Course record SPAN
SPAN 2110
Second-Year Spanish 1
University of Colorado Boulder
1,793 grades31 professors
Grades: Dates unavailableEvaluations: 2020–2026
Flunk Score40/100
Mixed record
Charles Toye 56 grades · 1 term 3.53GPA
56 letter grades
Compare with the course
Toye vs. the course average
A
+23.6
B
−24.2
C
+2.1
D
−1.8
F
+0.3
Difference in percentage points.
3.4% withdrew · 2 of 58 enrolled.
Overall4.84 / 5
40 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.90
Technology4.92
Synthesis4.93
Collaboration4.94
Connection4.93
Contribution4.92
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity4.95
Grading4.81
Reflection4.89
Respect4.98
Creativity4.85
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.95
Challenge4.93
Questions4.87
Edgar Vargas Blanco 55 grades · 1 term 3.49GPA
55 letter grades
Compare with the course
Blanco vs. the course average
A
+14.1
B
−7.6
C
−4.9
D
same
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 55 enrolled.
Overall4.52 / 5
43 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.41
Technology4.86
Synthesis4.64
Collaboration4.32
Connection4.75
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.84
Inclusivity4.64
Grading4.78
Reflection4.78
Respect4.86
Creativity4.67
Feedback4.79
Interaction4.71
Challenge4.80
Questions4.78
Elizabeth Huard 252 grades · 1 term 3.48GPA
252 letter grades
Compare with the course
Huard vs. the course average
A
+13.1
B
−6.3
C
−4.7
D
−1.0
F
−1.1
Difference in percentage points.
2.7% withdrew · 7 of 259 enrolled.
Overall4.78 / 5
245 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.59
Technology4.73
Synthesis4.65
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.51
Contribution4.84
Discussion4.94
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.79
Reflection4.78
Respect4.96
Creativity4.58
Feedback4.75
Interaction4.96
Challenge4.80
Questions4.90
Scott Alan Spanbauer 70 grades · 1 term 3.45GPA
70 letter grades
Compare with the course
Spanbauer vs. the course average
A
+4.7
B
+3.7
C
−5.1
D
−1.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
2.8% withdrew · 2 of 72 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.85
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.05
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.00
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.65
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.35
Reflection4.30
Respect4.85
Creativity4.25
Feedback4.55
Interaction4.85
Challenge4.55
Questions4.65
Antonia M Green 266 grades · 1 term 3.42GPA
266 letter grades
Compare with the course
Green vs. the course average
A
+9.4
B
−0.3
C
−8.8
D
−1.0
F
+0.7
Difference in percentage points.
2.9% withdrew · 8 of 274 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
167 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.23
Technology4.51
Synthesis4.33
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.34
Contribution4.63
Discussion4.79
Inclusivity4.38
Grading4.60
Reflection4.55
Respect4.88
Creativity4.44
Feedback4.64
Interaction4.91
Challenge4.63
Questions4.84
Susan Rita Hallstead 143 grades · 1 term 3.36GPA
143 letter grades
Compare with the course
Hallstead vs. the course average
A
+4.3
B
+1.5
C
−4.5
D
−0.4
F
−0.8
Difference in percentage points.
4.0% withdrew · 6 of 149 enrolled.
Overall4.30 / 5
98 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology4.40
Synthesis4.35
Collaboration4.75
Connection4.28
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.75
Inclusivity4.54
Grading4.52
Reflection4.49
Respect4.78
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.54
Interaction4.86
Challenge4.59
Questions4.47
Karen L Malcolm 208 grades · 1 term 3.31GPA
208 letter grades
Compare with the course
Malcolm vs. the course average
A
+2.8
B
−0.3
C
−0.2
D
−1.3
F
−1.0
Difference in percentage points.
4.6% withdrew · 10 of 218 enrolled.
Overall4.49 / 5
225 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.01
Technology4.20
Synthesis4.18
Collaboration4.81
Connection4.08
Contribution4.41
Discussion4.62
Inclusivity4.16
Grading4.11
Reflection4.37
Respect4.54
Creativity4.27
Feedback4.36
Interaction4.72
Challenge4.44
Questions4.49
Yohainna Abdala Mesa 63 grades · 1 term 3.29GPA
63 letter grades
Compare with the course
Mesa vs. the course average
A
−6.7
B
+15.9
C
−5.9
D
−1.8
F
−1.5
Difference in percentage points.
6.0% withdrew · 4 of 67 enrolled.
