For Interviewing: Speaking, Listening, and Learning for Professional Life Second Edition Rob Anderson, Saint Louis University and




старонка1/4
Дата канвертавання25.04.2016
Памер327.9 Kb.
  1   2   3   4




INSTRUCTOR’S RESOURCE GUIDE

for

Interviewing: Speaking, Listening, and Learning for Professional Life
Second Edition

Rob Anderson, Saint Louis University

and

G. Michael Killenberg, University of South Florida St. Petersburg

Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s

objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi

Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi

New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece

Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore

South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam


Copyright  2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

http://www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.


Printing number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper.



CONTENTS
I. Preface
II. Why Teach Interviewing?
III. Who Are the Authors?

Brief Biographies


IV. A Vision for the Book
V. Key Features of Interviewing
VI. Guiding Principles for Experiential Interviewing Classes

Classroom Atmosphere

Assignments and Grades
VII. Sample Syllabus
VIII. Using the Book, Chapter by Chapter
I: Preface
An interviewing course is one of the most interesting and fulfilling opportunities available to communication instructors. In it, students make connections they’ve never considered before and grow in ways they’d never anticipated. At the same time, an interviewing course helps us stretch as instructors in important ways:
• Teachers who specialize in interpersonal communication research will find their interests relevant to teaching interviewing, but they also must become familiar with media practices and the range of professions communication students enter.
• Teachers who prepare students for media careers in such courses as reporting, broadcast management, public relations, and advertising will find their professional experience directly relevant to interviewing. But many of them will want to read more about the dynamics of face-to-face talk and benefit from broader exposure to communication theory.
• Teachers who stress skills and speech performance can continue to do so effectively in an interviewing course, but they also will want to be able to explain how fundamental concepts of communication research contribute to interviewing success.
• Teachers who stress goal setting, persuasion, and rhetorical success will find themselves well prepared to teach interviewing, but they also may want to learn more about the ethics, intercultural sensitivities, and philosophical principles underlying the complex choices of interviewers and interviewees in professional life.
In other words, an interviewing course is a nexus for many courses in an undergraduate communication curriculum. If you have the opportunity to teach interviewing, you’re likely to become a generalist in the best and most practical sense.
We developed this resource guide for instructors who want to augment their courses with extra materials, readings, and activities for their students, or who simply want to deepen their own knowledge and familiarity with various contexts of interviewing.
Despite the need to become a generalist, most instructors, we believe, teach interviewing from a “home base” determined by their own experience, skills, or research specialization. For some, that home base might be organizational interviewing. Others start from their interest in interpersonal conversation or from interviews conducted in their own scholarly research. But it’s a rare instructor who has direct professional or research experience in the full range of topics, methods, and approaches covered in the typical general interviewing course. Committed teachers supplement their own experience with a wide range of additional resources representing the direct experience of others.

We appreciate your interest in our ideas about interviewing and teaching, and we welcome comments and suggestions from you and your students about the book and, particularly, how we might improve subsequent editions.



Please reach us through e-mail at andersonr@accessus.net and killenbe@stpt.usf.edu.

II: Why Teach Interviewing?
A carefully prepared and rigorous interviewing class provides many benefits for students and teachers:
• Interviewing is one of the most practical skill clusters a communication student can learn. Effective interviewers and interviewees can expect to obtain jobs more readily and advance in careers more steadily. Most, if not all, communication professions require interviewing or interview-type skills: Public relations and advertising professionals interview clients to discover their needs and goals; journalists seek politicians’ opinions, which then make news; teachers and trainers question their students to determine what learning goals to stress; sales professionals conduct persuasive interviews daily; personnel managers select and evaluate employees; and so forth.
• Interviewing gives students confidence in their ability to interact with different kinds of people — those from different cultures, those with more (or less) power or prestige, those suffering through interpersonal or organizational crises. An education in interviewing is an education in flexibility, sensitivity, and acceptance as well as an avenue to new kinds of personal power. Students in interviewing classes learn that differences of style, content, and culture energize learning. They learn to welcome differences as fertile opportunities.
• Interviewing provides students with exceptional opportunities to receive and provide feedback. Many students report that they learn as much or more about themselves in an interviewing class as they do anywhere in the curriculum. They glimpse themselves in action when video recorded. They see and hear how others react to them. They get the benefit of others’ coaching. They learn how to make their personality characteristics — even shyness — work for them rather than against them.
• Interviewing is, in a sense, a crossing point or permeable boundary between different segments of the discipline of communication, including interpersonal communication and mass communication. Interviewing is what professionals in organizational communication, rhetoric, public relations, advertising, journalism, and other subfields and research specializations have in common. In an interviewing class, students discover how the overall discipline of communication draws upon a common core of ideas.
• Interviewing helps students become better learners in other classes. Studying interviewing has direct transfer value; students learn new ways, for example, to ask a philosophy professor for clarification about Kant or Heidegger. They develop new skills for asking classroom questions in ways that articulate other students’ confusions, and without putting teachers on the defensive. They may develop new creativity, perhaps discovering a term paper topic for urban sociology by wondering if neighborhood police would be available for interviews about changing perceptions of adolescent crime.
• Interviewing is one of the foundations of news and public dialogue in a free society. Serious students of interviewing tend to read and watch the news regularly — and critically. If a teacher helps them track carefully how interviews propel presidential debates, shape congressional investigations, and influence foreign policy, they will develop analytical and critical habits that will stay with them for a lifetime. In addition, effective interviewers and interviewees add their own voices to the public dialogue at school board sessions, public hearings, neighborhood association meetings, town hall debates, and local elections.

III: Who Are the Authors?
We met more than 35 years ago as young assistant professors at a Midwest university, where we worked in a large room of open faculty offices, subdivided by bookcases and filing cabinets. We taught in different departments — Rob in speech communication and Mike in mass communication — but we couldn’t, even if we had wanted to, avoid meeting one another and overhearing each other talking to students and colleagues. As we got to know each other better, we came to realize that together we had something to say about interviewing beyond our own academic disciplines and practical experience.
We began to write in collaboration to encourage others to see the benefits of merging practical experience with theoretical concepts and research in human behavior. Some practitioners become antagonistic to theories of any stripe and dismissive of any discussion that is even faintly abstract. On the other hand, some social science researchers dismiss practitioners’ experience as either idiosyncratic or based on unreflective bad habits. Most of us fall in a middle ground, but it’s sometimes hard to get people in separate camps to talk with each other and come to recognize both the valuable practicality of theory-based research and the theoretical potential of vigorous concrete experience. We hope Interviewing helps to bridge gaps between theorists and practitioners.

