Wine Chemistry Session – Part 1 Survey

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

33% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada	Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada Excellent	Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada Good	Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada Average	Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada Fair	Adéline Delcambre, University of British Columbia, Canada Poor
Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California	Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California Excellent	Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California Good	Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California Average	Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California Fair	Jordan Ferrier, Constellation Wines US, Robert Mondavi Woodbridge Winery, California Poor
Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York	Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York Excellent	Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York Good	Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York Average	Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York Fair	Sarah A. Harris, Cornell University, New York Poor
James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator)	James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator) Excellent	James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator) Good	James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator) Average	James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator) Fair	James Kennedy, California State University, Fresno (Moderator) Poor
Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France	Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Excellent	Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Good	Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Average	Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France Fair	Maria Nikolantonaki, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, France 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