Microbiology Session Survey

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

33% of survey complete.

Question Title

* 1. Please evaluate each speaker. (speakers listed alphabetically)

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator)	Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator) Excellent	Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator) Good	Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator) Average	Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator) Fair	Torey Arvik, Cork Supply USA, California (Moderator) Poor
Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France	Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Excellent	Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Good	Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Average	Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Fair	Marion Favier, INRA-UBS-IPB Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Poor
Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany	Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Excellent	Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Good	Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Average	Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Fair	Pascal Herr, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Poor
C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis	C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Excellent	C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Good	C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Average	C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Fair	C.M. Lucy Joseph, University of California, Davis Poor
Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis	Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis Excellent	Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis Good	Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis Average	Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis Fair	Michael S. Ramsey, University of California, Davis Poor
Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany	Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Excellent	Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Good	Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Average	Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Fair	Stephan Sommer, State Education and Research Center for Viticulture & Horticulture (DLR – Rheinpfalz), Germany Poor
Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany	Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany Excellent	Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany Good	Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany Average	Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany Fair	Christian von Wallbrunn, State Research Institute Geisenheim, Germany Poor

Question Title

* 2. Comments On Specific Speaker(s):
Please include speaker name(s).

Question Title

* 3. Please rate the following information.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	N/A
Presenters were well prepared and organized.	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Agree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Neutral	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Disagree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. Strongly Disagree	Presenters were well prepared and organized. N/A
Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter.	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Agree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Neutral	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Disagree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. Strongly Disagree	Presenters were knowledgeable about subject matter. N/A
Presenters’ style was clear and effective.	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Agree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Neutral	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Disagree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. Strongly Disagree	Presenters’ style was clear and effective. N/A
Presenters stimulated interest and discussion.	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Agree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Neutral	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Disagree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. Strongly Disagree	Presenters stimulated interest and discussion. N/A
Presenters were responsive to participants.	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Agree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Neutral	Presenters were responsive to participants. Disagree	Presenters were responsive to participants. Strongly Disagree	Presenters were responsive to participants. N/A
Visual aids were useful and appropriate.	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Agree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Neutral	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Disagree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. Strongly Disagree	Visual aids were useful and appropriate. N/A
The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided.	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. Strongly Agree	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. Agree	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. Neutral	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. Disagree	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. Strongly Disagree	The content was consistent with the titles and abstracts provided. N/A
Objectives were clearly stated.	Objectives were clearly stated. Strongly Agree	Objectives were clearly stated. Agree	Objectives were clearly stated. Neutral	Objectives were clearly stated. Disagree	Objectives were clearly stated. Strongly Disagree	Objectives were clearly stated. N/A
There was a balance of theory and practice presented.	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. Strongly Agree	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. Agree	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. Neutral	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. Disagree	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. Strongly Disagree	There was a balance of theory and practice presented. N/A
Information was timely and relevant.	Information was timely and relevant. Strongly Agree	Information was timely and relevant. Agree	Information was timely and relevant. Neutral	Information was timely and relevant. Disagree	Information was timely and relevant. Strongly Disagree	Information was timely and relevant. N/A