Effective Teacher Interviews

How do I hire good teachers?

Jennifer L. Hindman

• Publisher: ASCD
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781416619970
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Teacher quality is the school-related factor that most affects student learning, so selecting the best candidate for open teaching positions has enormous implications. In Effective Teacher Interviews, Jennifer L. Hindman provides practical advice on how to conduct hiring interviews that reliably predict a teacher's success, including guidance on applying research to the interview process; developing meaningful, legal interview questions; assembling and training an interview team; matching candidates' skills to your schools' needs; and using the best interview strategies. With these tips on refocusing the interview process, you'll be better prepared to select and hire the teachers who will make a positive difference for your students and your school.

How Do I Start?

When a teacher position opens, consider what your students and school need the new hire to know and be able to do. Think of the teacher selection process as an investment in your school’s success. We’ll start with the research to make the process efficient and effective and then you’ll be able to transfer what you’re doing and learning from one interview to the next. Keep in mind that an instructional leader hires many individual teachers—decisions that matter greatly to the achievement of students and will cost the school system millions of dollars. That money is well spent when effective teachers are selected. Effective Teacher Interviews empowers instructional leaders to positively affect student learning through intentional selection of teaching faculty.

So how do you find good teachers? Despite the far-reaching ramifications of any hiring decision, I found that 73 percent of U.S. principals weren’t trained by their school systems in how to conduct fair, legal, and effective interviews (Hindman & Stronge, 2009). Many just borrowed their interview questions from other administrators. Of course, professional collaboration is fine if the questions are good, but disastrous if they are poorly constructed or contain impermissible inquiries. In my research, mostly in the discipline of applied psychology and, to a lesser degree, in K–12 literature, I discovered how to refine the teacher interview to get better outcomes and will guide you through the process of writing and conducting an effective, legal interview.

Briefly we will explore related topics of recruitment, evaluation, performance interviewing, and retention. Also, knowing what the effective teacher research says is important to constructing a valid and reliable interview and assessing the quality of the interviewees (see James Stronge’s Qualities of Effective Teachers, 2007). The goal of this volume, however, is to help you create an effective interview by learning how to do these five tasks:

1. Apply teacher selection research and interviewing best practices to your school’s interview process
2. Develop meaningful interview items and avoid questions that are not legally permissible
3. Select and train an interview team
4. Match candidates’ skills and experiences to your school’s needs
5. Get the most from your interview time

With budgets tight, you can use the hiring process to improve your school without writing a single plan or sending staff to professional development. When hiring a teacher, instructional leaders possess the opportunity to select someone with the knowledge, skills, and abilities that complement their staff and initiatives (Donaldson, 1990). A well-constructed interview solicits information from the interviewee about the glows and blows of past performances. I recommend that you address the four research-based interview facets when you write the interview questions. A star✩next to an item indicates the best practice identified in the research literature for its specific purpose.

Facet 1: Write Good Questions

What gets asked gets answered. How interview items are phrased influences the response given. If you ask a candidate about high-yield instructional strategies, he or she can tell you about them; however, if you really want to know how well or if an interviewee has used those strategies, the item or question needs to be written differently. Researchers have examined and determined which question types most effectively predict future job performance. Four types of questions are described:

1. Opinion questions are good for assessing how an interviewee works with other teachers and for assessing the interviewee’s ability to communicate; however, assessing the response is highly subjective. An example, “What is your teaching philosophy?”

2. Fact questions are knowledge or skill-based with right and wrong responses. They do not necessarily inform an interviewer of whether the interviewee knows what to do with the information. During a science teacher interview, a fact question is, “What are MSDS?”

3. Situational questions, also called hypothetical questions, are better than fact or opinion questions. The question provides a situation from which the applicant is to respond. The notable pitfall is that situational questions may be answered too generally or in exhausting detail. For example, “What would you do if a parent came to your classroom multiple times in a two-week period for impromptu conferences before and during school?” The experienced and effective applicant knows that there are many “ifs” in addressing a situation and the tendency is to give either a broad encompassing response or a detailed longer response. If a candidate has never encountered a particular situation, he can still answer the question because he will know what you want to hear. Situational questions are good at measuring job knowledge (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). This type of question asks applicants what they would do in a situation and is effective at soliciting job knowledge (Conway & Peneno, 1999).

✩4. Experienced-based questions, also called past behavior questions, are an effective way to learn information about job experiences and therefore predict future job performance. For example, “Share with me how you addressed a situation when a colleague was late in giving you a contribution that was needed to meet a deadline.” This kind of question encourages applicants to share their experiences (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002). The way the question is phrased evokes responses that provide evidence of teacher quality and the experienced-based wording makes it more difficult for a candidate to use preconceived responses (Hanson, 2009). Assuming that the interview and employee evaluation are aligned and used by knowledgeable and trained personnel, the validity of this kind of question is high. When interviewers’ ratings of candidate responses were compared with supervisors’ ratings of employee performances, the correlations were statistically significant (Conway & Peneno, 1999; Huffcutt, Weekley, Wiesner, DeGroot, & Jones, 2001; Krajewski, Goffin, McCarthy, Rothstein, & Johnston, 2006; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995; Taylor & Small, 2002).

Facet 2: Determine Criteria for Good Answers

Thinking through and defining criteria for rating interview responses is part of the planning process. Although interviewers may use several ways to assess the quality of responses, here are a few common practices:

1. In the self-determined approach, the interviewer only has questions with no defined means of recording the quality of the response. Whether to note the content of the response or to record anything is left to the interviewer.

2. In the quick checks approach, the interviewer indicates if a response is great, good, OK, or poor by checking a box. There is no criteria for assessing the response.

✩3. A behaviorally anchored rubric provides a common continuum for multiple interviewers to assess the quality of a response.

