Exit this survey

Enology – Phenolic Extraction Session

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Please evaluate each speaker. (speakers listed in presentation order)

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo	L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Excellent	L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Good	L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Average	L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Fair	L. Federico Casassa (Moderator), California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Poor
Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis	Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis Excellent	Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis Good	Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis Average	Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis Fair	Jordan Beaver, University of California, Davis Poor
James Campbell, University of California, Davis	James Campbell, University of California, Davis Excellent	James Campbell, University of California, Davis Good	James Campbell, University of California, Davis Average	James Campbell, University of California, Davis Fair	James Campbell, University of California, Davis Poor
Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis	Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis Excellent	Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis Good	Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis Average	Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis Fair	Cristina Medina Plaza, University of California, Davis Poor
Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany	Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany Excellent	Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany Good	Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany Average	Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany Fair	Pascal Wegmann-Herr, DLR-Rheinpfalz, Germany Poor
Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames	Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames Excellent	Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames Good	Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames Average	Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames Fair	Erin Norton, Iowa State University, Ames 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