Exit this survey

Winemaking for Challenging Environments Symposium

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation: Winemaking for Challenging Environments Symposium

25% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis	Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis Excellent	Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis Good	Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis Average	Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis Fair	Roger Boulton, University of California, Davis Poor
Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock	Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock Excellent	Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock Good	Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock Average	Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock Fair	Ed Hellman, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension and Texas Tech University, Lubbock Poor
Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota	Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota Excellent	Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota Good	Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota Average	Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota Fair	Peter Hemstad, University of Minnesota Poor
Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland Excellent	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland Good	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland Average	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland Fair	Thomas Henick-Kling, Washington State University, Richland Poor
Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia	Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Excellent	Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Good	Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Average	Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Fair	Misha Kwasniewski, University of Missouri, Columbia Poor
Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York	Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York Excellent	Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York Good	Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York Average	Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York Fair	Anna Katharine Mansfield, Cornell University, New York Poor
Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station	Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station Excellent	Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station Good	Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station Average	Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station Fair	Justin Scheiner, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station Poor
Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas	Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas Excellent	Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas Good	Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas Average	Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas Fair	Mike Sipowicz, Texas Custom Wine Works, Texas Poor
Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh	Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Excellent	Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Good	Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Average	Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Fair	Sara Spayd, North Carolina State University, Raleigh Poor
Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis	Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis Excellent	Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis Good	Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis Average	Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis Fair	Andrew Walker, University of California, Davis Poor

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the following presenter information.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
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 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’ 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 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 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
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