Water Relations 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
Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada	Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada Excellent	Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada Good	Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada Average	Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada Fair	Gabriel Balint, Brock University, Canada Poor
Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties	Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Excellent	Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Good	Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Average	Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Fair	Mark C. Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties Poor
Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy	Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy Excellent	Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy Good	Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy Average	Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy Fair	Fabio Mencarelli, University of Tuscia, Italy Poor
Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California	Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California Excellent	Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California Good	Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California Average	Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California Fair	Martin Mendez-Costabel, E&J Gallo Winery, California Poor
Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock	Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Excellent	Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Good	Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Average	Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Fair	Thayne Montague, Texas Tech University, Lubbock Poor
Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator)	Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator) Excellent	Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator) Good	Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator) Average	Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator) Fair	Patty Skinkis, Oregon State University, Corvallis (Moderator) 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