Employment Interview Preparation: A Writing-to-Learn Approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Employment Interview Preparation: A Writing-to-Learn Approach

on

  • 4,310 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,310
Views on SlideShare
4,309
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
94
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.lmodules.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Employment Interview Preparation: A Writing-to-Learn Approach Document Transcript

  • 1. 1 Best Practices in Preparing Students for Mock Interviews 5,505 words with tables/target word count = 4,000 Katharine Hansen Creative Director EmpoweringSites.com 1250 Valley View Lane, DeLand, FL 32720-2364 khansen@stetson.edu, 386-740-8872, Fax: 386-740-9764 Submitted: Feb. XX, 2008 Gary C. Oliphant Associate Professor of Information Sciences Stetson University DeLand, FL Becky J. Oliphant Associate Professor of Marketing Stetson University DeLand, FL Randall S. Hansen Professor of Marketing Stetson University DeLand, FL
  • 2. 2 Abstract Previous studies have show the importance of employment-interview preparation in boosting the confidence of students and job-seekers when they interview. What is not known – and is the focus of this study – is which interview-preparation techniques best prepare interviewees. Results and implications from a survey of 9 business communication classes are discussed.
  • 3. 3 Introduction College instructors seeking to prepare their students for success in employment interviews use various methods, including, for example, mock interviews. In this study, we asked students which activities within and simultaneous with a business communication class had best prepared them for the class’s mock-interview activity. In addition, we offer descriptions of activities used to prepare students for mock interviews, as well as details about the mock-interview activity. Review of the Literature This literature review examines employment interviews, employment-interview preparation techniques, the relationship between preparation techniques (including training and coaching interventions), and the practice of using mock interviews in the curriculum of business communication and related classes. The employment interview, which according to Posthuma, Morgeson, and Campion, “continues to be one of the most popular selection and recruiting devices in organizations” (2002), and which is intended to “predict the future job success of applicants” (Dipboye & Gauglar, 1993, p. 136) is the subject of increasing research interest (Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002); in fact, Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, and Ferris (1999, p. 321) assert that the employment interview is “one of the most thoroughly researched topics in human resource management.” Interview Preparation Palmer, Campion, and Green (1999) note that a great deal of proprietary training information is extant on interviewing preparation but is not available to the public (p. 338). Research by Perry and Goldberg (1998) suggests that interview preparation is important because their study showed that when recruiters were asked about college students they interviewed, interviewing skills surpassed the students’ background or experience in recruiter assessments of the likelihood that their companies would consider hiring a given student. We can then speculate that students who have better interview skills than others may have dedicated more effort to interview preparation than others. Most scholarly research on employment-interview preparation has been limited to narrowly defined and limited populations (Palmer, Campion, & Green, 1999). These authors also point out that a great portion of the
  • 4. 4 scholarly research discusses improving various interview behaviors without empirically testing whether these improved behaviors result in successful interview outcomes. Outside of scholarly literature, numerous popular- press volumes on job-interviewing and general job-hunting offer advice on interview preparation. Palmer, Campion, and Green (1999) observe that many job-seekers rely on these “how-to” books to prepare themselves for interviews. Most popular-press authors (e.g., Medley, 1993, Martin, 2004) agree that few interviewees prepare adequately for interviews. Barone and Switzer (1995) go so far as to note that, while college students spend in excess of 4,000 hours studying and attending class to prepare for their career, the average interviewee spends less than an hour preparing for a job interview. Authors of popular-press books also agree on the reason for the lack of preparation – job-seekers have no idea what questions will be asked in interviews, so they assume there is no way to prepare. Finally, popular-press authors agree that this typical job-seeker rationale for lack of preparation is faulty because interview questions – or at least general areas of interview questions – actually can be predicted to some degree, and lists of frequently asked interview questions are available in any number of books, articles, and on numerous Web sites. Richard Bolles (2007), author of job-hunting perennial bestseller, What Color is Your Parachute?, in fact, asserts that all interview questions spin off from just five basic areas of inquiry. Agreeing that it is impossible to predict exactly what questions a given interviewer will ask of a job- seeker, Carole Martin (2004, p. 121) nevertheless notes that “the secret to success in any interview is preparation.” Barone and Switzer agree that “preparation is