Brief biographies:
Rob Anderson has applied his research in the theory of dialogue to practical problems of interviewing, conflict management, listening, and everyday communication ethics. In addition, he has facilitated numerous workshops in interpersonal communication for student and professional audiences. His current interests include exploring how complex institutions like the university and contemporary journalism can enhance public dialogue more effectively. Now professor of communication at Saint Louis University, Rob has received major teaching awards at two universities, and he is the author or coauthor of 11 books and numerous articles in journals in communication, journalism, English, and psychology.
G. Michael Killenberg acquired professional interviewing experience as a reporter and editor for daily newspapers, in addition to teaching journalism and mass communication at several colleges and universities. His current research focuses on newspaper-community relations, media law and ethics, and diversity within professional journalism. He was founding director of the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, where he still teaches undergraduate and graduate students. His publications include numerous articles in professional and popular periodicals. His latest book on public affairs reporting was published in 2008. Besides collaborating on the original and second editions of Interviewing, he and Rob Anderson coauthored Before the Story: Interviewing and Communication Skills for Journalists and The Conversation of Journalism: Communication, Community, and News.

IV: A Vision for the Book
We wrote Interviewing for instructors and students who want to concentrate on the skills of interviewing through a course both professionally grounded and intellectually challenging. Interviewing will help students develop skills while they think systematically about the process; such an approach will help them decide how (and whether) those skills can be applied. We envision a general interviewing course both as a performance opportunity — a laboratory for skill development — and as an opportunity for students to reflect on the complex processes and ethical challenges of interpersonal communication.
Therefore, our textbook describes the practical skills of interviewing in the context of other concepts and courses students encounter as communication majors. We believe that many textbooks tend to present interviewing skills relatively prescriptively and tend to consider the interviewing course as somewhat isolated from the wider curriculum. We want to teach students how to interview and, beyond that, motivate them to become interested in interviewing by, for example, reading more about interviewing, participating more often in interviews in daily life, and applying interviewing skills in other courses.
To help instructors meet both objectives in their courses, we adopt what we term a “skills-plus” approach, in which students will understand how skills are related to basic appreciations of interpersonal communication, ethics, and research.
Each substantive chapter is divided into two parts — a “Basics” section in which skills are introduced and clearly discussed, and a “Beyond the Basics” section in which interviewing is related to wider issues in communication and everyday life. Although the “Beyond the Basics” discussions also might be considered essential reading by many instructors, other teachers might choose to assign only “The Basics” for certain chapters.
V: Key Features of Interviewing
• “Skills-plus” orientation — We describe essential skills thoroughly and go on to place them in conceptual context. With an effective blend of skills, appreciations, and knowledge, interviewing is therefore linked to other courses in the major, such as communication theory, research methods, interpersonal communication, listening, mass communication, organizational communication, and intercultural communication. Although the book helps students understand the concepts supporting behavioral advice, we’ve been selective in citing research; long footnotes detailing multiple research studies do not help students taking an interviewing course.
Helpful and flexible organization within chapters — Each chapter is divided into “The Basics” and “Beyond the Basics” sections, allowing instructors more choice in making assignments and adapting the text to their courses.
Helpful and flexible overall organization of chapters — The chapters of Part One develop basic skills and appreciations. The chapters of Part Two describe specific interview contexts and strategies. The final chapters in Part Three place interviewing in a wider analytical and cultural context.
Clear division of basic interviewing skills into three interrelated types — listening, questioning, and framing. Listening is emphasized as the skill that enables interview-based learning in the first place; questioning is emphasized as the skill that focuses learning; and framing is emphasized as the skill that interprets and places learning in appropriate context. We believe no other text emphasizes listening skills as much as this one does, and no other text offers an extended treatment of the practical applications of the skill of framing.
Student-friendly writing — We use a narrative style in which stories and examples, often about everyday college life, help students relate to the terms, concepts, and practices we introduce. Through examples and stories, students can see interviewing as an opportunity to learn more about their campuses, about their families and friends, and about themselves.
Emphasis on how interviewing contributes to the quality of public dialogue — Throughout the book, we reinforce how interviewing can support democratic action. Perhaps more than any other textbook, Interviewing stresses how an awareness of communication ethics makes better citizens — citizens whose talk will be more civil, sensitive, and attuned to other voices in the political process.
Integrated approach to both interviewer and interviewee rolesInterviewing, unlike some other textbooks, prepares students to be responsive and effective when conducting interviews. It also shows them how the roles of interviewer and interviewee are fully interdependent.
Integrated ethics approach — Ethics, we stress, is not a separate concern for interview communicators; it is involved in all message choices. We offer examples of ethical issues in each chapter.
Integrated cultural approach — Recognizing the expanding diversity of our world, we offer straightforward discussion and analysis of multicultural issues within each skill or context.
Integrated treatment of interviewer and interviewee issues in employment interviewing in the same chapter — We present the goals and problems of interviewer and interviewee as interrelated instead of separate activities. Some other textbooks divide them into different chapters.