Overall4.58 / 5
170 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.52
Technology4.49
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.89
Connection4.68
Contribution4.83
Discussion4.85
Inclusivity4.80
Grading4.52
Reflection4.75
Respect4.84
Creativity4.65
Feedback4.71
Interaction4.83
Challenge4.81
Questions4.71
Margaret Herland 67 grades · 1 term 3.13GPA
67 letter grades
Compare with the course
Herland vs. the course average
A
−6.3
B
+5.4
C
−1.8
D
+1.2
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
4.3% withdrew · 3 of 70 enrolled.
Overall4.73 / 5
29 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.93
Technology4.68
Synthesis4.43
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.45
Contribution4.67
Discussion4.87
Inclusivity4.77
Grading4.66
Reflection4.68
Respect4.80
Creativity4.48
Feedback4.57
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.78
Questions4.78
Vivian Elmore 332 grades · 1 term 3.01GPA
332 letter grades
Compare with the course
Elmore vs. the course average
A
−9.2
B
+1.5
C
+5.3
D
+0.9
F
+1.5
Difference in percentage points.
5.9% withdrew · 21 of 353 enrolled.
Overall4.27 / 5
262 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.77
Technology3.93
Synthesis3.88
Collaboration4.46
Connection3.98
Contribution4.35
Discussion4.33
Inclusivity4.02
Grading4.00
Reflection4.01
Respect4.50
Creativity4.26
Feedback4.18
Interaction4.64
Challenge4.24
Questions4.31
Maria E Moreno 190 grades · 1 term 2.66GPA
190 letter grades
Compare with the course
Moreno vs. the course average
A
−31.2
B
+8.2
C
+18.3
D
+4.5
F
+0.1
Difference in percentage points.
10.4% withdrew · 22 of 212 enrolled.
Overall3.55 / 5
95 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.77
Technology2.22
Synthesis2.79
Collaboration3.66
Connection3.26
Contribution3.83
Discussion3.54
Inclusivity3.13
Grading2.49
Reflection3.52
Respect3.50
Creativity3.06
Feedback2.94
Interaction3.62
Challenge3.86
Questions3.45
Robert Charles Pritchard 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.62GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.47 / 5
8 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.00
Technology4.10
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.00
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.50
Reflection4.40
Respect4.80
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.40
Interaction4.50
Challenge4.40
Questions4.50
Kelly Dawn Noe 19 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.44GPA
19 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 19 enrolled.
Overall4.28 / 5
12 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.41
Technology3.81
Synthesis3.31
Collaboration4.20
Connection3.70
Contribution4.00
Discussion4.30
Inclusivity2.71
Grading3.31
Reflection3.31
Respect4.50
Creativity4.50
Feedback3.21
Interaction4.31
Challenge4.01
Questions4.21
Tracy Quan 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.20GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.63 / 5
5 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration4.80
Connection4.80
Contribution4.80
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading4.80
Reflection4.80
Respect5.00
Creativity4.40
Feedback4.00
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.40
Questions4.80
Giulia Nardone 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 3.17GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall3.87 / 5
9 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.00
Technology3.60
Synthesis3.00
Collaboration3.90
Connection3.20
Contribution3.80
Discussion4.20
Inclusivity3.50
Grading3.70
Reflection3.20
Respect4.30
Creativity4.00
Feedback4.30
Interaction4.20
Challenge3.70
Questions4.30
Colleen P Dunne 18 grades · 1 term · Limited sample 2.99GPA
18 letter grades · Limited sample
0.0% withdrew · 0 of 18 enrolled.
