Exit this survey

Enology – Phenolics Session

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation

33% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator)	James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator) Excellent	James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator) Good	James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator) Average	James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator) Fair	James Kennedy, Constellation Brands, Inc., California (Moderator) Poor
Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis	Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis Excellent	Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis Good	Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis Average	Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis Fair	Charles Henschen, University of California, Davis Poor
Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities	Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Excellent	Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Good	Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Average	Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Fair	Caroline Merrell, Washington State University, Tri-Cities Poor
Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis	Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis Excellent	Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis Good	Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis Average	Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis Fair	Anita Oberholster, University of California, Davis Poor
Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno	Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno Excellent	Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno Good	Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno Average	Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno Fair	Aude A. Watrelot, California State University, Fresno 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

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