Exit this survey

Water Use Efficiency Symposium

Presenter Information & Speaker Evaluation: Water Use Efficiency Symposium

25% of survey complete.

Question Title

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

	Excellent	Good	Average	Fair	Poor
Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo	Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Excellent	Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Good	Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Average	Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Fair	Mark Battany, University of California Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo Poor
Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas	Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas Excellent	Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas Good	Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas Average	Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas Fair	Doug Caroom, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP, Texas Poor
Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California Excellent	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California Good	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California Average	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California Fair	Mark Greenspan, Advanced Viticulture, California Poor
Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York	Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York Excellent	Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York Good	Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York Average	Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York Fair	Alan Lakso, Cornell University, New York Poor
Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia	Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia Excellent	Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia Good	Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia Average	Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia Fair	Michael McCarthy, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Australia Poor
Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis	Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis Excellent	Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis Good	Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis Average	Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis Fair	Andrew McElrone, University of California, Davis Poor
Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain	Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain Excellent	Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain Good	Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain Average	Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain Fair	Hipolito Medrano, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain Poor
Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis	Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis Excellent	Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis Good	Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis Average	Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis Fair	Vinay Pagay, Oregon State University, Corvallis Poor
Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California	Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California Excellent	Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California Good	Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California Average	Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California Fair	Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, California Poor
Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada	Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada Excellent	Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada Good	Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada Average	Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada Fair	Andy Reynolds, Brock University, Canada Poor
Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside	Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside Excellent	Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside Good	Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside Average	Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside Fair	Kurt Schwabe, University of California, Riverside Poor
Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington	Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington Excellent	Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington Good	Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington Average	Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington Fair	Michael Schwisow, Schwisow & Associates, Washington Poor
Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California	Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California Excellent	Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California Good	Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California Average	Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California Fair	Donald Suarez, United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Service Salinity Lab, Riverside, California 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