Overall4.50 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.20
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.50
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.20
Contribution4.60
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.20
Grading4.20
Reflection4.10
Respect4.70
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.30
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.50
Questions4.90
Adriana Cabeza 18 reported responses 4.56Eval / 5
Overall4.56 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.37
Technology4.23
Synthesis4.48
Collaboration4.62
Connection4.05
Contribution4.55
Discussion4.72
Inclusivity4.52
Grading4.04
Reflection4.34
Respect4.67
Creativity4.64
Feedback3.86
Interaction4.81
Challenge4.75
Questions4.62
Karen Gaston Malcolm 263 reported responses 4.47Eval / 5
Overall4.47 / 5
263 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.05
Technology4.09
Synthesis4.14
Collaboration4.88
Connection4.30
Contribution4.61
Discussion4.67
Inclusivity4.21
Grading4.00
Reflection4.55
Respect4.40
Creativity4.14
Feedback4.35
Interaction4.75
Challenge4.46
Questions4.57
Javier Krauel 18 reported responses 4.86Eval / 5
Overall4.86 / 5
18 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.60
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.50
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.40
Grading4.80
Reflection4.70
Respect5.00
Creativity4.80
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Jose Javier Rivas Rodriguez 28 reported responses 4.90Eval / 5
Overall4.90 / 5
28 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.63
Technology4.71
Synthesis4.82
Collaboration4.91
Connection4.63
Contribution4.91
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.73
Grading4.81
Reflection4.81
Respect4.91
Creativity4.72
Feedback4.90
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.82
Questions5.00
Geoffrey Miller 92 reported responses 4.76Eval / 5
Overall4.76 / 5
92 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.67
Technology4.87
Synthesis4.66
Collaboration4.92
Connection4.64
Contribution4.85
Discussion4.82
Inclusivity4.70
Grading4.72
Reflection4.86
Respect4.85
Creativity4.77
Feedback4.76
Interaction4.88
Challenge4.88
Questions4.91
Laura Maria Reed 27 reported responses 2.95Eval / 5
Overall2.95 / 5
27 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence2.37
Technology1.87
Synthesis2.63
Collaboration3.87
Connection2.63
Contribution3.47
Discussion3.30
Inclusivity3.00
Grading2.00
Reflection3.00
Respect3.33
Creativity2.97
Feedback2.50
Interaction4.00
Challenge3.07
Questions2.30
Gabriela Cecilia Huebler 17 reported responses 4.41Eval / 5
Overall4.41 / 5
17 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.87
Technology3.97
Synthesis3.78
Collaboration4.87
Connection4.17
Contribution4.39
Discussion4.48
Inclusivity4.57
Grading4.02
Reflection4.30
Respect4.65
Creativity3.80
Feedback4.13
Interaction4.54
Challenge4.15
Questions4.43
Patricia Sicouly 10 reported responses 4.14Eval / 5
Overall4.14 / 5
10 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.90
Technology3.80
Synthesis4.30
Collaboration4.30
Connection4.33
Contribution4.23
Discussion4.13
Inclusivity4.47
Grading3.60
Reflection4.43
Respect4.53
Creativity4.23
Feedback4.03
Interaction4.53
Challenge4.07
Questions3.77
Ana Isabel Rocha Santos 3 reported responses 4.87Eval / 5
Overall4.87 / 5
3 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology5.00
Synthesis5.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.12
Contribution5.00
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.65
Grading4.88
Reflection4.77
Respect5.00
Creativity5.00
Feedback5.00
Interaction4.88
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Rocio Gavira Dominguez 11 reported responses 4.84Eval / 5
Overall4.84 / 5
11 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.80
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration4.90
Connection4.70
Contribution4.90
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.90
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.80
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.90
Questions4.90
Kaylyn Blair 22 reported responses 4.89Eval / 5
Overall4.89 / 5
22 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.70
Technology4.90
Synthesis4.80
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.80
Contribution4.95
Discussion5.00
Inclusivity4.85
Grading4.80
Reflection4.90
Respect4.95
Creativity4.60
Feedback4.85
Interaction5.00
Challenge5.00
Questions5.00
Alexander M Cardenas 13 reported responses 4.28Eval / 5
Overall4.28 / 5
13 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.22
Technology4.02
Synthesis3.70
Collaboration4.19
Connection4.32
Contribution4.43
Discussion4.36
Inclusivity3.97
Grading3.36
Reflection3.92
Respect4.65
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.38
Interaction4.57
Challenge4.65
Questions4.43
Lindsay Nelson 15 reported responses 4.77Eval / 5
Overall4.77 / 5
15 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence4.30
Technology4.60
Synthesis4.40
Collaboration4.70
Connection4.40
Contribution4.50
Discussion4.90
Inclusivity4.60
Grading4.90
Reflection4.70
Respect4.90
Creativity4.50
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.90
Challenge4.90
Questions5.00
Julianne J. Chandler 6 reported responses 4.68Eval / 5
Overall4.68 / 5
6 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence3.80
Technology4.80
Synthesis4.70
Collaboration4.50
Connection4.50
Contribution4.70
Discussion4.80
Inclusivity4.30
Grading4.70
Reflection4.50
Respect4.80
Creativity4.70
Feedback4.80
Interaction4.80
Challenge4.80
Questions4.70
Zazil Collins 1 reported responses 4.00Eval / 5
Overall4.00 / 5
1 reported responses
Scale 1–5
Critical examination of evidence5.00
Technology3.00
Collaboration5.00
Connection4.00
Contribution5.00
Discussion4.00
Inclusivity5.00
Grading3.00
Reflection5.00
Respect4.00
Creativity4.00
Feedback3.00
Interaction5.00
Challenge4.00
Questions4.00
Find a course or professor
Search helper · Uses this school’s records. Try “compare ECON 101” or a professor’s name.