essential in order to interview effectively” (1995, p. 213). Washington (1995) points out that since so few job-seekers prepare for interviews, those who do will “gain a real edge over others through preparation” (p. 109). Numerous authors, both scholarly and popular press (e.g., Levine, n.d.; Barone & Switzer, 1995), suggest that job-seekers review lists of typical questions to gain an idea of what types of information the interviewer likely seeks. Barone and Switzer further suggest that would-be interviewees “organize their thoughts about what information is important to share” (1995, p. 224). The authors then recommend that the candidate “consider possible answers to possible questions.” Washington (1995, p. 7) advises the job-seeker to “jot down” the points he or she wishes to make in response to typical questions. Similarly, Barbour et al (1995, p. 55) suggest developing a list of what characteristics might be needed for success in the position for which the job-seeker is
  • 5. 5 interviewing. Both the scholarly literature and popular-press work contain examples of advice that prospective interviewees should engage in writing exercises to prepare for job interviews. Among these is the recommendation of H. Anthony Medley (1993, p. 19), author of one of the earliest popular-press books devoted solely to interviewing, who suggests that the job-seeker prior to interviewing write an autobiography, which can provide insight into the candidate, as well as reveal areas that he or she may not wish to discuss with an interviewer. Crosby (2000) similarly suggests that that candidates practice describing themselves, citing professional characteristics with examples from school and work experience. Karl Smart (2004) describes a technique in which college students are assigned to write “detailed proof statements” (p. 202) about themselves. Equating these statements to “30-second commercials about themselves” (p. 202), Smart describes them as statements that provide specific examples that demonstrate that students possess the skills needed to perform jobs they would consider applying for. Smart suggests that polished “proof statements” can provide potent fodder for such typical interview questions as “Tell me about yourself” and “Tell me about one of your strengths” (p. 204). Washington (1995) suggests as preparation for interviewing some detailed writing exercises – involving identifying about 30 accomplishments and writing 100-400 words on the top 12 of these, and then isolating skills demonstrated by each accomplishment (p. 198-202). Rehearsal, Practice, and Mock Interviews Rehearsal is frequently mentioned in advice about employment-interview preparation, particularly in support of rehearsal’s positive effect on the interviewee’s self-assurance. Crosby (2000) notes that interviewers themselves suggest that prospective interviewees rehearse interviews with a career counselor or friend “to gain confidence and poise.” Seitz and Cohen (1992) write that “through mental rehearsal, job seekers can practice interviews with a successful outcome until the unconscious mind believes it has already happened.” The anonymous article, “Winning the battle of the nerves” (2003), also notes the confidence-boosting effect of rehearsal: “… if you practice responses to interview questions you think you’ll be asked, you’ll feel more secure during the real interview.” Washington (1995, p. 7) similarly suggests that practicing responses will help the job- seeker feel “confident and relaxed.” Research on memory (Guest & Murphy, 2000) has stressed the role of
  • 6. 6 rehearsal and repetition. Barone and Switzer (1995, p. 224) recommend “practicing interview answers aloud,” a process that “provides the opportunity to actually hear how they sound.” Barbour et al (1995) also suggest rehearsing, especially with someone who doesn’t know much about the position the job-seeker plans to interview for. In their study of the extent to which interview-preparation techniques impact interview performance, Maurer, Solamon, Andrews, and Troxtel (2001) used role-playing, a form of rehearsal, with their study participants, using five sample questions. Rehearsal as a technique for successful interview preparation is the entire premise behind Gottesman’s and Mauro’s popular-press The Interview Rehearsal Book (1999). The literature reveals several instances of interview-preparatory activities and mock interviews in business schools, communication classes, and business communication classes. Clark (2005) reports on co- curricular program at Xavier University in which interview-preparation activities, including optional mock interviews, are offered over a three-year period. Graded mock interviews are a component of communications courses that served as the basis for a study by Young, Behnke, and Mann (2004), who suggest that instructors whose curricula include job interviewing may want to provide activities that reduce interview anxiety. Lundelius and Poon (1997) describe a mock-interview assignment in a business communication class in which students interviewed members of other class sections based on the assumption that students interviewing peers in their own sections would take the interviews less seriously. Marks and O’Connor (2006) detail a mock-interview assignment that takes just one class session, preceded by one class period spent discussing preparation techniques. We speculate that in some classes, mock interviews are seen as an end unto themselves; they are conducted without preparation opportunities, with students expected to learn intrinsically about interviewing skills from the mock interviews themselves, as was the case in research by Thompson and Williams (1987). Links among Preparation Techniques, Interview Performance, and Perceived Level of Preparation Research is limited on the relationship between job-interview preparation and interview performance. In an early study, Harrison (1973) found that job applicants received more job offers after a one-day training session than they had before the training but he concluded that too many other variables precluded declaring the training the reason the applicants garnered more offers. Campion and Campion (1987) conducted a study that found no difference in performance between groups
