APSY 2032
Cognition and Learning · 6 instructors on record · 9 sections
Boston College's ratings are bunched at the top — the median instructor averages about 88 out of 100 on the raw scale, and 44% of them clear 90 — so a raw score cannot separate anybody. Every figure here is ranked against BC classes and that rank is re-expressed out of 100, which is what turns a raw 88 — the middle of the university — into a figure that says where somebody actually stands. On this scale 77 is the median, 84 the top quarter and 91 the top tenth. Workload is then an adjustment on top of that, worth nothing at all for an ordinary one. Lighter work than 71% of BC classes.
The class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it — who taught it is the board below.
How is this worked out?
That is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between: the board carries each instructor's own score for this class, and the score above is the class averaged across all of them.
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question. It is not a measure of difficulty, grading or workload.
How is this worked out?
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.
One of Boston College's five workload bands, not a number of hours. Higher means more work, not worse.
How is this worked out?
Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.
This course will introduce students to what the fields of cognitive, developmental, and educational psychology have to say about how humans learn. This includes comparing and contrasting major theoretical approaches to the study of learning, examining the basic cognitive processes involved in learning (e.g., attention, memory, inhibitory control, problem-solving), and considering how social and biological factors affect these processes. The knowledge gained in this course can be used to maximize individual growth and achievement across a variety of real-life contexts. For instance, it can inform the design of classroom instructional practices, professional training seminars, parenting interventions, community programs, and health initiatives.
Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 1 of the 6 rows carry a mark saying so.
| Rank | Instructor | Curve | Easiness | Challenge | RMP overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amanda CannarellaEducation Provisional | 8393 raw · 1 record | — | 37th | —no page |
| 2 | Ido Davidesco-ChangCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Provisional | 8391 raw · 1 record | 84+2 to the score | 36th | —no page |
| 3 | Linxi LuEducation Provisional fewer records | 7584 raw · 1 record | 84+2 to the score | 19th | —no page |
| 4 | Marina VasilyevaCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology | 7686 raw · 4 records | 84+2 to the score | 29th | 802 ratings · all classes |
| 5 | David MieleCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Provisional | 7184 raw · 1 record | 68−2 to the score | 64th | —no page |
| 6 | Ido Davidesco KlingerCounseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Provisional | 6882 raw · 1 record | 68−2 to the score | 64th | —no page |
5 of 6 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row. The RateMyProfessors column is an instructor's overall figure across everything they teach, not a figure about this class.
How this board is built and ordered
Positions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.
Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Curve is the instructor's score for THIS class only, ranked against every instructor we hold and printed back out of 100, with the raw BC average underneath it; nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Easiness is an adjustment on top of it, worth up to about ±6 — BC's workload item, ranked and turned over, so a lighter section gains and a heavier one loses, while an ordinary one changes nothing — and each row prints the adjustment, signed. The board is ordered on the same figure it prints, adjusted for how many records back it. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item shown as a rank against every class we hold; students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it is not a measure of difficulty or grading, and it is never marked better or worse.
That site has no course dimension, so its figure is shown for information and kept out of the ranking.
The line
All 13 items · means across 9 recordsBars are ranks, not raw scores. Nothing here is graded good or bad.
What each item asks
- Explains Clearly
- The instructor was effective at creating an understanding of difficult subject matter.
- Available
- The instructor was available for help outside of class.
- Motivating
- The instructor motivated me to do my best work.
- Sparks Interest
- The course stimulated my interest in the subject matter.
- Organized
- The course was well organized.
- Clear Goals
- The learning objectives for the course were clear.
- Useful Later
- What I learned is applicable beyond this course.
- Assignments
- Assignments and exams contributed to my learning.
- Fast Feedback
- I received feedback on my work in a timely manner.
- Useful Feedback
- The feedback I received on my work was meaningful.
- Workload
- How much work the course took outside class, on Boston College's five-band scale — the band boundaries are not published, so this is not a number of hours.
- Challenge
- The course was intellectually challenging.
- Attendance
- Attending class was necessary to do well in this course.
Why these numbers are curved
Both the number and the bar are the rank against every comparable record we hold, printed back out of 100. BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so on the raw scale every cell here would read in the high eighties and every bar would be nearly full — thirteen numbers that tell you nothing. Each cell prints its raw BC figure and its percentile underneath, so nothing is hidden by the transform. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.
Game log
9 sections · newest first| Instructor | Term | Sec | Instr | Course | Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ido Davidesco-Chang | Spring 2026 | 01 | 91 | 90 | 40 |
| Marina Vasilyeva | Fall 2025 | 01 | 86 | 89 | 40 |
| Ido Davidesco Klinger | Spring 2025 | 01 | 82 | 83 | 60 |
| Marina Vasilyeva | Fall 2024 | 01 | 91 | 86 | 40 |
| Marina Vasilyeva | Spring 2024 | 01 | 91 | 88 | 40 |
| Linxi Lu | Fall 2023 | 01 | 84 | 80 | 40 |
| Marina Vasilyeva | Spring 2023 | 01 | 76 | 73 | 40 |
| Amanda Cannarella | Spring 2022 | 01 | 93 | 88 | — |
| David Miele | Fall 2021 | 01 | 84 | 87 | 60 |
How to read this board
Instructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.