English Subject Centre

1. English Subject Centre Enhancing Careers Services to English Students Report on ‘Brief Encounter’ - a short mock interview at Oxford Brookes University Lorna Froud Oxford Brookes University The English Subject Centre Royal Holloway, University of London Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX Tel 01784 443221 Fax 01784 470684 Email esc@rhul.ac.uk www.english.heacademy.ac.uk

2. Enhancing Careers Services to English Students It is a widespread view that English graduates are not good at ‘selling’ themselves to employers. This is not to say that they lack the skills, attributes and enthusiasm that employers seek: research conducted by the English Subject Centre shows that English graduates are doing as well as, if not better than, most other graduates three to four years after graduation. Employers value the skills in critical thinking, communication and analysis that English graduates usually possess, but our students tend to underestimate the relevance of these skills to the workplace. (The ‘student profiles’ project undertaken by the Subject Centre produced a template which helps students link the skills listed in the English Benchmark Statement to those typically sought by employers.) English students need assistance an encouragement in articulating, in a way that is interesting and relevant to employers, the skills and attributes they have developed whilst studying and engaging in extra-curricular activity. For this reason, the English Subject Centre has sponsored small projects in Careers Services which tailor materials or events specifically to the needs of English students. About ten projects were undertaken, covering such activities as interview technique workshops, alumni presentations, web-based resources and careers open-days. Details of all the projects can be found on our website at: http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/explore/projects/archive/careers/careers6.php This document is a report on one of these projects The English Subject Centre Royal Holloway, University of London Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX T. 01784 443221 esc@rhul.ac.uk www.english.heacademy.ac.uk

3. Brief Encounter - a short mock interview Designed and completed to address an English Subject Centre’s skills enhancement programme for students transition : management : learning

4. Brief Encounter - a short mock interview Introduction This project grew out of a recognition that take-up from English field students for the various services offered by the Careers Centre at Oxford Brookes University was negligible. This led to a series of questions: How could we go about increasing our presence in this area? What would be of the most benefit to English field students? What would be of benefit to the Careers Centre and the services we provided? It was noted that there was very little in the English field curriculum that referred to careers management and education; this largely being a result of a lack of enthusiasm for CMS (Careers Management Skills) from academics in this field, widely seen by students as “gatekeepers” to authentic sources of information and advice. To tackle the above problems it was decided that English field students and the Careers Centre at Oxford Brookes University would gain the most value and experience by conducting a mock interview programme, utilising the latest technology, and giving English students the opportunity of experiencing a practical exercise to improve their awareness of employability and CMS. The report that follows summarises the rationale, structure, techniques used and outcomes (both quantitative and qualitative) of a successful programme of interviews, and offers a brief conclusion and set of recommendations based on the results obtained.

5. Brief Encounter - a short mock interview Why bother? To an increasing extent, students are expected to engage earlier with the job market in order to improve their employability and career management skills. Many courses now provide workshops or related training sessions on job-hunting skills that include CV design and effectiveness, interviews and selection centres. The problem remains, however, in students’ gaining relevant practical experience with interviews. School of hard knocks All too often, individual applicants improve their interview technique by a series of unfortunate experiences. Whereas they may have been taught about the interview process, the dynamical, interactive exchange that occurs between candidate and interviewer can only be improved upon by gaining experience. Which is unfortunate, given that for many candidates, their ideal job was the one they blew away in a poor interview. The mock interview In an ideal world, all students would have access to full length mock interviews, with feedback. In practice, this would mean careers centres - even if they did nothing else – couldn’t cope with demand. A shorter, more efficient process, with rapid learning potential gained from relevant, evidence-based feedback, is needed. The process A candidate describes briefly to a recruitment and selection expert the type of job for which they anticipate an interview. A short interview (8 – 10 minutes) follows, in which the candidate’s responses are recorded on a re-writable digital videodisk (DVD-RW). The interview is then played back directly to a portable flat screen monitor. Candidate and interviewer observe and discuss, with the candidate making short notes on a proforma feedback sheet. This is completed in 20 minutes. The candidate is then asked to complete an appraisal sheet, before departure: total time 30 minutes. Feasibility Up to 12 candidates can be accommodated in this manner in one day, including setting up and dismantling equipment. Interviews are re-recorded on the same DVD-RW, thereby consistently removing any record and protecting confidentiality.