Innovative boxed supplements — “Interviewers/Interviewees in Action” boxes provide first-person accounts of interviewing successes and failures. “Reminders” boxes help students organize and remember what they’ve learned and extend important ideas. “Trying Out Your Skills” boxes give students practical ways to test their learning, often by analyzing brief interview excerpts. End-of-chapter “Making Your Decision” boxes present hypothetical situations, often oriented toward ethics, that encourage students to apply their knowledge creatively. In addition, each chapter includes “The Interview Bookshelf,” an annotated section recommending books that students will find helpful for further reading or future interviewing-related assignments in other classes.
VI: Guiding Principles for Experiential Interviewing Classes
Every experienced teacher personalizes classes to fit his or her pedagogical style, personality, students’ interests, and so on. No stranger should tell another professional how to teach. However, teachers commonly discuss and share principles and techniques, and we’re pleased to have the opportunity to do that here. However tentatively, we offer the following guidelines.
Classroom atmosphere:
• Personalize and informalize the classroom environment as much as possible. For example, a circular arrangement in a class of 20–30 students will probably be appropriate for most class activities. Relatively informal atmospheres allow students to be involved and recognized as persons. And it is as persons that students ask us to react to their goals and needs.
• Keep students talking with each other. A class that is learner-centered and relatively conversational is most consistent with the goals of an interviewing course. Hints:
You might have questions you’d like the class to answer, but don’t rely merely on asking questions, and don’t assume that all class commentary must either be said by you or addressed to you.
Facilitating class discussion is not very different from the role of an interviewer who is engaged in active listening. After particularly effective or controversial student comments, ensure you’ve heard the speakers accurately by paraphrasing and relating the comments to other relevant points.
Stay out of some conversations if possible, encouraging students to direct their comments to each other and to each other’s points.
If you feel you must redirect the conversation, do so with a brief summary that does justice to the issues and those who have spoken about them to that point.
If you want to ask a specific question, make sure you wait long enough to let the group process it and think through its implications. Sometimes teachers worry that class members are disinterested if they’re silent for a few seconds after a question is asked, but the opposite may be true — they may be so intrigued by a new insight that they have to rethink what they want to say about it. In advising interviewers, we refer to this problem as one of allowing for sufficient “wait time,” and we as teachers need to remind ourselves of this, too.
One especially valuable approach for encouraging student talk in an interviewing class is to work often either with freewriting or with dyads, or both, when opening a discussion of a new idea. For example, you might introduce a discussion of employment interviewing by giving individuals five minutes or so to write out everything they remember from either their best job interviewing experience or their worst job interviewing experience. Then, create dyads in which students each ask the other about his or her experiences, compare them with their own, and discuss which text concepts are best illustrated in these experiences. A 10-minute dyad fuels a more vigorous, more pointed, and perhaps even (with a teacher’s nudging) a more conceptual class discussion by preloading specific experiences that will illustrate (or perhaps contradict) text ideas. Of course, teachers must be wary of the tendency to let such conversations simply become griping or boasting sessions, or just a listing of different and undifferentiated happenings.
• Share your own experiences and interests, but avoid using them to prescribe right ways and wrong ways for students to behave.
• Vary in-class experiences: discussion, lectures, guest speakers, analysis of video and audio examples, hands-on activities.
• Plan experiential activities and communication experiments to demonstrate the power of interviewing; don’t just advocate or talk about a strategy or skill, but work to show it. At the same time, remember:
Link classroom experiences to previous learning and previous activities. One way to do this is to say something like:
“For the past several weeks, we’ve looked at three basic interview skills — listening, questioning, and framing. Now it’s time to see how those skills can work together in a specific context. Many of you are about to graduate, so your courses have helped you listen carefully, speak clearly, and interpret what’s going on below the surface of communication. Well, after graduation a job hunt will consume your time, if it hasn’t started to do that already. Most of you look pretty confident about the job search . . . am I wrong?
“Today, I want to show you a video recording of a practice interview involving Leslie Jackson, a counselor from the Career Center, and Serena Joelle, one of last year’s outstanding seniors. Both of them have given permission to let you analyze their best efforts to communicate in this kind of tense situation. Watch this 10-minute segment and pay particular attention to how each person’s listening style affects the other, how the phrasing of questions might affect the answers, and any clues to how each participant is framing the situation. I suggest we divide into three groups, each watching for clues to these different things. . . .”
Introduce activities clearly, and make sure all participants know the ground rules. Many valuable activities are not highly instrumented and are relatively uncomplicated for teachers to use in class. But be sure you don’t introduce them in such an offhanded way that it leaves students confused about what you want them to do. The night before, you might practice a one- or two-sentence extemporaneous introduction of the activity, just as you would rehearse a brief but important speech. Ask yourself: How could my instructions be misinterpreted? With more complex activities, including ones that require handouts, rating sheets, and checklists, the need for clear instructions increases. Answering and re-answering questions about instructions that could have been clear in the first place wastes the scarce resource of class time.
Allow sufficient time. Don’t try to shoehorn an activity into a time period that won’t allow learning to develop naturally. You don’t want to be in the position of saying, “Well, we have to break this off for today because it’s already 3:25. If we’d had enough time to finish it, you would have found that. . . .” It’s usually better to let class out early than to try to rush through a 30-minute activity in 12–15 minutes.