  • 7. 7 that underwent a half-day training program and those who had not participated in the study, nor did they identify a performance difference between those who had attended the training and those who had employed self-study techniques. Maurer, Solamon, Andrews, and Troxtel (2001), replicating and extending the work of Maurer, Solamon, and Troxtel (1998), found that “voluntary attendance at an coaching session was positively related to situational interview performance” (p. 709). The authors describe coaching sessions of up to 2 hours in which activities included “modeling, behavioral rehearsal, role-playing, lecture, discussion, programmed materials, videotape, and verbal feedback” (p. 709). Largely missing in the literature is research on how well interviewees feel various employment-interview preparation techniques in fact prepare them for job interviews, although 78% of training participants in the 1987 study by Campion and Campion reacted positively to the program and indicated that it had enhanced their interviewing skills and effectiveness. Further, Maurer and Solamon (2006) conducted a study showing that interview coaching sessions of up to 2 hours assisted in preparing public-safety candidates for interviews in which they sought promotions, and the coaching also played a role in interview performance. Study Objectives The objective of this study was to survey students on which activities they participated in during or simultaneous with a business-communication class and which activities they found helpful in preparing them for the class’s mock interview exercise. Participants were further asked to identify the single most helpful activity in preparing them for the mock interviews. Methodology Three semesters of a junior-level business communication class were surveyed for this study. Each semester consisted of three sections of the class, with roughly 24 students in each section. The sample consisted mainly of college juniors, though a small number of sophomores and seniors also participated. The survey was administered after students had completed the mock-interview activity; they knew their grades and had received feedback from the instructor, so they had a sense of how well they had performed in the interviews. In all, 201
  • 8. 8 students were surveyed. The survey presented the following options that students could choose as having been activities in which they participated and found helpful in preparing them for the mock interview. Explanations of the preparatory activities follow:  Actual job interviews(s)  Informational interview(s)  20 interview questions assignment  Perfect Interview simulation in Career Services  Partner interviewing  Class lecture/discussion  Class texts  Quintessential Careers Job Interviewing Tutorial  Playing the game “Pitch a Story”  Other Explanation of Preparatory Activities Approximately six 75-minute class sessions and several out-of-class assignments prior to the mock interview activity were devoted to preparing students for these interviews. Of the activities that surveyed students could cite as having helped them prepare for the mock interviews, most were required elements of the class. Given that the literature (Campion & Campion, 1987; Maurer & Solamon, 2006) points out that most interview- preparation interventions comprise multiple techniques (lecture, discussion, role-playing, practice, feedback, modeling), a variety of preparatory activities was offered. A description of each activity follows: Actual job interviews(s): Actual job interviews, of course, were ancillary to preparation provided by the instructor and out of the instructor’s control. Some students happened to undergo interviews for jobs or internships during the time they were enrolled in the class or up to a year before. Informational interview(s): All students were required to conduct at least one informational interview during the semester; they could also conduct two additional informational interviews as one of the options for their final project. Informational interviews were not framed as a preparatory activity for mock interviews except
