David,
There is never a guarantee that a person will be 100% truthful in an interview. I believe it is better when the interviewee can talk about what they have domne rather than trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear. One good guard against this is to ask a similar question later in the interview o see if you get the same type of response.
Jeffrey Schillinger
Hi Jeffery,
I feel like we're talking past one another on this point a bit. I agree with you that giving people a chance to describe what they have done in the past is a valuable tool.
While at the same time I seems to me that you are interpreting my position to mean that I am concerned about the integrity of the person I am interviewing. I actually don't have many concerns in that regard. I would want experience, and preferably references, so these usually shouldn't be issues. I should be dealing with honest, trustworthy people.
However, a lack of accuracy in what one says about what they would do now, is not equal to a lack of honesty or truthfulness. If a person believes an incorrect thing about themselves, then when they share that incorrect thing, it is not an issue of honesty or consistency. They will believe that incorrect thing 5 minutes later too.
The reason that I see it this way is that I think the only serious critique of a hypothetical is that it is a situation that is just created by an interviewer, so it has the built in appearance of a desired answer-- which as you say could prompt the person to craft an answer to match what the interviewer wants to hear.
That said, I feel that one of the implicit points of an interview is to sell oneself for the position being sought. So I believe that it is naïve to think this same process is not being used by people when selecting one story to tell out of the many that must have experienced as professionals-- some good, some bad. If as a young teacher, I had bad habits, I would probably select a story from a time when I had outgrown them when answering the question-- unless I wanted to emphasize the ability to recognize an issue in myself, and take action to develop myself accordingly-- but that is an answer that is designed to elicit a positive evaluation in the interviewer.
So the key question becomes is that self-belief actually accurate? This is the same question that one would have to ask after asking a hypothetical situation too--- Just because they think they'd do X, would they really do that?
I guess that you could say that if a candidate can refer back to having acted in a particular way in the past, then the inferential leap should be smaller than it would be if the candidate is just guessing-- but that assumes that the story chosen is actually reflective of their true general responses in situations like that, and are not the product of selective memory and self serving biases causing memories about reactions that don't fit to be suppressed-- So it again boils down to actual accuracy-- not honesty.
Just to be clear: I personally feel the best answer that I could hear to a hypothetical question actually would be for the candidate to move the situation from a hypothetical, and share a real story from their experience since I agree that they should have some sense of how they actually deal with that kind of situation. --
However, I've been on the other end of it too, and have been flustered because I had never had that situation where a student became unprofessional over a grade, but I was being asked to describe a time when it did. Not being able to describe an actual scenario was frustrating, because I knew what I would do, and actually felt that part of the reason that I didn't have a story to share was because I take the time to connect individually with my students regularly, so I'd never had one just lose it and act unprofessionally. I had to say something to that effect, but the non-verbals I got in response indicated skepticism to me.
I remember at the time feeling that it was like being denied a driver's license renewal because I couldn't actually describe how I'd acted in an accident-- as if being a safe enough driver to avoid having been in them counted for nothing.
Allowing a candidate the chance to say what they would do in situations like that seems like a fair approach, and I wonder if the assumptions related to past-behavior were part of what created interviews like that as well.
As I wrap up this mini-novel, I feel like we're actually not that out of sync, since your answers seems focused on the big picture, and keeping the big picture in mind is a great thing--
But I do not understand the reluctance to try several approaches in an interview. Since people are complex, dynamic, and even contradictory enough by nature that no single theory of motivation seems sufficient to explain how and why we act the way we do, it seems fairly brazen to assume that one style of questioning is going to provide a such complete/sufficient picture that other sources would be superfluous.
I say this because I would assume that you would take note in an interview if you heard great responses, but the person sat there, arms folded, leaning back, with glare on his or her face the whole time-- especially if they told you that they were generally cheerful, open people.
Should I jump to fixed conclusions based on those observations? Of course not, but I don't think that I am wrong to admit that this type of body language would give me pause.
Extending that from there, I think having instructors confirm their beliefs that they can think on their feet, and conduct themselves professionally through word-choice, tone of voice and body language is a valid approach-- and my original question regarding the lowered regard for hypothetical questions in the profession still remains unanswered.
I am open to learning why this is the case, and provided my views above as a means of providing context to my assumptions and I why I have them. Since they seem reasonable to me based on what I know now, a simple statement that interviewers prefer behavioral approaches now seems to be an inadequate explanation.