  • Process and debrief activities realistically. One persistent challenge of teaching interviewing is how contingent and variable some commonly accepted principles seem to be when they are actually tested by experience. Classroom exercises may not turn out the way you hope. There are many exceptions to the “rules,” and many highly visible and successful interviewers and interviewees exhibit behavior that violates textbooks’ well-considered advice. Be careful of “never do this” statements, and persistently invite students to dissect why one interviewer might be successful using a “technique” that falls flat for another interviewer.

Link the discoveries from classroom activities to subsequent work. If possible, include in your summarizing comments a preview of upcoming skills, concepts, and lessons that students can carry with them as they prepare for classes and assignments. Then be sure you actually use the activity’s insights later, referring back to them when appropriate. Students tend to remember what they learn by doing, and you will often be able to make sensible connections with them over a period of many weeks. In this book, for example, instruction about the helping interview is one of the later topics, as it is in most interviewing courses. However, students readily remember late in the course the empathy and active listening exercises with which the skills of listening were introduced, in the second, third, or fourth week.


Assignments and grades:
Few tasks in education are more touchy than talking with other teachers about assignments and grading policies. Each experienced teacher has his or her own pet assignments — and pet peeves about syllabi, papers, examinations, grading, and study skills. In fact, we encourage you to consult other prominent interviewing texts to discover their approaches to some of these same problems; we especially like Stewart and Cash’s Interviewing: Principles and Practices (McGraw-Hill), Barone and Switzer’s Interviewing Art and Skill (Allyn & Bacon), Wilson and Goodall’s Interviewing in Context (McGraw-Hill), and Stewart’s Interviewing Principles and Practices: Applications and Exercises (Kendall/Hunt). We don’t presume to tell others precisely how to evaluate students. Instead, we offer suggestions that we have used effectively in our courses:
• Don’t make students memorize lists. Contemporary conventions of writing textbooks, and to some extent student expectations as well, encourage authors to create bullet-point lists of important points and issues. Please remember that as authors we’ve created lists to supplement more complex discussions of ideas, and to allow readers to look up answers to questions readily. However, the lists, and order of items within them, have no inherent educational value beyond those goals. We believe it’s counterproductive to ask students to memorize things like the “six advantages of tape recording an interview.” (Other writers could easily divide the same ideas into five or seven or even eight points.) In general, we should instead ask that student responses apply knowledge both accurately and creatively, and put ideas into practice.
• Create “examinations” for students, not simply “tests.” These words aren’t synonyms. Even though the distinction may seem trivial to some people, the connotations of “examination” invite teachers to raise with students such issues as: exams as feedback to the teacher, exams as opportunities for students to gauge their own progress, exams as opportunities for students to see what teachers consider important, and exams as goal-setting opportunities. We believe that considering these things merely as “tests” encourages students simply to take a grade and file it away in their notebooks, hoping to “do better next time.”
Generally, teachers want to examine, and want students to examine, two things in written exams. First, they want to know if students have a specific grasp of concepts, terminology, and research; this will allow the learner to progress further into a subject on his or her own. Without this kind of knowledge, students founder even if they are interested in a topic. Traditionally, teachers have written multiple-choice questions to probe this kind of knowledge, although matching, identification, and true-false items also are used. Second, teachers want to know if students have a sophisticated grasp of how the concepts and terms fit together, and how they can be applied in practical situations. This pragmatic pattern-knowledge allows learners to transfer what they know from one situation to another, and separates the mere memorizers from the students who are truly learning. Traditionally, essay exams probe this kind of learning. The problem, of course, is that so-called objective items like multiple-choice and so-called subjective questions like essay opportunities yield different kinds of information for teachers.
• Stress true-false/explain (t-f/e) items in examinations. We recommend a hybrid approach of exams composed largely of true-false/explain questions, perhaps supplemented by brief identification items and short-answer essays. A true-false/explain question can probe specific knowledge while allowing the learner to explain or justify a response briefly and succinctly. Each item is a declaration or assertion of some sort, and an exam can be a teacher’s creative mix of straightforward and sophisticated items. For example, a t-f/e “question” can ask the student to make a value judgment that is based on knowing several important terms in the statement: “An ethnographer must never proceed with an interview without obtaining full and written ‘informed consent’ from interviewees. T___ F___ Why?” (Leave several lines for student to answer.)
Suggestions for writing and administering t-f/e exams:

1. Write your own items, or use suggested ones from this resource guide. If you choose only sentences from the text, reproducing them or inserting a tricky “not” here or there, students may develop the impression that you want them to memorize the text or merely adopt the company line.

2. Make sure your items are drawn from all sections of the chapter(s) you are examining.

3. Tell students beforehand that you believe each statement is basically true or false, but that an individual answer that differs from yours may in fact convince you that the writer has grasped the concept(s) and can apply them well. Although students still may disagree at times with your interpretations, they will generally appreciate the ability to explain themselves rather than have to outguess the intentions and semantics of your items.

4. Explanations for statements the student believes to be true should provide examples or further information to illuminate the statement, while explanations for statements the student believes to be false should describe clearly what makes the statement untrue. (At times, students will say: “If it’s false, I know what to write, but if it’s true, it’s just . . . well . . . true! I don’t know what more to say.” However, once they understand your expectations, they will see readily that an accurate or reasonable statement can be related to a particular kind of interviewing, to the approach of a particular researcher, or perhaps has an important reservation. The important thing is to get students thinking beyond the questions themselves.)

5. This type of exam does not reward guessing. It does, however, partially reward students who have some grasp of the material but may still make some mistakes (don’t we all?). Tell students that simply marking T, if an item is true, or F, if it’s false, will earn no points. It’s the combination of (a) taking a position, and (b) for a clear reason that earns points.

6. Place a limit on the responses, perhaps instructing: “Respond to each item with two or three complete sentences; no sentence fragments, please.”

7. We suggest a three-point scale for responding to each question:



0 points: student does not answer; marks only T or F with no explanation; or is clearly not knowledgeable about the statement’s concepts or terms.

1 point: student has some understanding of the idea but mixes things up in such a way as to demonstrate that he or she doesn’t understand the context, or the full implications of the idea.

2 points: student is essentially correct, but misses an important point, or may misstate or misattribute a concept.

3 points: student has an accurate grasp of the idea and its implications, and has explained it well in the space allotted. (At times this form of exam encourages instructors to give points, perhaps full credit, for responses in which students disagree with teachers or the text. This is an advantage, not a disadvantage, if we as teachers take the opportunity to write responses to students on the exams, and use these items as springboards for further discussion.)
• Ensure that students meet and have the opportunity to question professional interviewers, either in or out of class. Teachers (we speak from firsthand experience here) often overestimate the value and relevance of our own experience; we may think at times that we can be our students’ only conduit for interviewing insights. Note: There appears to be a tacit assumption on most campuses that student interviewing research done outside class but within the parameters of specific class assignments — and not intended for publication or other public dissemination — need not be approved on a case-by-case basis by college research review boards. Students and faculty in a reporting class, for example, are not required to gain prior approval for the many interviews the students must conduct in order to write their weekly stories. However, teachers should check with their own campus research review boards to determine any specific rules that might apply to their students’ interviews. Some schools are quite diligent about protecting the rights of people interviewed or tested as part of a research study.
• Structure autonomous interviewing experiences from which students learn in systematic ways. Depending on your teaching style and goals, this may mean you will want to develop your own checklists and feedback forms for out-of-class assignments like video-recorded practice and critique.
• Video record student interviews, with feedback. Emphasize that students should take student/student interview assignments seriously; students who fail to complete required out-of-class video-recording and feedback assignments should not receive a passing grade for the course, whatever their grades in other written course assignments. We set up and facilitate feedback with team video recording (see sample syllabus) by using: (1) a “personal interest inventory” filled out by each student early in the term, to which everyone in class will have access; (2) a “video-recorded interview observation sheet,” with which student teammates give each other feedback immediately after each out-of-class recording session; and (3) in-class “workshopping” sessions in which each student who volunteers will be coached by the entire class. Let’s examine each of these in turn.
PERSONAL INTEREST INVENTORY

(Note: Teachers can fill these out, too, so students can get more perspective on your approach to the class. Stress that if students believe any question to be too personal, they can skip it.)


Full name (nickname?):

Address for this term:

Phone:

E-mail address that you check daily:



Major, minor:

Extracurricular activities:

Age:

Jobs held in past:



Current job and anticipated career path:

Personal entertainment preferences:

Social or political commitments:

“I’m in school because . . .”:

“In my spare time, I . . .”:

“I can put together a pretty good . . .”:

“Ten years from now, I’ll probably . . .”:

“My most common roles among family and friends are . . .”:

“Before you start communicating with me, you probably should know . . .”
RECORDED INTERVIEW OBSERVATION SHEET

(Note: Some teachers may want to revise this form to a checklist format. We’ve found it effective to ask student observer/critics to take notes while watching the interview and then afterward write comments for interviewer and interviewee.)