6. Name Course 15.00 Time 12.30 10.00 15.30 13.00 10.30 13.30 16.00 11.00 14.00 16.30 11.30 Brief Encounter - a short mock interview Candidate Booking Form Please note that candidates should have a particular type of work in mind when they book a short mock interview. This will allow the interviewer to make the experience as realistic and therefore as useful as possible for the candidate. Candidates should ensure they arrive five minutes before their booked interview. A session lasts 30 minutes and late arrivals cannot expect to undertake the process. Date:

7. Brief Encounter – what I said and did in my mock interview Use this sheet to make brief notes when viewing your interview and discussing it with the interviewer. There may be one or two points that you need to work on, but remember – no real interview could be worse than what you’ve just gone through, so build your confidence and perform! first impressions body language eyes expression hands arms legs sitting position delivery what I said structure research evidence repetitions mannerisms conviction how I said it hesitation umms & errs humour pitch pace pauses overall impression confident? enthusiastic? smart?

8. Brief Encounter - Evaluation Form Please take a few minutes to let us know about your short mock interview experience by circling your closest response or providing brief notes. 1. How did you feel about interviews before the short mock session? anxious nervous comfortable confident 2. How realistic did you find the short mock interview? unrealistic artificial realistic involving 3. With reference to your feedback notes, what did you do well? 4. What could you have done better and will seek to improve? 5. In what ways did the short interview surprise you? 6.How many previous interview experiences have you had? none one two three or more 7. Would you want to use the short mock interview to assess improvements after your first ‘real’ interview? yes no 8.How do you now feel about interviews? still anxious still nervous comfortable in control 9.How helpful did you find the short mock interview? not at all slightly definitely extremely 10.In what ways could the short mock interview session be improved?

9. Brief Encounter - Quantitative Evaluation

10. Brief Encounter - Quantitative Evaluation

11. Brief Encounter - Quantitative Evaluation

12. Brief Encounter - Qualitative Evaluation (E = studying English, single or combined honours) NB. The following responses are reproduced verbatim from the evaluation sheets. With reference to your feedback notes, what did you do well? Body language, good answers. Noted some important facts about education and experience relevant to marketing that the interviewer would find useful. Body language: good. Responses: very good. Overall: very well Good answers; convincing. Expression, gesture, mannerism Good eye contact, good gestures, some good points made. Appeared relaxed and confident, good first impressions. Research, body language, pauses. Open, comfortable body language, smiled. E. My posture, body language was good. I had quite a good knowledge of PR campaigns E. Body language, answered well about what doing an English degree has taught me/helped me with. Answer some of the questions. Relevant examples and experience E. Posture, improvisation, smile E. Presentation, confidence, enthusiasm E. Reasonably confident and articulate E. Blank E. Answered questions calmly and succinctly E. Good body language Communicated responses well My answers E. I think so. E. Research, posture, structured answers. E. Had good, basic answers. Just need to improve these.