  • 9. 9 to the extent that the format of the interviews bore some resemblance to employment interviews. Students were advised to dress and act professionally. They were assigned to find out more about a job that they might be interested in pursuing and thus, in some cases, interviewed individuals with hiring power. Unlike in an employment interview, however, the students were the interviewers, not the interviewees. The informational interview assignment took place outside the month during which students prepared for mock interviews. The technique aligns with an assignment described by Sincoff (2004) in which students interviewed professionals to practice communication skills. 20 interview questions assignment: Students were assigned to compose written responses to frequently asked interview questions. They could choose one of two Web-based questionnaires through which to submit the assignment: either a mix of traditional and behavioral job-interview questions aimed at college students and new graduates at http://www.quintcareers.com/interview_question_database/college_student_mixed.html or a mix of traditional and behavioral job-interview questions aimed at established job-seekers at http://www.quintcareers.com/interview_question_database/jobseeker_mixed.html (for nontraditional students or those with significant job experience). Perfect Interview simulation: This commercial product is described on its vendor’s Web site as a “multimedia software package complete with over 1,500 interview questions, answers, and hints, which have all been professionally produced on digital video.” Students had the option of participating in the Perfect Interview simulation, which is housed in the university’s Career Services office. Students were offered bonus points toward their final grade if they chose to participate in Perfect Interview. Partner interviewing: One class session during the month-long preparatory period was dedicated to an activity in which students were randomly paired with a partner and asked to interview each other outside the classroom. They were given a list of frequently asked interview questions and were also free to pose other questions. Students were also encouraged to give each other feedback on their interview performances. The partner interviews took place the same day that students were required to submit the 20 questions assignment. Class lecture/discussion: Class lecture and discussion periods in the month preceding the mock interviews consisted of the following: • A session on interview preparation and nonverbal behaviors, presented in a game-show format.
  • 10. 10 • A session on traditional interview questions in which each student was asked to research a given questions or genre of questions and report to the class: (a) employers’ motivation for asking this type of question (b) strategies for responding to this type of question. • A session in which students were assigned to prepare five “success stories” about their accomplishments and then asked to draw from those stories while responding to behavior-based interview questions in round-robin fashion. This technique aligns with research by Ralston, Kirkwood, and Burant (2004) describing how to help interviewees tell their stories in response to behavior-based questions, as well as Martin’s recommendation that job candidates write “success stories” to prepare for interviews, particularly behavioral interviews (2004, p. 127). • A session with a human-resources professional as a guest speaker, offering pet peeves and advice about interview content and behavior. Class texts: Students were assigned to read the interviewing portions of How to Get a Job with Any Major by Donald Asher, as well as an article on behavioral interviewing at http://www.quintcareers.com/behavioral_interviewing.html. Quintessential Careers Job Interviewing Tutorial: Another reading, the Quintessential Careers Job Interviewing Tutorial at http://www.quintcareers.com/job_interviews/, was treated in the survey separately from the other class readings because it was foundational to the month of mock interview preparations and was referred to throughout the month. Playing the game “Pitch a Story”: Students played this storytelling board game (described at http://pitchastory.com/) during the class immediately before mock interviews began. The rationale for using the game at this time was to loosen students up, spark their creativity, and encourage them to communicate spontaneously. Although students played the game during all three of the semesters in which the survey was administered, it was only in the latter two semesters that they played the game immediately before mock interviews – with the intent of enhancing their interview preparation; thus, this item was not included in the survey during the first semester. The Mock Interview Activity
  • 11. 11 While the actual mock interviews were only peripherally a part of the methodology of the study, we include a description of the activity to provide context for the subjects’ survey responses. In this business communication class, the mock interview activity in which these preparatory activities culminated was conducted over four 75-minute class sessions. Interviews were conducted in panel format, with 3-4 students comprising the bulk of the panel. The other 2 panelists were the instructor and a guest human resources professional. Only the student panelists asked questions, which were provided to them. To ensure that each student was evaluated based on the same set of questions, no ad-libbed or follow-up questions were allowed. Some questions were taken from the 20 questions assignment. About 8-9 questions were asked in each interview. The instructor (70%) and student panelists (30%) all contributed to the student interviewees’ grade. The guest professional’s feedback was limited to comments. Each student had the opportunity to serve as an interviewer on the panel and be an interviewee, so each experienced the interviewing process from both sides. After grades were tallied, students got feedback in one-on-one sessions with the instructor in which comments from all panelists were shared. Findings As shown in greater detail in Table 1, more than half the surveyed students participated in informational interviews, the 20 questions assignment, partner interviews, class lectures/discussion, and the Quintessential Careers tutorial and found those activities