Observers: Thoroughly familiarize yourselves with this sheet before the interview. This frees you considerably to notice behaviors and comment. Be as specific as possible in noting what you see and hear, not simply your conclusions like “nice” or “uncomfortable.” Share this feedback with both interviewer (ER) and interviewee (EE) after the interview, keep the original, and photocopy the sheet for the other participant.
How would you characterize:
The general tone of the interview?

The effectiveness of the ER’s opening and closing styles?

The ability of the ER to phrase primary questions?

The ability of the ER to follow up with suitable probe questions?

The listening habits of the ER?

The feedback provided by the ER?

The degree of directiveness exhibited by the ER?

The responsiveness of the EE?

The defensiveness level of the EE?

The congruence between verbal and nonverbal messages of ER and EE?

The effects of observation and recording on ER and EE?

Other comments or suggestions?


INSTRUCTIONS FOR WORKSHOPPING AND COACHING:

IN-CLASS SESSIONS WITH STUDENT VOLUNTEERS’ VIDEO RECORDINGS


— Each student volunteer will preselect and cue up a five-minute segment to show the class;
— Each volunteer will introduce his or her excerpt briefly by placing it in context of the overall interview;
— Each volunteer will ask the group two or three questions about their reactions to his or her communication behaviors;
— After viewing the segment, the class will (1) respond to the student’s questions; (2) highlight the strengths of the volunteer’s interviewing; (3) suggest improvements, especially focusing on the areas the volunteer is curious about. Different parts of the segment may need to be replayed to reinforce points made in the feedback.
• Be clear and specific with students at the outset of the course about your expectations for participation; this is not a course in which someone can opt out of assignments or most exercises simply because he or she is uncomfortable. Students’ discomfort with interpersonal situations may be the very reason why a course in interviewing is important for them to take. A useful analogy may be the case of swimming lessons. People who take swimming lessons may indeed be afraid of the water, but no one who signs up for instructions expects to be able to avoid this fear by practicing strokes and breathing out of the water, or by grasping only the theory of swimming. Rather, they learn to swim by swimming . . . or they decide they don’t really want to take swimming lessons. Just as there are no swimming lessons without swimming, there is no interviewing class without some of the interpersonal discomfort (for certain students, at least) of interviewing strangers, being asked about one’s beliefs, and volunteering for feedback in class through role-playing scenarios and similar activities.
• Create a blend of assignments that make it clear that students who earn an A (for example) will be able to perform well in the graded interviews and understand the ideas and concepts that will allow them to transfer learning easily from one situation to another. In other words, the assignments of the course should reflect the fact that competence in interviewing involves skill, knowledge, and the ethical sensitivity to decide if what can be done should be done.
• Discuss your assignment sequence openly with students early in the term. Many instructors find that the graded assignments in an interviewing course will be somewhat backloaded; that is, most major recorded grades or points are earned in the second half of the course. This can be justified because it’s at least somewhat unfair to grade students heavily on performance behaviors before they’ve developed the skills and background that will enable them to do well — and many interviewing classes have far too many students and too little class time for teachers to be able to grade individual and incremental performance work early in the term (as in a public speaking course, for example). If your course is backloaded in this way, you should remind students early and forcefully about the assignment sequence, so they can plan their assignment workloads accordingly. (See the sample syllabus in this guide for an example of a somewhat backloaded schedule of assignments.) In our experience, most students do well with this organization, but some experience anxiety about how they’re doing when the first major grade comes just before midterm. Instructors who are concerned about this structure and who would rather plug in more graded assignments early can do so easily: Substitute several shorter quizzes for a midterm exam, insert a minor out-of-class performance expectation or two in the first several weeks, or do both.
VII: Sample Syllabus
Note to instructors about syllabus preparation:
The following syllabus is based upon a number of assumptions: a one-semester course; within a communication major; at a four-year institution; at the junior level; with a campus facility available for student video recording. With minor variations, it can be adapted to the quarter system; to professional business programs; to the community college experience; and for students who don’t have ready access to institutional assistance in recording.
The sample syllabus includes a lengthy introduction some instructors will find dispensable, but we’ve found that it helps students orient to the expectations of an experiential course. We ask students to assume significant responsibility for out-of-class scheduling with video-recording partners, field-assignment partners, and interaction with community professionals and other interviewees. In our experience, once this expectation is clarified and the reasons for it explained, virtually all students cooperate enthusiastically. It’s wise, however, to have a straightforward discussion of ground rules and trust early in the term.
For example, we recommend that instructors overtly discuss with their classes the implications of representation, because each student represents the class, the department, and the institution as he or she interacts with professionals and community representatives. While the beginning student may feel relatively unqualified, and may see assignments as practice interviews, they are decidedly not “practice” for an elderly politician, for example, who is asked to relive a career’s worth of memories over several days by a student interviewer. They are real events, and are usually taken very seriously by these cooperative external interviewees. Issues of consent, as well, can be previewed early in the term in addition to the more detailed discussions in later text chapters. All interviewing teachers and students should work hard to avoid a situation in which outside interviewees could feel used or manipulated in any way. Again, review any campus stipulations on behavioral and human-subject research that might apply to out-of-class assignments, and comply with these regulations.
Video work presents special dilemmas, since not every campus has the facilities or equipment to handle student requests readily. Some facilities will train your students in how to use their resources, while others will prefer to have their own personnel in charge. Some will accommodate drop-ins, while others will insist on a rigorously followed schedule of reservations. Bear in mind that many students will have access to their own video cameras. The best advice is to check out the available facilities and policies before finalizing your syllabus.
Think of a syllabus as a coordinating device and as a fairness check, rather than as an ironclad contract that must be followed legalistically. It is a contract of sorts, of course, but mainly it’s a direct way to communicate with each student. Avoid adjusting the syllabus expectations for one student without adjusting it (or offering to do so) for all. One useful guideline for making syllabus exceptions: Do you believe you would feel comfortable explaining the exception to the whole class, and are you reasonably sure that these other students, knowing what you’d know, would consider it a fair exception for the person(s) involved?
Finally, instructors should emphasize their willingness to spend time outside class with students, especially on topics such as employment interviewing, research interviewing, and, with student reporters, journalistic interviewing. Class time is at a premium, and many students will find the topics of their own special interest passed by too rapidly. Use office hours to give specific students extra attention on assignments. Even though most campuses have career centers that help with mock interviews and resume preparation, students appreciate their instructors’ assistance with these matters, too.
We assume that instructors will use the online teaching and communication resources available to them and their students through university-operated systems such as Blackboard, for example, which can be used for blogging and posting of assignments, among other features.
SYLLABUS:

