57Eval / 5
Overall4.57 / 5
7 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.90
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.60
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.10
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.60
Questions4.60
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.