useful in preparing them for the mock interviews. A quarter to a third of respondents participated in actual job interviews, the optional Perfect Interview simulation, assigned texts, and the Pitch-a-Story game and found these activities useful in preparing them for the mock interviews. The “other” category for preparatory activities was cited by 11% of respondents as activities they participated in and found useful; responses in this category usually comprised practice interviewing with a friend; additional responses included interviewing oneself, undergoing interviews for campus organizations, participating in career-related activities in another class, preparing a resume, and talking to friends who had previously taken the class. Asked to identify the single most helpful activity for preparing them for mock interviews, students by a wide margin (52%) cited the 20 questions assignment. Distantly trailing among activities singled out as most helpful in preparing were the partner interviews (13%) and class lectures/discussions (11%). No significant differences were seen in responses among responses from students at the sophomore,
  • 12. 12 junior, or senior level. While 66% of respondents had undergone at least one actual job interview (and some had undergone significantly more) in the year preceding the mock interviews, only 5% of those who had undergone them cited real interviews as the most helpful preparation activity for mock interviews. Some students who said they had undergone real interviews did not even cite the interviews as having been at all helpful in preparing them for mock interviews. No students singled out assigned texts as the most helpful preparation activity. We should note, however, that in this class, students were not tested on this reading material and thus may not have been motivated to do the reading. Although we did not directly intend to gather qualitative data, the open-ended nature of some of the survey questions prompted students to offer comments, the most salient of which appear in Table 2. [Insert Table 1 about here] [Insert Table 2 about here] Discussion Why the 20 Questions Assignment Prevailed The literature may provide clues as to why students so overwhelmingly selected the written 20 questions assignment as the most helpful in preparing them. While the type of mock/practice interviewing and rehearsal that Gottesman and Mauro (date) tout can be helpful to interview preparation, Emig (1981) points out that “writing tends to be a more responsible and committed act than talking” (p. 72). In studying the extent to which interview-preparation techniques impact interview performance, Maurer, Solamon, Andrews, and Troxtel (2001) determined that a preparation behavior that correlated with high-scoring interviews was “organization,” in which participants described such activities as: “Used the pencil and paper provided to write notes before giving my answers,” and “Organized my answers in a chronological, logical, and easy-to-follow manner.” Demonstrating thoughtfulness and organized thinking was positively associated with interview performance, the authors assert (similarly, Maurer & Troxtel, 2006).
  • 13. 13 Although this organization behavior took place during the interview itself and not beforehand, it is not too great a leap to extrapolate that the advantages of composing written responses to typical interview questions before an interview may be similar to the benefits of jotting down organizational notes during the interview. “By using the organization strategy, the interviewee can think carefully about all of the behaviors that he or she would engage in given a specific situation and then organize them in a manner that makes the most sense given the hypothetical scenario,” write Maurer, Solamon, Andrews, and Troxtel (2001). “By outlining his or her thoughts before speaking, his or her answer can be of higher quality than if he or she just begins to freely spout thoughts and behaviors as they come to mind.” Gottesman and Mauro (1999) emphasize writing as a form of rehearsal and a way to organize one’s thoughts in advance of a job interview. “The simple act of getting some thoughts down on paper,” the authors write (p. 4-5), “… will help you to think more clearly and specifically about what you have to offer potential employers.” Gottesman and Mauro provide numerous writing exercises in the book and stress that simply thinking about the answers to these exercises is not sufficient; to remember good ideas, writing is highly recommended. Research by Hansen and Hansen (2006) explored the exercise of composing written responses to frequently asked job-interview questions. Attempting to connect this practice with Writing-to-Learn theory, the authors found trend-indicative results, though not statistically significant outcomes, when comparing interview performance (as evaluated by an impartial human-resources professional) of participants who had composed written responses to commonly asked interviews questions to subjects who had not done so. Support for the Partner Interviewing Activity The literature also mentions activities similar to the partner interviews that 13% of students cited as most helpful. These interviews align with an interview-prep activity that Young, Behnke, and Mann (2004) describe and also bear a relationship with Maurer’s and Troxtel’s 2006 results in which preparing by observing others performing mock interviews was associated with higher performance. Limitations of the Research This study looked at techniques that might be effective in preparing students for mock interviews. It did