INTERVIEWING

COMMUNICATION XXX

Spring 2009

Teacher


office:

phone:


e-mail:

office hours:


INTRODUCTION:
Many people regard the interview either as a chore to be accomplished as mechanically and systematically as possible, or as an unpleasant interrogation with participants often feeling distrustful, fearful, and competitive. Occasionally, interviewers assume they need to show off and impress the interviewee; too often, they assume that an extended monologue is desirable. If things go badly, interviewees can feel “on the spot” and defensive . . . or they can end the interview abruptly, leaving the interviewer in the lurch.
I tend to consider the interviewing situation, though, as simply a concentrated attempt to understand another person (or his or her information) through direct and immediate communication. This communication skill is practical for virtually every communication professional, including journalists, managers, trainers, teachers, advertising executives, and public relations consultants. Usually, interviews are face-to-face meetings, and they usually involve questions to generate information about a specified topic or topics. In an interview, the need for dialogue, acceptance, sensitivity, and empathic response is as great as in any communication relationship. This doesn't mean, of course, that an interviewer has to agree with — or become emotionally involved with — interviewees; it does mean that he or she must be an effective listener and clarifier. In many ways, in fact, it's impossible to separate "interviewing" from the listening skills that enable it.
Our course will invite you to become familiar with relevant research in listening, questioning, framing, analyzing interview goals, and other interaction factors. But beyond this, and more important, it provides a vehicle for you to apply your learning (and other insights about communication) again and again in practical everyday settings. You should notice real improvement in your ability to interact readily and effectively, both verbally and nonverbally, with a variety of people.

TEXT: Rob Anderson and G. Michael Killenberg, Interviewing: Speaking, Listening, and Learning for Professional Life, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

EXPECTATIONS: I expect you to attend and participate actively in class activities. This is especially important because this is an experiential (experience-based) class, not primarily a lecture-based course. If you aren’t here or choose not to participate much, you aren’t likely to get much out of the experience.

TENTATIVE TOPIC SCHEDULE:
Jan. 13: Introduction to the course

Jan. 15: Interviewing and introducing each other


Jan. 20: What are interviews? (Read Chapter 1)

Jan. 22: Are skills enough? (Read Chapter 2)


Jan. 27: Interview partners as listeners (Read Chapter 3)

Jan. 29: Your listening style


Feb. 3: The question of questioning (Read Chapter 4)

Feb. 5: Practicing questioning styles


Feb. 10: Framing skills (Read Chapter 5)

Feb. 12: Examples and framing activities


Feb. 17: Journalistic interviewing (Read Chapter 6)

Feb. 19: The daily life of a reporter (Guest lecturer)


Feb. 24: Informal reports: Field experience interviews (paper due)

Feb. 26: Research interviewing (Read Chapter 7)


March 3: Research interviewing, cont.

March 5: Exam 1


March 10, 12: No class (Spring Break)
March 17: Discussion of Exam 1; preview of remaining topics

March 19: Selection interviewing and the interviewee (Read Chapter 8)


March 24: Selection interviewing and the interviewer (Guest lecturer)

March 26: Organizational interviewing for performance appraisal (Read Chapter 9)


March 31: Other organizational interviews

April 2: Persuasive interviewing (Read Chapter 10)


April 7: Persuasive interviewing, cont.

April 9: Helping and diagnostic interviewing (Read Chapter 11)


April 14: Analyzing broadcast interviews (Read Chapter 12)

April 16: Exam 2


April 21: Workshop: Bring video recordings

April 23: Informal reports: Dyadic dialogue interviews (paper due)


April 28: Workshop: Bring video recordings

April 30: Workshop, wrap-up, and course evaluation (Read Chapter 13) (videotape, log, and analysis due)



ASSIGNMENTS:
1. TWO EXAMS (Each 20 percent of grade). Exams will cover text readings, lectures, handouts, and in-class discussion materials. They are designed to let you demonstrate how principles of dyadic communication can be applied. Prepare for true-false/explain, short-answer essay, and identification items. When appropriate, some questions may ask you for illustrations from your out-of-class assignments. Late exams will be scheduled only for genuine emergencies, and may be in a form different from the regularly scheduled exam. Exams missed for reasons other than emergencies may also be made up, but the grade will be reduced by one letter.
2. FIELD EXPERIENCE (20 percent of grade). Interview (face-to-face) two nonfaculty professionals who specialize in dyadic communication (journalists, social workers, personnel managers, counselors or therapists, etc.). Choose people who are not family members or close friends of you or your family. Use the interviews to discover their styles of interviewing and the advice they'd give you, based on their experience. In a five- to eight-page paper, typed and double-spaced, summarize what they tell you, relate their ideas to concepts and skills of this course, note any disagreements or inconsistencies, and discuss your own position. (Suggestion: These people can be professionals doing jobs you are considering for your own career.) Due _____.
3. EXTENDED DYADIC DIALOGUE (20 percent of grade). Schedule at least three face-to-face visits with someone in the community who has agreed to cooperate with you (not an immediate family member), and from whom you'd like to learn something. Older citizens are often enthusiastic interviewees who have much to share, and who especially appreciate being asked about their experiences. You might want to focus on the interviewee's memories, crafts, skills, knowledge, or social involvement. I'd suggest you start early in the term exploring the idea with potential interviewees and arranging for the meetings; in addition to the suggestions on oral history in the textbook, I’ll have more handouts that will help you plan and conduct this sort of interview.
While interviewing, keep notes, recordings (if OK with interviewee), and also log entries of your conversations in a continuing journal. This will aid you in writing a five- to eight-page paper, typed and double-spaced, due _____. This paper should describe the communication choices you made, the nature of your experience, relevant features of the relationship, and most important, why you believe the interviews progressed as they did. Be specific in relating your experience to the course readings. Each of you will be giving an informal report to the class on what you learned in your interviews.
4. VIDEO-RECORDING WORK (20 percent of grade; but see “Reminder” that follows). Each student will be responsible for scheduling the following activities during out-of-class time:
— Two (or more) 15-minute segments as interviewer, with

others in class acting as interviewees;

— Two (or more) 15-minute segments as interviewee, with

others in the class acting as interviewers;

— Two (or more) 15-minute observations of interviews

conducted by others in the class.