13. Brief Encounter - Qualitative Evaluation (E = studying English, single or combined honours) What could you have done better and will seek to improve? Take pauses, answer straightforward questions with straightforward answer. Find out more about the job I want to do, the company and any other relevant information (which) would be useful for future interviews. Blank. Body language; smile more at the beginning. Posture. Some hand wringing. Nervous blinking. Bring in conviction to the interviewer on time/earlier enough. More research to relate to firm personally. Listening better and answer more specifically. Hand movement reduction. Structure. Structure answers; be better prepared about ‘company expectation’. E. My research (!) - on companies and specific job roles. E. Eye contact – distracted by camera. Looked very nervous! Not focusing on my good points (not my strong point). Should’ve focused on just journalism, not photojournalism. Not selling myself. Prepare and body language, More fluidity. E. Research; attitude to job. E. Bringing out the qualities I have learnt on my course. E. Take my time/gather thought. Answering the question with more knowledge. E. Less ‘umms’! E. Outlining the skills set achieved through degree and what makes me more employable? E. Keep my pitch at an even tone. E. Smile more at the beginning. E. ‘Umming’! To slow down my speech a little; smile more! E. Need to research company and be more confident. Sold myself and skills acquired through uni and placement. Fluency.

14. Brief Encounter - Qualitative Evaluation (E = studying English, single or combined honours) In what ways did the short interview surprise you? Interviewer very knowledgable. Some very hard questions, which I was not, prepared for – but had I studied/found out more information about marketing, then it would have been easier. The video review. Some unexpected questions that were good practice. I hadn’t realised that my posture was bad. I saw myself doing things I never expected, such as anxiety on my facial expression. Easier than I imagined. Blank. Realism. Surprisingly constructive! E. It didn’t really. I was put on the spot a few times, but this was expected. E. Some questions baffled me, e.g. “describe anything that has challenged me”. It did not The probing questions. E. I was made to feel relaxed; also was more realistic than I expected. E. Some unexpected questions. E. How I look/sound. E. The jobs I have done are more relevant than I thought. E. In my ability – I seemed calmer than I expected. E. Very realistic. E. To see myself and body language. To know what I look like and how I react. E. By being specific. E. My answers were better than I initially thought they were. Unexpected questions, such as “why do you want to work for X?” I find out my way of expression.

15. Brief Encounter - Qualitative Evaluation (E = studying English, single or combined honours) In what ways could the short interview session be improved? Get more people to do it. None, I think it was great and very helpful, especially with camera to show what you look like. We can keep one copy of the video as well. It’s very good already. Maybe handouts, e.g. psychology of body language. Introduction of a couple of ‘pressure’ questions e.g. work characteristic. I will advise that this mock interview should be a regular thing. It is very nice and I am grateful to all that put it together. Perhaps longer question time. Blank. Blank. Great the way it is; the immediate feedback is constructive, relevant and useful. E. Would be great to have my own copy of footage. E. More time. Blank. More time for questions afterwards, otherwise very helpful. E. Blank. E. Perhaps being told that you need to have a company in mind. E. Blank E. Blank. E. Perhaps a written report from the interviewer. E. Blank. E. Can’t think of anything. E. Couldn’t really! E. Blank. Longer interview, more specific to my job role. May improve the environment (of the interview room).

16. Brief Encounter - a short mock interview Conclusions Both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations show how successful the mock interview experience was for students (from both English and non-English fields). Of English field students 75% felt the interview was “realistic”, with 25% finding it “involving” ; 90% replied that they would use the mock interview exercise to assess improvements after attending a real job interview. 45% of English students found the exercise “definitely helpful”, 55% “extremely helpful. The qualitative evaluations highlight the usefulness of the exercise for students and careers professionals. The results show that English field students were happy with their levels of confidence, body language and the way they answered the questions. However, the evaluation sheets also show that English field students felt they could have spent more time on research and preparation – this despite the fact that on applications research was mentioned as being one of the key skills for the subject. Also, English field students had little idea as to what career paths were open to them as graduates; some found it difficult to match their skills and work experience with the answers required in a job interview setting. The above results provide a valuable resource for careers professionals, highlighting once again the contingent nature of skills acquisition and transfer. English field students felt that they had acquired subject specific skills and work experience, but found it difficult to match these to good interview answers. This shows that there is an important place for careers education at the heart of any academic curriculum, focusing as it does on a crucial part of the lifecycle of any graduate, particularly for those with an Arts and Humanities background.