While I agree that General Relativity explains a lot in physics, it is in fact its ability to explain things that causes me to respect it. The fact that Einstein said it doesn't. He said a lot of wrong things too.
I look forward to your reply.
-- David March
David,
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. There are may ways to get to the same place. Hypothetical situations are not my preference, but I see the value.
My personal belive is that most folks are basically good and will be truthful, with occasional imbellishment.
Jeffrey Schillinger
Hi Billy,
I think a good way to determine if a candidate is a subject matter expert is to look at the job description you have developed through KSAO's. This information has key things to Listen for. Also important is to listen to their responses and asking for examples to determine if they really know the subject.
This will help me as I come from a retail environment where the position and industry's are very different.
Regards,
Brenda
Expertise, knowledge, personality, customer support oriented and so on, but it is necessary to determine what characteristic the instructors need depending on the program of study.
An ideal candidate for Instructor would be 3-fold:
1. Knowledge of the material to be covered in the course. This would relate to curriculum and "real world" experience. Ability needs to be there in order to gain respect and credibility from their new students.
2. Teaching experience and skill set. If an instructor has teaching experience, how good are they at getting the covered and student mastery of what they learned. If an instructor is more experienced at the skills of what they are teaching, how in-depth do they know it and how well does this knowledge come across in the classroom for students to comprehend it.
3. Instructor personality and relating to their students. This is highly desirable because if students can relate to their instructor and respect the quality of the work demonstrated, being "tough" or "hard" BUT FAIR become attributes and standards by which students judge the quality of their learning and how it was obtained.
Carolyn,
Thank you for this post. Folks with all three of these traits are ideal, but not easy to find. How do you develop a subject matter expert with a strong personality into a master teacher?
Jeffrey Schillinger
This is a very interesting train of thought here. As I read through many of these forum posts I realize that not only do we have a list of knowledge, skills and abilities that we can look at in reference to the requirements of the teaching position but that there are different categories in which these characteristics could be categorized in. We of course have the "subject matter" expertise. We then need management skills. "People" skills are also very important. Personal and personality characteristics also make a difference. And this categorization can go on. So its not just one area in which a teacher must be competent in but many. This makes me realize how complex a teachers role and job are.
We have many very competent teachers on staff at our school. However, recently we have had a couple of new hires that did not work out so well. Even though they were very competent in many of the categories mentioned above. There ended up being a "fatal flaw" - one area in which they just didn't perform well and this damaged their effectiveness as teachers. Unfortunately, we were not able to see this flaw until they were already working in the classroom.
As a Dean of Education, I really strive to look for instructors who have a true passion for their field of study, and are just as excited about the subject matter as they are about teaching it. It is amazing to see how students get excited to learn from persons who are excited themselves.
Just because a candidate can perform well through the interview and demonstration process this does not mean that they can do the job. The job of a teacher is so multidimensional that the flaws may not show up until the candidate is actually on the job. We have had two situations in the past year in which this was the case. This ended up being a difficult situation for us and for the new emplopyees. In both cases we ended up parting ways.
What we are doing now is to get candidates in on a lower level where we can observe their performance and, as time goes by, determine if the candidate is up to the level of the demands of a teacher. By this I mean getting candidates in on the level of Teaching Assistants. This way we can observe how they perform and determine whether they demonstrate the knowledge, skills, personality traits, etc. to actually function at the level of a teacher. Basically, we have given ourselves more time to evaluate the candidate.
I feel that the skills and qualities that define the basis for which we hire our faculty must be program and/or course expertise, teaching engagement and interaction, and professionalism. It is my opinion that instructors that possess those characteristics produce some of the best student graduates with courses that obtain high retention rates and promote a hearty alumni foundation.
I look for a significant knowledge base - often described via academic degrees (BS/MS). I also look for pertinent job experiences - placing academics into the "real world". Is the applicant able to communicate on multiple levels? --> with students; other faculty; administrative staff. Is the applicant a TEAM PLAYER - able to internalize the goals of the facility and positively contribute to the overall success of the organization. There is more to be said - but this is a start.
OK - we seem to being saying the same things - let's look from the other side. What does the facility/institution have to offer? So if I am qualified as all of you say...but the compensation does not match - what do I do as an instructor do/think about the facility? We all say MONEY (read compensation) is not important, well guess what in 2014 it is Critical!