Early in the semester, I’ll help the class create “practice groups” of three or four students. Each group should schedule its times for recording with the Instructional Media Center (IMC), which has a special multipurpose “mini-studio” especially designed for this kind of activity. Contact the circulation/scheduling desk at the IMC for more information. All members of the three-person groups should be present at each recording, but the groups with four members can record with only three present; in other words, don’t record without an observer. Note: If someone in the group has personal access to equivalent equipment and can produce high-quality videos with clear sound, you don’t need to use the IMC facilities.
To complete this assignment, you should:
1. Obtain your own videotape or digital recording medium (drive, disk, etc.) at the beginning of the semester, and label it with your name. Record your work as an interviewer (two or more 15-minute interviews). Note: It is not necessary for you to keep rerecording interviews until you’re completely satisfied with your “performance.” Not many people are ever completely satisfied, and more than a few are typically surprised and upset at what they see. This is natural. Think of it this way: a video recording with some problem areas may give you more to analyze later!
2. Keep an accurate log of dates, times, and places for all group recording sessions. That is, your log should describe clearly which occasions you were interviewer, which occasions you were interviewee, and which occasions you were the observer/critic. In planning and scheduling times, remember that it’s best for the observer to provide feedback to interviewer and interviewee as soon after the session as possible. The IMC has individual carrels with computers and equipment for reviewing the recordings immediately.
3. On the last day of class, submit a large envelope with (a) your video recording, (b) your log, (c) the observer feedback sheets for your interviews, and (d) a five- to eight-page typed analysis of your video recording. In the analysis, note your areas of strength and relative weakness as an interview partner — as shown in the recordings — and describe what you intend to do to improve your interviewing skills. Be sure to link your analysis to the course concepts, relevant research, and skills in listening and questioning we’ve discussed during the semester.
Reminder: This is a requirement for completing the course. Without evidence from the log that you have fulfilled this assignment fully, I won't assign a passing grade for your participation in the class, regardless of your other grades.
Remember in the recording sessions:
— You aren't limited to two of each activity. This is an excellent opportunity to practice your interviewing skills and be critiqued.
— Schedule times with your partners and with any assisting university personnel as commitments, not as "I think I can make it then . . . " possibilities. Schedule times as groups of three or four (EE, ER, one or two observers) to allow for a review of the video and discussion of strengths and weaknesses.
— Observers are responsible for completing an observation sheet for the participants, critiquing them orally, and giving the sheet for each session to the interviewer.
— Later in the term, we'll schedule class time during which our entire group will be able to respond to your efforts. Remember: Don't delete or erase your recordings! We'll discuss practical interviewing problems, alternatives, and applications to other interviewing situations.
— A file of personal-interest inventories of class members will be kept in my office for your reference prior to interviews. This research is important for interviewers’ preparation of a reasonable schedule of questions and topics.
— Interviews may focus on a single aspect of the interviewee's experience, attitudes, values, and so on; or on a general profile of the person; or on what a "typical day" for them is like; or on talents they have; or . . . use your imagination. EEs and ERs should not meet to preplan their interview. Give the direction at first to the ER, and see what develops.
— You aren't role playing in these interviews. You should be responding to each other personally, right there, right then . . . but maintain a reasonably professional style you could transfer to other interviews you'll conduct in your careers. Certainly, any attempts to pose, to perform, to "help each other out" artificially, or to plant in-jokes, are likely to be embarrassingly obvious.
— Although I'm not directly involved in this process, please stay in contact with me as your practice sessions develop. Let's talk informally about the interviewing problems and successes you discover.
CRITERIA FOR COURSE PAPERS:
1. Does the paper reflect informed reading, accurate understanding, and serious consideration of interpersonal concepts?
2. Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
3. Does the paper demonstrate the clear voice and creativity of the author?
4. Is the paper in compliance with rules of style, and does it properly cite and attribute sources?
5. Does the paper satisfy the assignment?
6. Is the paper on time? (I will accept late papers without penalty only if you experience genuine emergencies. Out of fairness to other class members, other kinds of late papers will be lowered one letter grade.)
ACADEMIC HONESTY:
(Many institutions request or require instructors to include a statement in syllabi that details the institution’s policy on plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty.)