  • 14. 14 not, of course, demonstrate that methods that students perceive as preparing them well for mock interviews also prepare them for actual job interviews. The study also did not examine how effective the preparation methods were in aiding participants’ performance, only which method the students felt had prepared them the best. The sample size of the study was relatively small (201), and limited to just one university. Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research In this study, students significantly cited an exercise in which they composed written responses to interview questions as the most helpful activity for preparing them for the class mock-interview assignment. We speculate that the extensive amount of time dedicated to preparing students for mock interviews in this class was unusual. Since many instructors do not have the luxury of that much time, it may be useful to identify activities that are most helpful in preparing students for mock interviews. The study raises questions that could be explored with future research: How do the preparation methods correlate with performance, as rated by grades or by a professional observer? What differences in student ratings of the preparation methods might be uncovered if students were asked before the mock interviews which method helped them feel most prepared (results that could be compared with post-mock-interview data)? Would any one of the cited methods have been as effective if not bolstered with all the other methods? And, importantly, how well do these preparation methods apply to real interviews? The fact that so few of this study’s participants who had participated in real interviews singled out those interviews as helpful in preparing them for mock interviews raises cautions that mock interviews in an academic setting may be significantly different from actual job interviews. We might also speculate that the students’ real job-interview experiences were negative or that since they may not have undergone the same level of preparation for the real interviews that they did for the mock interviews, the real interviews did not prepare them for their mock counterparts. Table 1
  • 15. 15 Activities participated in that may have helped prepare for class mock interviews N = 201 20 Pitch a QuintCareers Actual job Informational Perfect Partner Class Story* questions Texts interviewing Other interviews interviews interview interviews lecture/disc tutorial assignment 30% 59% 95% 25% 71% 72% 34% 37% 63% 11% *Data collected for 2 of the 3 semesters for which other data was collected Table 2 Qualitative comments by students
  • 16. 16 20 Questions Class lecture/discussion “…was the best because it simulated on-the-spot thinking.” (citing 5 Success Stories activity) “My nervousness is usually what holds me back, and that definitely made the “good to practice responding and the see examples of an ideal response.” interview less stressful.” (citing 5 Success Stories activity) “It “… it gave me a solid base to know what would be on the mock interview.” was good to see how others answered questions and think about how I would “… by far the most beneficial because it gave me the opportunity to really think.” answer them differently based on my own experiences.” “got me thinking ahead of time for good answers.” Partner Interviews “I would have rather done this prior to the class discussion.” “… most helpful to begin preparing and thinking about a professional interview “They were a pain to do, but I found them most helpful.” setting.” “… after you had given your answers, you had sample answers that you could “… because I received helpful review it with.” feedback.” “… [made me] aware of what was “engaged my critical thinking the most.” being done wrong.” “… really helped you get in the mindset to answer behavioral interviewing “… most rewarding because you got to questions.” sit and be interviewed by someone.” “…matched up better [than “… it allowed me to record stories that I could incorporate in the interview.” informational interview] content-wise.” “I had concrete questions and solid, visible answers.” “… it went through the possible questions and partners could work “… got me thinking in the right mindset.” through to find an answer.” “…It gave me insight into what employers look for and how to answer correctly.” Informational Interview(s) “… made us think about our answers in advance.” “… trains me to use actual interviews informationally as well and show some “… because we had to write down our responses and really think about it.” initiative in seeking info.” “…made me think about questions I would not have expected.” Actual Job Interviews “…they were off-the-wall and different.” “… helped me know I was qualified.” “… made me think of specific examples for the qualities I have.” Perfect Interview “… helped me think of skills, experience, etc., that I could use to answer a variety “It was very similar and fun to do.” of interview questions.” “… I could see where I need to perfect “… helped me to organize my thoughts so I have a basic idea of how to respond.” my weaknesses.” “… forced me to look at my answers and see where I could improve.” “… I liked how realistic it was and how you could see yourself and go over many different responses to the same “… because I like to prepare and write down my thoughts first.” question.” “… it gave me the chance to answer the kind of questions I “because you could view yourself.” would be asked.” References Barbour, K., Berg, F., Ennance, M., Greene, J. R., Hessig, M. J., Papworth, M., Radin, C., Renzy, E., & Suarez, J.
