Exit this survey

Viticulture - Water Relations Session

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

33% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator)	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator) Excellent	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator) Good	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator) Average	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator) Fair	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture Inc, California (Moderator) Poor
Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser	Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser Excellent	Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser Good	Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser Average	Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser Fair	Ben-Min Chang, Washington State University, Prosser Poor
Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada	Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada Excellent	Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada Good	Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada Average	Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada Fair	Nicolas Dimopoulos, The University of British Columbia, Canada Poor
Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis	Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis Excellent	Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis Good	Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis Average	Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis Fair	Xuemin Hou, University of California, Davis Poor
Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Excellent	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Good	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Average	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Fair	Vinay Pagay, University of Adelaide, Australia Poor
Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser	Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser Excellent	Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser Good	Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser Average	Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser Fair	Yun Zhang, Washington State University, Prosser 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