I recommend using a four-level rubric so that there are two levels to indicate acceptable responses that meet or exceed expectations and two levels for weaker responses that need improvement or are unsatisfactory. A three-level rubric consisting of unacceptable, acceptable, and target could work as well; the key is to evaluate the responses (Clement, 2007). A rubric serves to reduce an interviewer’s bias and subjectivity in rating the response (Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997).

Keep in mind that a single rating of the overall interview or interviewee can be easily skewed. The interviewee’s response to an initial question that would rate either very high or very low may influence the overall rating. If the question is answered well, the interviewer may subconsciously look for the good in all subsequent responses. Conversely, if the first response is poor, the interviewer may subconsciously try to validate that initial negative impression. To address this problem, interviewers need to rate the response to each question individually prior to asking the next item. This practice allows the interviewer’s focus to move from one response to the next with as much objectivity as possible.

A rubric establishes specific criteria for each level of response and allows interviewers to focus on assessing desirable qualities. Further, a rubric supports interviewers who are not familiar with a particular content area or specialty to better assess responses. For example, a study comparing interview ratings given by special education administrators and ratings given by principals who did not have special education backgrounds found the ratings to be comparable (Ebmeier, Beutel, & Dugan, 2010). A strength of rubrics is that their use reduces variability among raters (Hanson, 2009). Further, using a defined rubric to evaluate responses helps interviewers focus on the job-relatedness quality of the response instead of applicant-specific factors, such as ingratiation techniques (e.g., flattery), an annoying voice, or a great outfit (Levashina et al., 2014).

Facet 3: Provide Note-taking Space

The research into the usefulness of note-taking and how it affects interviews shows some findings that support note-taking and other findings that are inconclusive. Interviewers often take notes and there are good reasons why. Different studies have found that taking notes (1) increases procedural accountability (Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002); (2) is often focused on applicants’ behavior (Burnett, Fan, Motowidlo, & DeGroot, 1998); and (3) assists with recall of interview information (Macan & Dipboye, 1994; Middendorf & Macan, 2002). Here are the three obvious options for note-taking during an interview:

1. Take notes,

2. Do not take notes, or

✩3. Choose whether to take notes.

The group that chose whether to take notes had better recall than those participants in the other two groups (Burnett et al., 1998). Ideally, interview notes paraphrase what the applicant said or capture direct quotes. Some interviewers use exclamation points, stars, smiley or frowny faces, or question marks in their notes; however, when the interview day is over, most interviewers cannot remember what compelled them to make the mark. Given that interview documents, including notes, should be kept on file for several years, it is much better to have specific information. If you choose to write notes, avoid making judgments and focus on communicating what the applicant said. It is extremely helpful to record specific examples for later reference.

Facet 4: Establish the Level of Structure

The structure of an interview influences the information you can learn. Studies have examined how much structure is optimal for an interview to be predictive of future job performance and how much structure is needed to be a guard against discrimination during hiring. The following three levels of structure have been studied:

1. Unstructured interviews are similar to playing a pick-up football game. The game unfolds without a series of plays to run. Interview questions may not be written and, if they are, they may not be used. An unstructured interview is great for getting to know a person, building rapport, and providing a strong indication of how the candidate interacts with others.

2. Semi-structured interviews have a framework of key ideas or questions to ask. It is a format that is responsive to exploring a divergent path, yet allows the interviewer to refocus discussion as needed.

✩3. Structured interviews provide each interviewee with the same series of questions, giving equal opportunities to share information about their work experiences. Although interviewers may probe for additional information, they do not prompt for better answers. Structured interviews have higher validity scores than semi-structured interviews (Campion et al., 1997; Conway, Jako, & Goodman, 1995; Levashina et al., 2014; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994) mostly because the questions are predetermined. An analysis of complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that structured interviews were more legally defensible than less structured interviews (Williamson, Campion, Malos, Roehling, & Campion, 1997). Principals reported that their hiring decisions were best with a structured interview (Bourke & Brown, 2014). In addition, structured interviews allow you to plan questions that align to the major and vital job responsibilities.

Now that you have background on what the interview research says, consider how you will use it to inform your professional practice. Use the time when applicants are applying for your open position and to construct your interview.

How Do I Find Good Applicants?

Most of your potential interviewees will come from the efforts made by the human resources (HR) department. Communicate anticipated job openings to HR so they can look for suitable candidates at job fairs and as applications come in. It is one thing to say “Mrs. Snow is retiring, and we need a 7th grade teacher.” It is quite another to officially notify HR that your school needs “a middle school science-endorsed teacher who can demonstrate expertise in integrating nonfiction reading and writing opportunities into problem-based learning labs in the classroom.”

Seek Applicants from Human Resources

The HR department will likely post the teacher position on the school system website, relevant listservers, and physical job sites. Many professional teacher organizations have career centers on their websites where, for a fee, school systems can post openings to target applicants with particular qualifications.

HR is committed to securing viable applicants to enhance the teaching and learning in the schools they serve and they often involve building-level leadership in recruitment. One HR director sends principals to recruit for specific openings at job fairs where the district has found similar successful candidates. For example, if a principal has an opening for a teacher of special education, that principal is asked to attend a corresponding job fair and collect résumés. Upon return, the principal reviews the résumés and ranks the candidates. The HR department follows up with candidates at the top of the list to ensure that they complete the online applications, including all required attachments, and then schedules screening interviews.

Recruit Additional Applicants

As a school leader, your efforts should complement the work being done by the HR department. Obvious strategies include recruiting from within your building by notifying great substitute teachers, preservice teachers, and paraprofessionals about job openings. Also, consider how to connect with colleagues—especially if they have a reduction-in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• How Do I Start?
• Encore Divider
• Encore
• References
• Related Resources
• About the Author
• Copyright