  • 17. 17 (1991). The quest: A guide to the job interview. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Barone, J. T. & Switzer, J. Y. (1995). Interviewing: Art and skill. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bolles, R. N. (2007). What color is your parachute? Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Campion, M. A., & Campion, J. E. (1987). Evaluation of an interview skills training program in a natural field experiment. Personnel Psychology, 40(4), 675-691. Clark, T. (2005). The business profession: A mandatory, noncredit, cocurricular career preparation program for undergraduate business majors. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 271-289. Crosby, O. (2000). Employment interviewing, Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 44(2). 14-18, 20. Dipboye, R. & Gaugler, B. B. (1993) Cognitive and behavioral processes on the selection interview. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, (pp. 135-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. (1999). Impression management tactics. In Eder, R. W. & Harris, M. M. (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 321-336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gottesman, D., & Mauro, B. (1999). The interview rehearsal book. New York: Berkley Books. Guest, K. E., & Murphy, D. S. (2000). In support of memory retention: a cooperative oral final exam. Education. 121(2), 350. Hansen, R. S. & Hansen, K. (March 2006). Employment Interview Preparation: Assessing the Writing-to-Learn Approach. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL), San Francisco, CA. Harrison, R. (1973, July). Interview training for job applicants. Industrial & Commercial Training, 5(7), 337-338. Levine, T. (n.d.). The top 10 questions most often asked by interviewers. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2004, from http://www.net-temps.com/careerdev/index.htm?type=topics&topic=interviewing&id=184 Lundelius, J., & Poon, E. (1997). Cross-sectioning mock job interviews for peer evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 165-170. Marks, M., & O’Connor, A. H. (2006, September). The round-robin interview. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(04), 264-275. Martin, C. (2004). Boost your interview I.Q. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • 18. 18 Maurer, T. J., & Solamon. (2006). The science and practice of a structured employment interview coaching program. Personnel Psychology, 59(2), 433-456. Maurer, T. J., Solamon, J. M., Andrews, K. D., & Troxtel, D. D. (2001). Interviewee coaching, preparation strategies, and response strategies in relation to performance in situational employment interviews: An extension of Maurer, Solamon, and Troxtel (1998). Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 0021-9010. Maurer, T. J., Solamon, J. M., & Troxtel, D. D. (1998). Relationship of coaching with performance in situational employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 128-136. Medley, H. A. (1992). Sweaty palms: The neglected art of being interviewed. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Palmer, D. K., Campion, M. A, & Green, P. C. (1999). Interviewing training for both applicant and interviewer. In Eder, R. W. & Harris, M. M. (Eds.). The employment interview handbook (pp. 337-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Perry, A. & Goldberg, C. (1998, Jan.). Who gets hired: Interviewing skills are a prehire variable. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 58(2), 47-55. Retrieved Oct. 15. 2004, from ProQuest database. Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 1+. Ralston, S. M., Kirkwood, W. G., & Burant, P. A. (2003). Helping interviewees tell their stories. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(3), 8-22. Sincoff, M. Z. (2004). The dyadic interview project. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 206-213. Smart, K. (2004, June). Articulating skills in the job search. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 198-205. Thompson, V. & Williams, K. (1987, Autumn). Mock interviews help to prepare for the real thing. Journalism Educator, 42(3), 36-37. Washington, T. (1995). Interview power: Selling yourself face to face. Bellevue, WA: Mount Vernon Press. Winning the battle of the nerves. (2003). CareerBuilder Employment Classified Advertising Section, Orlando Sentinel, Nov. 30, 2003.