Exit this survey

Enology – General Enology Session

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

33% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator)	Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator) Excellent	Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator) Good	Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator) Average	Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator) Fair	Stephen Menke, Colorado State University, Grand Junction (Moderator) Poor
Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo	Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Excellent	Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Good	Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Average	Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Fair	Federico Casassa, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Poor
Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington	Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington Excellent	Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington Good	Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington Average	Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington Fair	Jarrad Gollihue, University of Kentucky, Lexington Poor
Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia	Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Excellent	Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Good	Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Average	Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Fair	Misha T. Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Poor
Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis	Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis Excellent	Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis Good	Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis Average	Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis Fair	Ana Peterson, University of California, Davis Poor
Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis	Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis Excellent	Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis Good	Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis Average	Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis Fair	Courtney Tanabe, University of California, Davis 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