VIII: Using the Book, Chapter by Chapter
CHAPTER 1: Beyond the Q&A Presumption: Interviewing with a Listening/Learning Perspective
The nitty-gritty
Chapter 1 is an overview of the book’s guiding principles and major assumptions. It justifies why we supplement the traditional interviewing emphasis on questions and questioning with strong emphases on listening and framing, and justifies the practicality of these skills. Without reading this chapter closely, students may regard listening as relatively automatic and as too simplistic, and may dismiss framing as mere academic jargon. After a preview of the different types of professional interviews the book will cover later, Chapter 1 presents students with an introductory exercise in informational interviewing. The chapter concludes by presenting interviewing in an ethical context, and in terms of its contributions to a democratic public dialogue — both topics that will come up again and again throughout the book.
Suggestions for “Trying Out Your Skills” and “Making Your Decision” boxes
— Consider using the “Trying Out Your Skills” (TOYS) box as an exercise that helps students introduce each other to the class. You can either regard this as a highly informal process, or adapt it to link with public speaking skills students may have developed. After each introduction, let the rest of the class ask additional questions of the introducing speaker, who must respond without the help of the student being introduced (“What kind of books does she read? I don’t know; we didn’t get into that. I’d guess she wouldn’t like romance novels much, though”); this will allow gaps of information to be filled in, and will provide an opening for you to talk about the nature of inference in interviewing. Then the person introduced can correct any misunderstandings before you move on to the next introduction. This exercise may take two class periods or more, but we’ve found it pays off in setting a vigorous climate of interchange. By the way, many teachers like to participate fully in these opening exercises.
— The “Making Your Decision” (MYD) boxes in the book were designed primarily for private reflection of readers, as a reminder of how intricate decision making in interviewing situations can be. However, these situations are readily adaptable for classroom discussion. For example, some teachers may want to make a standing assignment that asks students to come to class on the first day of each chapter’s discussion with a tentative personal position on each MYD situation. Other teachers may choose to adapt these situations to a journaling assignment; students could consider each and write a paragraph or two discussing their opinions in light of the concepts discussed in the chapter. (Journals should not be the mere ventilation of opinions, but the elaboration of tentative insights developed through reading and careful consideration.)
Additional activities and discussion questions
Almost every icebreaker activity appropriate for an interpersonal communication course is also appropriate for an interviewing course.
Try a name circle. Arrange the class in a circle, and ask the first person to state his or her name and a hobby or interest that distinguishes that person. Then the next person states the previous name and hobby, adding his or her own, and the process continues around the circle until the last person has heard names and hobbies repeated so often that he or she can introduce the whole circle. (Teachers should participate, too.) No one should take notes; one of the unique values of this activity is that it generates lots of mistakes in a short period of time, but in a climate that’s nonthreatening. Another advantage is that it gets many people noticed, and associated with their names. It’s good to supplement this activity with a brief warning about the dangers of frozen stereotypes (when someone chooses the label of “Patricia the poet,” she might be a pro wrestling fan, too), along with a discussion of how the group has already begun to work together.
Additional resources
In this and subsequent chapters, we will suggest resources (often articles and broadcast interviews) that you might want to use somehow in your course. We’ve concentrated on materials and suggestions not already mentioned prominently in the book, so that you might use them in extra assignments of your own choosing or for your own background reading. Bear in mind that this is a highly selective list; thousands of books, articles, and research studies are relevant to interviewing, and almost all specialized professional tasks have their own literature in interviewing. In addition, virtually all news and fact-based entertainment broadcasting feature direct or indirect interviewing.
Print
DeVito, J. (2008). The interviewing guidebook. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Nelson, D. (1995, July/August). It’s time to retire the classic confrontation interview — Most of the time, there are better alternatives. IRE Journal, 5–7.
Pawson, R. (1996). Theorizing the interview. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 295–314.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., & Piele, L. J. (2005). Communication research: Strategies and sources. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Scott, R. L. (1993). Dialectical tensions of speaking and silence. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 1–18.
Weaver, R. B. III, & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Journal of Communication, 60, 131–140.
Wood, T. (1993, March). Getting tough interviews. Writer’s Digest, 28–29, 31.
Nonprint
The film My Dinner with Andre is an extended two-person conversation. How are its characteristics consistent or inconsistent with interviewing? What can we learn about successful interviewing from successful conversation, even if it’s as stylized as this one?
A 2007 film titled Interview starred offbeat actor Steve Buscemi, and explored the seamier side of celebrity interviews.
A cassette or audio CD selection of Studs Terkel’s radio interviews, Voices of Our Times: Five Decades of Studs Terkel Interviews (St. Paul, MN: Highbridge, 1999), is an excellent resource for interviewers who want to expand their styles beyond what we call the Q&A presumption. Notice, too, how his interviewees embellish their responses with stories, anecdotes, and provocative ideas.
Sample exam questions: multiple choice, true-false/explain, identification
(Note: [1] The following are literally samples or examples, not a “bank” of questions for instructors to ask students in ready-made exams. We strongly urge all instructors to write their own exams, personalizing the evaluation process for their own students, their own expectations, their own writing styles, and even their own sense of humor. This is especially true in writing essay questions. [2] We suggest that teachers describe in class their specific ground rules and guidelines for student answers to exam questions [and other assignments also, of course]. Rather than repeat ourselves for each chapter’s sample questions, however, our suggested ground rules appear only once here.)
Multiple Choice
The following questions ask you to choose the best response from five options; consider these choices in the context of interviewing skills, appreciations, and research.
1. The most important person in an interview is:

A. the interviewer

B. the interviewee

C. the person who sets up the interview

D. the more prestigious person

E. none of the above (*)


2. For the context of interviewing, communication is best defined as:

A. a transfer of meaning from one person to another

B. the development of shared meaning between persons in a relationship (*)

C. an emotional state in which two or more people are fully sympathetic to each other

D. when two or more people agree on a given interpretation or course of action

E. a relational state in which people like each other


3. While hearing is a physiological process, listening is a:

A. biological process

B. group-centered process

C. rational and careful process

D. sociological process

E. holistic and largely psychological process (*)


4. Punctuation is important to interviewers and interviewees because:

A. it describes how they interpret starts and stops, causes and effects (*)

B. it will help readers understand the interview better when it’s published

C. it refers to the ways interviewers maintain eye contact with interviewees

D. it is the study of punctuality in communication, especially the importance of arriving on time for an interview

E. punctuation is not particularly important to interview participants, but is crucial for authors


5. Empathic communicators:

A. sympathize with others

B. are able to identify exactly with what others are experiencing

C. both A and B

D. fully identify with others

E. without leaving their own experience, sense other people’s worlds as the others do (*)


True-False/Explain
The following sentences make assertions about the nature of interviewing, or about the advisability of certain styles or strategies. For each, decide whether the statement is basically true or basically false — and mark the appropriate blank. Then, if it is true, provide more information or an example for why it is true in about two sentences. If it is false, describe what makes it wrong or inaccurate, and what change of wording could make it into a true statement. Please use full sentences.
6. Interviewing is like conversation, because it usually involves “just talking to people in a spontaneous social way.” T___ F___ Why?
7. A good interviewer is born, not made. T___ F___ Why?
8. Framing should be avoided in interviewing, because it verges on mind reading. T___ F___ Why?
9. Understanding “transaction” means that interviewers and interviewees should consider the ways they influence each other while they’re speaking. T___ F___ Why?
10. Dawn thinks her interview with a prominent civil rights lawyer will help many people when it’s published, but she has to tell a small lie to get the interview before the lawyer leaves for New York. If she considers the ethics of doing this but proceeds anyway, she is likely operating from a teleological ethical system in this case. T___ F___ Why?
Identification
The following concepts are important in defining areas of understanding and skill improvement in interview situations. For each, write a full sentence or two describing its importance in the context of interviewing (not just what the word might mean in general conversation).
11. Egoism
12. Persuasive interview
13. Deontology
14. Selection interview
15. The significance of the word “inter-view”
Essay
Respond to each of these questions in two paragraphs or so. Provide relevant examples where appropriate. You can include your own opinions, of course (even to disagree with the text, readings, or me), but make sure you’ve included enough description of class materials to demonstrate that you understand and can apply the appropriate ideas or concepts. (Reminder to teachers: Some teachers like to give students a choice of essay questions — perhaps having them write on two out of three or three out of five questions. Another approach often used is to give students a list of five to 10 essay questions several days before the exam, and guaranteeing that one or more will be on the exam.)
16. Discuss the advantages and the potential disadvantages of considering an interview as a “partnership.” Use concrete and specific examples wherever possible.
17. Explore the concept of framing by (a) defining it as clearly as possible in your own words, and (b) illustrating it either with a real-life incident from your own experience or with a hypothetical situation. Make sure you explain how framing can be important for both interviewer and interviewee.
18. Identify two prominent interviewers you admire from public life (television, radio, local politics, campus). Discuss how they reflect — or fail to reflect — the four qualities of interviewing discussed in this chapter (empathy, honesty, respect, validation).

  1   2   3   4


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка