One primary purpose of colleges and universities is to prepare students for postgraduation careers, or the “real world.” Many students who enroll in the sport and recreation management (SRM) program indicate that they aspire to careers in sport and its related industries upon graduation (Barnhill et al., 2018; Gray & Weese, 2021; Hancock & Greenwell, 2013). Nevertheless, securing a full-time position in the sport and recreation industry after graduation has been challenging due to the competitive nature of the field (DeLuca & Braunstein-Minkove, 2016; Sattler & Achen, 2021; Shreffler et al., 2018). Scholars have tried to understand graduate employability in the sport and recreation industry (e.g., de Schepper et al., 2021; Miragaia & Soares, 2017; Sato et al., 2021), highlighting the importance of enhancing students’ employability through experiential learning opportunities such as internships, field experiences, and course assignments to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to enter the industry (Brown et al., 2018; DeLuca & Fornatora, 2020; Diacin, 2018; Foster & Pierce, 2021; Oshiro et al., 2021).
Among various experiential learning opportunities, mock interviews offer students the opportunity to practice interviewing skills in an environment similar to an actual interview, whether in person or virtually, with the hopes of reducing interview apprehension (Hansen et al., 2009). Mock interviews are designed to resemble real interviews as closely as possible, with the aim of instilling confidence and comfort in participants and, thereby, enhancing their interviewing skills (Buckley et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2009). Given the rapid changes in the sport and recreation industry (DeLuca & Braunstein-Minkove, 2016; Oshiro et al., 2021), as well as the recent pivot to online interviewing through various platforms, developing interviewing skills, including formulating resumes, writing cover letters, and understanding job requirements, is pivotal to prepare SRM students for internships and full-time employment (Brown et al., 2018).
Prior research has examined the usefulness of mock-interview assignments on students’ learning and has found ways that they have been effective for job interview preparation (Buckley et al., 2018; Reddan, 2008). Students who participate in mock interviews are more confident, less anxious, and better prepared for the actual interview (Buckley et al., 2018). Furthermore, students felt assured of their real-world interviews and experiences after participating in mock-interview assignments (Reddan, 2008). Research on mock interviews has reported that students found the mock-interview process helpful across a multitude of structures and feedback methods (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). However, there is limited research that has investigated the usefulness of a comprehensive mock-interview assignment with peer educators that included students role playing as both hiring managers and job applicants (Doll, 2018).
Understanding the interviewing process from the hiring manager’s perspective may provide invaluable insights for SRM students about the decision-making process that they would not know unless they were sitting in that hiring manager’s seat (Roth, 2021). These insights would help students better prepare for job interviews as potential candidates and improve their readiness and confidence to participate in the recruitment and retention process if they were asked once they were in a full-time position. This is important for SRM students as entry-level positions within the industry often occur within organizations that face resource limitations. Many employers in the sport and recreation industries “find themselves competing with better-funded employers that can offer higher wages and benefits” (Roth, 2021, para. 7).
Some mock-interview assignments are designed so students who participate are either led by professors or industry professionals (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). There are other mock-interview assignments where students taking junior-level business communication classes are provided with frequently asked interview questions, randomly paired together, and asked to interview each other (Hansen et al., 2009). Collectively, students could be interviewed by classmates, other students not in the same year in college, industry professionals, and peer educators at their institutions’ career centers. Multiple sources of feedback compared with a single source of feedback are likely to lead to enhanced experiential learning and career preparedness for students (Black et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the benefits of multiple sources of feedback in a mock-interview assignment have received little attention in the sport and recreation pedagogy literature.
Building off the existing mock interview and person–organization (P–O) fit and person–job (P–J) fit literature, the current research study sought to understand the usefulness of a mock-interview assignment through collaborative work between SRM faculty with peer educators and staff in the communication center. Mock-interview assignments were used because they prepare students for actual interviews (Hansen et al., 2009), and past literature on mock-interview assignments, P–O fit, and P–J fit served as a guide for this research study. Specifically, this study examined the impact of a mock-interview assignment on students’ job interview capabilities, career preparation, and education experience. The current study also explored how the online mock interview affects students’ mock interview experience. Online job interviews have become more commonplace since the COVID-19 pandemic, and many employers are likely to continue to use them because of the time and cost efficiency of such interviews (Gregory, 2021); however, empirical research on online mock interviews is lacking. Our study will address this gap by examining how online mock interviews affect students’ interview education experience.
Literature Review
Role Playing
Many mock-interview assignments have student participants role play as interviewees and/or interviewers (henceforth referred to as job applicants and hiring managers) to gain interviewing experience and increase confidence for actual interviews. Reddan’s (2008) mock-interview assignment placed students into groups. Each group was provided with a job advertisement, and they had to pick one person to role play as the hiring manager. The findings showed that participating in a mock-interview assignment and role playing increased students’ levels of assurance and confidence for real interviews. Student participants reported that they realized what needed to be improved, learned how to deal with stressful situations, and gained experience that provided them with insights they would otherwise not have gained (Reddan, 2008).
Research by Sincoff (2004) highlighted ways in which students acquire skills such as communication and critical thinking by participating as interviewers in a mock-interview assignment. Sincoff (2004) had students act as interviewers who interviewed professionals of their choosing. These professionals had to be in the same career as the students interviewing them. Students designed their own questions, wrote up reports, and were available for the professionals they interviewed to provide them with tips and feedback on how students did on their interviews. In addition, the students had to submit a paper “highlighting what new insights they learned, and showing how interview content related to course content (either to class activity or text)” (Sincoff, 2004, p. 207). At the end of the assignment, Sincoff (2004) reported that receiving feedback from the professionals and role playing as hiring managers allowed students to gain helpful insights that better prepared them for actual interviews.
Schoo et al. (2015) examined “self-assessed motivational interviewing skills of health students and whether reflecting on the results can promote transformative learning” (p. 1). Thirty-six occupational therapy and physical therapy master’s students participated in this study. After teaching students about the principles of motivational interviewing and allowing them to practice in mixed groups of three (i.e., interviewer, interviewee, and observer), students were asked to conduct motivational interviews with friends and family who regularly participated in physical activity and/or exercise (Schoo et al., 2015). Using self-reflection assignments, recordings and transcripts, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity tool, and a focus group session to gather data from participants, the study found that practicing mock interviews resulted in greater motivational interviewing learning outcomes when compared with other forms of written work.
Research by Doll (2018) examined an exercise intended to help human resource management students with mock interviews by allowing them to experience structured interviews from the viewpoint of both job applicants and hiring managers. After preparing and running the exercise, students who role played as job applicants received written feedback from students who role played as hiring managers. Some of the feedback was that the exercise facilitated learning, improved students’ interviewing skills, and helped students present their materials in a comfortable manner that allowed them to feel confident (Doll, 2018).
The sections to come will provide information on ways in which students gain insights on the value that organizations and hiring managers place on fit, particularly P–O or P–J fit (Kristof-Brown, 2000), how mock-interview assignments improve interviewing capabilities (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012), the utility of receiving feedback from peer educators (Hansen et al., 2009), and the usefulness of practicing online job interviews (McKenzie, 2021). As mock-interview assignments are conceptualized by faculty and staff, it is essential to keep the course objectives in mind, particularly what they want students who role play as job applicants and hiring managers to gain from the assignments. Previous research studies have shown that students feel self-assured when given feedback (Reddan, 2008), gain confidence from the experience (Sincoff, 2004), and improve their interviewing skills (Doll, 2018).
P–O Fit and P–J Fit
Students who participate in mock-interview assignments, like many other experiential learning opportunities, gain insight into such things as recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit and P–J fit, which they otherwise would not have gained from role playing. P–O fit occurs when a person, either a job applicant, candidate, interviewee, or employee, fits well or is compatible with the organization they are interviewing with or work for and with the organization’s values (Kristof, 1996). Kristof-Brown (2000) explained that P–O fit occurs when the values of an applicant or interviewee align well with those of an organization (Kristof-Brown, 2000).
P–J fit is a way of determining whether a person, either a job applicant, candidate, interviewee, or employee, has the competencies, such as the knowledge, skills, personal traits, and abilities, needed to perform the job duties and responsibilities (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000). P–J fit is also seen as a match between the qualities of an applicant or employee with those of the job demands (Kucuk, 2022). The literature on P–J fit also highlights demand–ability (D–A) fit and need–supply (N–S) fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Kucuk, 2022; Werbel & Johnson, 2001). According to Kucuk (2022), both D–A fit and N–S fit provide more detail when conceptualizing P–J fit. D–A fit “refers to a congruence between personal abilities and job requirements” (Kucuk, 2022, p. 8), whereas N–S fit “is about whether the characteristics of the job satisfy the person in terms of personal desires, values and needs” (Kucuk, 2022, p. 8).
Many research studies have examined the validity of P–O fit as a predictor of job performance and turnover. Using a meta-analytic procedure, Arthur et al. (2006) examined P–O fit to predict work attitudes, personnel selection, and turnover. The results from the meta-analyses showed “153 independent correlations that represented the relationship between P-O fit and job performance, turnover, and attitudinal criteria” (Arthur et al., 2006, p. 791). The estimated true criterion-related validities (ps) for job performance, turnover, and work attitudes were, respectively, .15, .24, and .31. Surprisingly, there are more research studies that have examined P–O fit and job performance than studies that have investigated P–O fit and turnover or work attitudes. This suggests that further exploration is needed to fully conceptualize P–O fit as it relates to interview and employment research.
Other studies have explored the perceived importance of fit during interviews. For instance, a study by Chuang and Sackett (2005) explored the importance of P–J fit and P–O fit perceived by recruiters between and within three interview stages (initial, final, and single). The results stated that recruiters perceived P–J fit to be more important during the initial interview. However, recruiters placed more value on P–O fit as job applicants progressed toward the final interview stage, though when only one interview was conducted before an applicant was provided a job, recruiters tended to place a higher emphasis on P–O fit than on P–J fit. It was, though, reiterated by the researchers that “P–O fit still does not precede the importance of P-J fit in the single interview situation” (Chuang & Sackett, 2005, p. 222).
Kristoff-Brown’s (2000) study examined perceived mock applicant fit, distinguishing perceptions between P–O fit and P–J fit. The first objective of Kristof-Brown’s (2000) study examined whether recruiters’ perceptions of P–J fit and P–O fit “are influenced by unique types of applicant characteristics” (Kristof-Brown, 2000, p. 644). The second objective investigated whether “the factor composition of a perceived fit measure is examined to determine if two discriminable factors (P-J and P-0 fit) comprise recruiters’ fit perceptions.” The findings showed that knowledge, skills, and abilities are factors used by recruiters to assess applicants’ P–J fit. In addition, the study found that values and personality traits are commonly used to measure P–O fit. In addition, the P–J fit and P–O fit are favorable predictions when making hiring approvals.
Although little research has directly examined P–O or P–J fit as they relate to mock-interview assignments, understanding the selection practices of hiring managers is important because recruiters habitually search for fit or a match between interviewees or applicants and the job vacancy or the organization they represent (Kristof-Brown, 2000). Role playing as hiring managers may provide students with a better understanding of how recruiters perceive P–O fit and P-J fit. Moreover, role playing can provide students with a clearer understanding of what recruiters and hiring managers are in search of in potential job applicants and employees.
Mock-Interview-Assignment Feedback
Research has examined the impact of mock-interview assignments by exploring the types of feedback received from participants of mock-interview assignments (see Table 1). Professors and industry practitioners involved with the mock-interview assignments can share relevant information with participants based on participants’ feedback. For instance, Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) examined how a mock-interview assignment helped fourth-year doctor of pharmacy students prepare for their residency interviews. Students in Koenigsfeld et al.’s study reported that they had more confidence after the mock-interview assignment. Feedback received varies, and it is dependent upon the design of the mock-interview assignment. Research by Koenigsfeld et al. (2012), Marks and O’Connor (2006), and Sincoff (2004) used some type of formal feedback system, whether that entailed a student evaluation form or a survey sent to participants after the mock interview was complete. By contrast, other studies utilized informal feedback or had none at all (Hansen et al., 2009; Reddan, 2008).
Research Literature Integrating Feedback in Mock Interviews
| Strategy | Feedback sources | References |
|---|---|---|
| One-way to student | Course instructor, industry professional, interviewee course student peers as hiring manager | Hansen et al. (2009); Koenigsfeld et al. (2012); Reddan (2008) |
| Two-way feedback | Course student peers via observation, giving and receiving feedback | Marks and O’Connor (2006) |
| External validation (feedback insights echoed by someone outside of course) | Outside guest lecturer | Hansen et al. (2009) |
| Longitudinal self-reflection (student participant reflections from perspective as an alumnus) | Self | Hansen et al. (2009); Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) |
Importance of Soliciting Feedback
Most research studies reviewed highlighted the importance of soliciting feedback. For example, Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) had participants rate a statement that said, “I feel like my interview skills have improved after this mock-interview session” (p. 103). According to Koenigsfeld et al. (2012), feedback is necessary when determining the usefulness of mock-interview assignments. Marks and O’Connor (2006) had participants indicate by circling one of the following: “increased confidence tremendously/somewhat/no change” (p. 274). Marks and O’Connor (2006) utilized a specific approach to mock interviews called the round robin approach. This is a unique approach to mock-interview structure because it allows students to watch two interviews by other students and participate in one, as well as give and receive feedback, all within a 75-min class period. This interview structure was highly organized and followed a schedule so that interviews lasted 15 min and feedback was given for five at the end of each round. The researchers acclaimed that increased confidence as a result of the mock-interview assignment impacts participants’ perceptions of an actual interview.
Similar findings were reached by Hansen et al. (2009) and Reddan (2008). In Hansen et al.’s (2009) study, students were asked to solicit feedback after their mock-interview assignments. These participants claimed that feedback was helpful, particularly how it made them aware of areas for improvement. Reddan’s (2008) mock-interview assignment had students acting as hiring managers as well as interviewing and receiving feedback from their job candidates to understand the usefulness of the assignment. It was reported that the mock-interview assignment increased participants’ levels of assurance when prepping for the real world (Reddan, 2008). Participants also felt that the mock-interview assignment helped them realize their weaknesses, increased interviewing experiences, and informed them on how to best handle stressful circumstances. Overall, participants’ feedback serves as a major source for examining the usefulness and impact of a mock-interview assignment.
Other similar questions across studies were related to what aspects of interviewing techniques students thought they could improve upon. Marks and O’Connor (2006) asked, “What changes or new approaches are you going to try to incorporate into your interviewing technique?” (p. 274), and Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement, “I have identified specific areas where I can improve my interview/interviews” (p. 103). Studies by Hansen et al. (2009) and Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) also asked for feedback from students who had graduated and were looking for jobs or had already accepted offers. Both research studies used feedback to determine participants’ approval of the mock interviews.
In Koenigsfeld et al.’s (2012) study, feedback was collected once students were matched with a program and used the following statements: “The questions in the mock interview were similar to the questions I encountered in my actual residency interview/interviews,” “The feedback I received from the faculty members following the mock interview was helpful,” and “I feel that participating in this program helped me during the actual residency interview process” (p. 104). Hansen et al.’s (2009) study asked students who had graduated for their feedback through an informal process. Some student responses include the following: “The mock interview practice helped me to come across in a professional manner in interviews” and “I had an interview today, ... and I did everything you taught in class about interviews, and my interviewer was impressed. So impressed that she offered me the job right on the spot.” Overall, students had positive feedback to give, and based on the responses, the mock interview prepared them for their postgraduate interview experiences. Then again, students discussed how helpful the mock-interview assignment was and how it helped their performance in actual job interviews.
Student participants were paired together as job applicants and hiring managers (Hansen et al., 2009). The mock interviews were conducted outside of the classroom, and students had to give feedback to their partners’ responses. The findings show that feedback received was helpful as it made students more aware of what was being done wrong (Hansen et al., 2009). A month after the mock-interview assignment, a professional human resources guest speaker spoke to the class. Students reported that the guest speaker reinforced information shared in the feedback received.
Feedback From Peer Educators
Although some of the mock-interview assignments published reference the partnership with subject-matter experts outside of the classroom, for instance, partnering with human resource managers in Hansen et al.’s (2009) study or pharmacists in Koenigsfeld et al.’s (2012) study, rarely were there any that integrated outside of the class peers as partners in the mock-interview assignment. For example, faculty may recruit an industry-specific partner to serve as the hiring manager in a mock-interview or invite the campus career center to deliver an interview skills workshop and even sit in on the interviews for feedback. Including people who have an outside-of-the-classroom perspective and subject-matter experts who are not part of the class is valuable because they can supplement and validate the instruction happening in the classroom while providing additional unique experiences and networking opportunities for the students in the classroom (Hansen et al., 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2020). Although these are great outside partners, they still do not offer the benefits of having peer educators providing feedback.
Peer educators, in the case of our study, are either undergraduate and/or graduate students who work within the communication center of the same educational institution. Peer educators can offer feedback outside of the relationship of grades, authority, and perceived power relationships of faculty or even outside subject-matter experts (Latino & Unite, 2012; Topping, 1996). In these peer-to-peer spaces, students might be more receptive to feedback, reflection, or even shared vulnerabilities that can help make learning possible (Latino & Unite, 2012; Topping, 1996). Peer-to-peer education is not a novel concept. For instance, Layzer et al.’s (2017) research to understand youth participants’ perception on a Teen Prevention Education program utilized a peer-led comprehensive sexual health education approach. The findings showed that peer-led education “can be an important educational mechanism for teaching students information and skills to promote sexual health” (Layzer et al., 2017, p. 513). Hansen et al. (2009) further recommended that multiple sources of feedback be provided to reinforce experiential learning and increase students’ mock interviewing confidence levels. Moreover, it highlights the importance of role playing as both job applicants and hiring managers.
Online Mock Interviews
Online job interviews in virtual spaces and environments are becoming a common practice of the hiring process. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic led recruiters, organizations, and their hiring managers to pivot to virtual spaces and environments for job interviews (McKenzie, 2021). Many employers plan to use online interviews because of their benefits (e.g., saving on travel time and costs), especially in the early stage of the recruitment process (Gregory, 2021). The protective nature of online environments helps college students express themselves more freely than in face-to-face environments (Blau et al., 2017). As such, students tend to feel less intimidated when meeting with potential employers online (Handshake, 2021). Nevertheless, over half of the college students expressed concerns about their ability to effectively make connections and communicate online (Handshake, 2021). Interview anxiety also tends to have a detrimental effect on interview performance (Powell et al., 2018), including in a virtual setting (McCarthy et al., 2021). Furthermore, poor technological infrastructure has been identified as a major challenge of online education faced by students during the COVID-19 pandemic (Hasan & Khan, 2020; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021). It is, thus, critical to examine how online mock interview affects the students’ interview experience.
Despite the importance of online job interview preparation for students, the usefulness of online mock interviews has received little attention within academic research pedagogy. One exception is the study by Barnes (2021), who had hospitality management students partake in an online mock-interview assignment with a hospitality industry professional. At the completion of the interview, the professional evaluated students by ranking them on overall interviewing attributes using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Barnes, 2021). The research provided examples of ways in which mock-interview assignments can be adopted virtually. In addition, the assignment led to 10% of student participants gaining opportunities to be interviewed for jobs. Nevertheless, Barnes did not assess how online mock interviews affect students’ learning experience. To better understand the effectiveness of online mock interviews, further investigation is warranted among SRM students.
Summary and Research Questions
Literature on mock interviews and job interview preparation shows some similarities (Hansen et al., 2009; Koenigsfeld et al., 2012; Mani et al., 2015; Marks & O’Connor, 2006; Reddan, 2008; Sincoff, 2004; Welzel & Wolff-Michael, 1998). For instance, two studies reviewed had students create interview questions themselves (Reddan, 2008; Sincoff, 2004), but neither of them had upper level students interview entry-level students, nor did they use an outside peer educator, such as undergraduate students with the communication center. Several assignments that utilized mock interviews for undergraduate students placed students in pairs or small groups with their cohort (Hansen et al., 2009; Marks & O’Connor, 2006; Sincoff, 2004), whereas other assignments utilized faculty members or local business professionals as interviewers (Hansen et al., 2009). Many of the assignments reviewed focused mainly on the job applicant side of the mock interview (Hansen et al., 2009; Koenigsfeld et al., 2012; Marks & O’Connor, 2006; Reddan, 2008; Sincoff, 2004).
In addition, other research studies allowed the students ample time to prepare in advance for their assigned mock interview slot. For example, Hansen et al. (2009) had a guest speaker come to class before the interviews to give advice. Another study allowed students to prepare beforehand through reading relevant articles and receiving a copy of the job description for which they were interviewing (Marks & O’Connor, 2006).
Based on the aforementioned literature, there is room for enhancing mock-interview SRM assignments. There can be multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations between departments, professors, and programs as most sport and recreation organizations do not work in silos; rather, they work with local, state, and federal governments, governing agencies, and so forth. Upon graduation, SRM students may find themselves interviewing for positions in organizations that are outside of sport and recreation but that collaborate with sport and recreation organizations. Therefore, mock-interview assignments with multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborative components may better prepare students for interviews with nonsport and recreation organizations when the time comes. Also, mock-interview assignments can capitalize on the use of peer educators and third-party sources, such as a communication center. Students and faculty can gain unique insights and practices for their communication competencies when they are able to learn with their peers. Receiving feedback from peers offers unique insights that they otherwise would not gain.
In our paper, we discuss P–O fit and P–J fit, students’ feedback, and online or virtual mock interviews because of the value it adds to mock-interview assignment pedagogy. P–O fit and P–J fit serve as a conceptual guide for this study as they give credence to the importance of feedback received during mock-interview assignments. Role playing as hiring managers gives students insight into the concepts of P–O fit and P–J fit that they would otherwise not gain. Feedback from peer educators places less of an emphasis on grades and is perceived positively by students than feedback received from faculty or outside experts (Latino & Unite, 2012; Topping, 1996). Mock-interview assignments in SRM classes should be intentional with how feedback is collected, analyzed, and shared. Most research studies examined used a one-time approach to gain and/or give feedback (Marks & O’Connor, 2006; Sincoff, 2004). However, mock-interview assignments should allow students to give and receive feedback from job applicants, hiring managers, communication center consultants and staff, and professors.
RQ1: What impact did role playing as a hiring manager have on student self-reports of job interview education?
RQ2: What impact did receiving multiple sources of feedback have on student self-reports of learning?
RQ3: How did pivoting to the online mock interview affect the interview education experience?
Method
Research Approach and Design
The research design included two primary components, the instructional intervention and the actual research study proper. Both the instructional intervention and research study took place at a Mid-Atlantic midsized regional university. All students participated in the instructional intervention as it was an essential component of each class. The research study was approved by the local institutional review board and involved students voluntarily participating in the research outside of the scope of the assignment or course grade. The survey was anonymous, and there was no way to trace responses back to students. The collaboration for this research study involved students and faculty participation from two different SRM courses and the communication center on campus. The general design was that students in an entry-level SRM course would apply and interview for jobs created by students in an upper level SRM course. The communication center provided instructional support to SRM faculty and upper level students along with the physical place for the interviews to take place and be recorded.
The instructional intervention happened in several places throughout the assignment design. First, entry-level students did not receive instructional support or intervention from the communication center, although faculty in the entry-level SRM course provided instruction on job interview best practices for resume and cover letter designs as well as job interviewing skills. Second, faculty in the upper level SRM course provided instruction on how to perform a job analysis, prepare for a job announcement, create screening grids, and conduct mock interviews. Third, students and faculty from the communication center provided an in-class workshop on how to align the job interview process, questions, and communication with the mission, vision, and values of a hiring organization. For example, they covered the importance of aligning job interview questions, screening grid, and the job description. They also highlighted the roles that communication plays throughout the job interview process from the perspective of a hiring manager or committee, including interpersonal, nonverbal, and spatial. Fourth, to train and prepare the communication center staff (undergraduate and graduate peer educators) to facilitate the SRM mock-interview assignment, peer educators received instructional training from the faculty coordinator on job interview best practices and how to provide peer instructional support and feedback for job interview assignments. Furthermore, the communication center staff received copies of all the job announcements so that more targeted feedback could be given based on that particular job interview situation. All of the instructional intervention and support happened prior to the actual event of the mock job interviews themselves.
The collaborative design featuring multiple points of role playing and feedback was used for the fall 2019 and spring 2020 semesters. Although the spring 2020 semester began with this intended design, the intervention and assignment had to be altered as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic. At this specific institution, all teaching and learning pivoted midsemester to protect the health and safety of the campus community. At this point, the faculty instruction and communication center instructional workshops had taken place but not the actual mock job interviews and feedback. The collaborating partners decided to adjust and simplify the job interview assignment to minimize unnecessary anxiety and possible stress related to the new online learning environments. Students were not required to visit or collaborate with the communication center peer educators for the interview. Students were expected to complete the interview assignment but were given flexibility on how and when to complete the interviews via their preferred synchronous technology platform (Zoom, Google Hangouts, Facetime, WebEx, etc.). Feedback was provided to the students from their classroom SRM faculty member, although the students interviewing as job applicants received feedback from the students role playing as the hiring managers. Due to the COVID-19 pivot, the fall 2019 students participated in the mock-interview assignment intervention as designed, whereas the spring 2020 students did not collaborate with (or receive feedback from) communication center peer educators and, instead, conducted the interviews themselves via their digital communications platform of choice.
How feedback was evaluated for mock-interview assignments differentiated our mock-interview assignment from others offered in the literature. Students in the entry-level SRM course received written feedback on their resume, cover letter, and practice job interview from their faculty member and from the students in the upper level SRM course role playing as hiring managers. Students in the upper level SRM course role playing as hiring managers received oral feedback immediately from the communication center peer educators after the mock interview concluded. The peer educators received similar training that was delivered to students role playing as hiring managers. For example, the feedback they provided focused on professional communication (including nonverbal), alignments of interview questions with job posting, appropriateness of questions, interpersonal communication before, during, and after candidates were interviewed, and handling difficult interview scenarios. These different modes and levels of feedback provide a unique opportunity for additional perspectives. Using various modes to provide feedback at different levels may allow for a formalized, yet subjective, approach for receiving feedback. The amount of time spent preparing, in addition to multiple points of feedback and perspective, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and introducing the student role of hiring manager into the mock-interview process, helped make this SRM mock-interview assignment and research unique and memorable and helped it to have a positive impact on student learning and job interview preparation.
Participants
A total of 163 students completed the survey (51 students from fall 2019 and 112 from spring 2020 semesters). Among them, two responses were excluded from the analysis because of missing data. The effective sample size for the current analysis was 161. This includes 104 entry-level class students and 57 upper level class students. A summary of the demographic characteristics of the respondents revealed that 70% were male, 87% were White, and the majority of respondents (94%) had prior real job interview experience.
Instruments
The survey included 10 items to measure the impact of the mock-interview assignment on students’ job interview experience (see Table 2). All items were adapted to fit the collaborative and feedback context for the present mock-interview assignment. First, we adopted seven items from Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) to assess the effectiveness of the mock-interview assignment (e.g., “I feel like my interview skills have improved after this mock-interview session”). Based on Reddan (2008), the survey also included one item to measure students’ confidence level for a future interview (“I am confident for a future interview in my field”), which was an important measure to assess the effectiveness of the mock interview (Buckley et al., 2018). Furthermore, we developed two items to assess the specific impact of role playing as hiring managers on students’ learning experience (“I feel that being involved in both sides of the interview process will help me better understand the interview process,” “I feel that being involved in both sides of the interview process will help me better prepare for future interviews.”). Two original items about experience as a hiring manager were only asked of students from the upper level course. Two questions about experience as a job candidate (“The questions during the mock interview were similar to what I expected” and “The feedback I received from the upper-level SRM students following the mock interview was helpful”) were only asked of students from the entry-level course. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition to the aforementioned questions, 10 open-ended questions asking students to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment, what they may have learned, and the role that technology played in the mock interviews were asked. The open-ended questions were developed after an all-embracing review and discussion of the literature on mock interviews.
Descriptive Statistics by Applicants and Hiring Managers
| Question (source) | Applicants from entry-level course (n = 104) | Hiring managers from upper level course (n = 57) |
|---|---|---|
| I feel like my interview skills have improved after this mock-interview session (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 76% | 89% |
| I have identified specific areas where I can improve my interview/interviews (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 87% | 91% |
| Following the mock interview, I feel like I have a better understanding of questions that may be asked in the interview process (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 84% | 95% |
| I did not learn any additional information by participating in the mock-interview process (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 12% | 4% |
| The time allocated for the mock-interview process was adequate (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 85% | 93% |
| aThe questions during the mock interview were similar to what I expected (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012) | 76% | |
| aThe feedback I received from the upper level SRM students following the mock interview was helpful (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). | 66% | |
| I am confident for a future interview in my field (Reddan, 2008). | 84% | 95% |
| bI feel that being involved in both sides of the interview process (applicant and hiring manager) will help me better understand the interview process (original item). | 96% | |
| bI feel that being involved in both sides of the interview process (applicant and hiring manager) will help me better prepare for future interviews (original item). | 96% |
Note. SRM = sport and recreation management.
aQuestions asked only of entry-level-course students. bQuestions asked only of upper-level-course students.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis began after the deadline to complete the survey by students was reached. Data were exported into NVivo (version 12) to help simplify data organization and analysis. Students’ responses to the open-ended questions were read and reread several times and were then categorized into common phrases, words, and sentences that were later grouped together into first-order codes using open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). There was a total of 143 first-order codes once open coding concluded. All the first-order codes had five or more references, meaning that they were mentioned multiple times by multiple respondents. The first-order codes were then consolidated using axial coding to create second-order codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Once axial coding was completed, there were 37th-order codes. Subsequently, selective coding enabled researchers to further condense the second-order codes into five contextual categorical themes, namely: feedback received, online versus in person, the impact of role playing as the hiring managers, mock interview did not help students understand career interests, and mock interview helped students understand career interests. The latter two themes are not included in the findings because they did not fit with any of the three RQs.
Results and Findings
Quantitative Results
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the quantitative results regarding participants’ evaluations of the mock-interview experience and future interviews (see Table 2). Because of this reason, results from both the entry-level and upper level courses were analyzed. Among respondents from the entry-level course, the majority of them strongly agreed or agreed that their interview skills had improved (76%), they were able to identify areas to improve upon for their interviews (87%), and they had a better understanding of questions that could be asked in the interview process (84%). When evaluating the mock interview process, most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the time allocated for the mock interview was appropriate (85%) and the questions asked during the mock interview were similar to what they expected (76%). Although two thirds (66%) of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the feedback they received was helpful, 11% of the respondents indicated that the feedback received was unhelpful. Finally, most respondents (84%) felt that they were confident for a future interview in their field.
In comparison, students who role played as hiring managers had higher scores. The majority of respondents from the upper level course also strongly agreed or agreed that their interview skills had improved (89%), they were able to identify areas to improve upon for their interviews (91%), and they had a better understanding of questions that could be asked in the interview process (95%). When evaluating the mock-interview process, most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the time allocated for the mock interview was appropriate (93%) and that being involved in both sides of the interview process would help them better understand the interview process (96%) and better prepare for future interviews (96%). In addition, most felt that they were confident for a future interview in their field (95%).
Qualitative Findings
RQ1: Hiring Manager Role
One of the most important aspects of this mock-interview assignment was the requirement that students in the upper level SRM undergraduate course had to play the role of hiring managers in the mock-interview assignment. They had to take the lead in planning and conducting mock interviews with students from the entry-level SRM course. Students who role played as hiring managers were able to gain more knowledge on how to best respond to interview questions and the interview process because they had hands-on experience gained from creating job announcements, interview questions, screening grids, and so forth. Overall, students role playing as the hiring manager did share that their confidence and comfort increased as a result of taking on this perspective. For example, one participant shared that “I think it gave a bit more confidence now that I’ve been on both sides of an interview. It’s given me good practice and that is always beneficial.” Students mentioned that as hiring managers, there is less stress, and they had a better understanding of the interview process, which led to an increase in both comfort and confidence levels.
One reason students reported being more confident was that in role playing as the hiring managers, they had a better sense of what kind of questions were asked in job interviews, how to answer, and what employers were looking for. By creating interview questions for students who role played as job applicants, students who role played as hiring managers were able to adequately conceptualize responses expected by job applicants. In addition, students who role played as hiring managers learned how interview questions allowed for responses that provided adequate information or responses on whether a particular candidate was a good fit for a particular position. For instance, one student hiring manager said that they felt more prepared and confident “because I understand the questions they ask and what exactly they are looking for. So, this helps me to know how to answer questions for interviews.”
It helped me better understand how hiring managers perceive everything during the process. While during the interview, I may have been less nervous asking the questions, making the decision on who to hire and learning what we are looking for were nerve-wracking, despite it being a mock process. The emotion and behavioral aspects of the process became so much easier for me to understand.
Students who role played as hiring managers were able to gain firsthand experience and a better understanding of the interview process, particularly activities that go on “behind the scene” or outside the view of interviewees.
RQ2: Feedback Received
The feedback received after the mock-interview assignment was instrumental in preparing students for actual interviews. In particular, this feedback was helpful when students conceptualized the importance of answering hiring managers’ and interviewers’ questions appropriately and how they could be interactive as well as personable during interviews. One student who role played as a hiring manager shared that “the feedback allowed me to reflect on how I can go more in-depth with my questions to interviewees, and how I can prepare myself to be more interactive and personable with interviewees moving forward.” Another student who also role played as a hiring manager said that they “learned to structure my questions more short [shorter] and concisely so that answers are not as challenging for the applicant.”
In addition, students’ comments demonstrated how the feedback from multiple sources and perspectives, as well as at different levels, was useful in appreciating the hiring process, necessary documents, and professional communication expectations. These students also gained a better insight of hiring managers’ thought processes, realized what areas of the interview process respondents needed to improve upon, and better conceptualized interview etiquette and behaviors. For instance, from the student hiring manager’s side, one entry-level student who role played as a job candidate said, “From the feedback I definitely gained an insight into what their thought of me were [was]. I got to understand oh they liked this, and oh maybe I shouldn’t say that and come up with something better.” Adding the communication center staff provided a unique perspective as almost a neutral facilitator; one student said, “The feedback allowed me to look at areas to improve and having the communication staff in there allowed us to improve even during the interview process which I found very beneficial.” The benefit of this feedback and assignment, in general, was clear to the students. For example, an entry-level student who role played as a job applicant or candidate shared, “I gained a lot of helpful feedback for ways I can improve for my next interview. They were helpful in the sense that I still felt confident for how the interview went, but I also know how to improve.”
RQ3: Online Versus In-Person Mock Interviews
I feel like the people we interviewed were able to have a bit more confidence because it wasn’t as scary as it would have been if it was conducting [conducted] in a meeting room on campus. (Upper level student role playing as hiring manager)
I was more confident because we didn’t have to meet in person. For me it was easier to conduct. (Upper level student role playing as hiring manager)
I think it impacted my comfort level for this assignment because I didn’t have to go somewhere to conduct the interview and I didn’t have to meet the people in person. (Upper level student role playing as hiring manager)
I think it allowed me to be more comfortable because I didn’t have to see them in person and have to worry about my body language etc. (Entry-level student role playing as job candidate)
Yes, every interview I have had in my life was in person and it makes me feel more nervous that they are right there in front of me and that I can watch them taking notes on what I say. Online, I knew they were taking notes but I couldn’t see it so I liked that more. (Entry-level student role playing as job candidate)
Second, some students reported decreased comfort and confidence with the pivot to online/virtual interviews. Several student participants commented on the technical difficulties and internet concerns that impacted the efficiency of online or remote mock interviews. For example, an entry-level student role playing as a job candidate said, “I felt like I was unable to portray myself in the interview because we were in a rush and I was too worried about my internet connection.” Another entry-level student who role played as a job candidate reflected that “I would have been just as nervous in person, but I didn’t have confidence in my WIFI to hold up for the entire interview which I was worried would make me look worse.” The comments indicated that students were extremely nervous about technical issues, whether it be them not being familiar with virtual or remote interviewing, not having proper internet capabilities, or not trusting their technical abilities. In addition, several students mentioned being more comfortable with in-person interviews. In particular, one entry-level student who role played as a job candidate commented, “I feel as if my confidence level went down. I prefer in-person interviews because I believe discussing anything with anyone in-person accomplishes more than anything done virtually.” These students described having experience with in-person interviews, being more personable, and doing better with in-person interviews.
Third, both entry-level and upper level students reported no increase or decrease in confidence as a result of moving to online interviews. These participants described the general experience of interviewing as anxiety producing regardless of whether it was conducted in person or virtually. For example, one upper level student who role played as a hiring manager said that “both are awkward and uncomfortable in their own ways.” One of the ways in which students described the online medium as awkward was the difficulty in communicating nonverbally and so-called reading the room. A common sentiment was that students were “not comfortable with not seeing their or my body language.” One entry-level student who role played as a job candidate shared that they “had no idea the type of impression that was made and I don’t know if they knew the type of student/candidate I really was, rather than the impression made seen through a lens.” Students, whether those who played the role of hiring managers or those who were the interviewees, reported being unable to properly decode body language. This inability to decode body language impacted students’ comfort and confidence levels.
Despite some negative feedback and uncertainty with the online or virtual interview format, students suggested that the practice assignment did help prepare them for future interviews. One student role playing as the hiring manager added, “No, it didn’t impact my comfort or confidence for the assignment, but I do wish we could’ve conducted the interviews in person. It adds more comfort for the interviewee and they didn’t get to experience their ‘first’ interview in person, but now I feel they will be more prepared for interviews in the future that happen to be online.” Even in acknowledging the limitations of the format and overall student preferences, many student participants were aware of the benefits of the learning experience.
Discussion
Analyzing the descriptive statistics addressed RQ1 and revealed that students who role played as hiring managers from the upper level course were more likely to agree that their interview skills had improved after the mock-interview session and that they felt more confident for a future interview than students who role played as interviewees from the entry-level course. In the current study, upper level students worked on a series of assignments that typically occur in the hiring process, including performing a job analysis, preparing a job announcement, creating a screening grid, developing structured interview questions based on a job analysis, and conducting a mock interview. Interview experience as a hiring manager may help students understand the hiring process from an organization’s perspective and develop their job interviewing skills. Our results suggest that providing interview training for students role playing as hiring managers would increase ability and confidence in these roles. Our results also corroborate the findings of Doll (2018) by illustrating that experiencing both sides of the interview process is likely to help develop students’ interview skills and build confidence for their future job interviews.
The results from the qualitative analysis suggest that role playing as hiring managers gave student participants a comprehensive insight into the demands, needs, skills, qualities, and abilities required to be successful during actual interviews as job applicants and ways to be good employees. Their hands-on experience allowed them to gain more knowledge on how best to answer interview questions and align themselves with future jobs. Similar to findings from Hansen et al. (2009), student participants in our research reported feeling more confident and comfortable after their mock-interview assignment because they became aware of what organizations are looking for to create fit. The P–J fit lines up well with the findings from our research study. The P–J fit states that there should be good compatibility between the needs and characteristics of a job candidate or employee and the demands of the job, task, or position (Kucuk, 2022). According to Kucuk (2022), there should be a good match “between a person’s knowledge, skills and ability, and the requirements of the job” (p. 3).
Two conceptualizations of the P–J fit—N–S fit and D–A fit (Kucuk, 2022)—were apparent within our findings. N–S fit refers to congruence between an individual’s needs and the rewards offered by the job, whereas D–A fit refers to congruence between an individual’s abilities with the demands of their job (Kucuk, 2022). Our findings propose that, through role playing, students were able to develop a better understanding of the importance of compatibility when examining what jobs offer and how their needs can best be met or cannot be met (i.e., N–S fit). The findings also suggest that students had an understanding of whether they possessed the knowledge and abilities to meet the requirements to perform a particular job or task (i.e., D–A fit).
The findings from the qualitative analysis illuminate information relating to RQ2. Students’ self-reported responses show that having multiple sources of feedback reinforces the importance of answering interview questions appropriately. In our case, and unlike other research studies, students participating in this mock-interview assignment received feedback from their professors and from peer evaluators at varied times throughout the semester. Students can know what improvements are needed by receiving appropriate feedback from different collaborators who may share similar and/or different perspectives. In addition, it is easier to accept feedback if it is consistent and perceived as neutral by peer educators. Furthermore, students do not often experience the same grade-induced anxiety and fear of judgment (in comparison with their course instructor) when working with and receiving feedback from peers. This additional layer of vulnerability and candid discussion enables the feedback to sometimes have a more lasting impact beyond the performance for an assignment. Although little research has included peer educators within its mock-interview assignments as sources of feedback, the findings from this research are comparable with prior findings (e.g., Doll, 2018) in regard to the level of importance placed on receiving feedback. The usefulness of mock-interview assignments should be determined by how feedback is solicited and by what information is shared, be it formal (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012) or informal (Hansen et al., 2009; Reddan, 2008) feedback.
The research findings from the qualitative analysis also helped answer RQ3. The results showed mixed findings related to the impact of pivoting to a virtual mock interview on students’ learning experience. Students whose confidence and comfort levels increased attributed it to being comfortable online and within their own spaces or homes, which are common features that promote students’ online learning experience (Hasan & Khan, 2020). Having some control of their surrounding may have given students a sense of security, particularly those who were nervous about interviewing or lacked interviewing experience. Online environments could also help such students express themselves more freely than face-to-face interactions (Blau et al., 2017), which may positively affect their online mock interview experience. By contrast, participants whose confidence and comfort levels diminished due to having the mock interviews virtually were worried about technical difficulties and internet inadequacy, which is consistent with prior research suggesting that a lack of technological resources represents a major challenge of online learning among students during the COVID-19 pandemic (Hasan & Khan, 2020; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021). Some students may stay in urban areas with an adequate internet connection, whereas others may be in more rural areas with limited internet access and speed throttling due to a high usage time of day. Our findings also indicate that some students are likely to lessen their confidence and comfort levels because of their lack of experience in online interviews.
The inherent stress of any job interview, regardless of modality, contributed to the students who reported no change in their confidence and comfort levels as a result of the online interview pivot. Put differently, switching to online mock interview formats in the middle of the semester did not have a perceived positive or negative effect on student confidence. According to these student participants, virtual and in-person mock interviews had their pros and cons, and it did not matter because, as one participant said, “Both are awkward and uncomfortable in their own ways.” Given that most students belong to the “digital natives” group, educators tend to assume that students are confident and ready to learn online (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017). As shown in the current study, however, students could have a different educational experience depending on their readiness for an online learning environment (Küsel et al., 2020). The findings suggest the importance of providing opportunities for students to develop confidence and comfort levels in their online interview skills.
Implications
There are several implications for practice. First, mock-interview assignments should include opportunities for students to role play as hiring managers in the job recruitment process. The current assignment and research had students in an upper level course role play as hiring managers while entry-level class students role played as job candidates. This mock-interview assignment can be replicated by faculty interested in helping students gain interview experience. Clearly, one cannot merely expect a student to role play as a hiring manager without the proper knowledge, skills, and attitudes about the role and understanding its value for the assignment. As faculty integrate these different roles, it is essential that students learn more of a 360° perspective on the job interview process, including theoretical elements like P–J fit. What is it that a hiring manager or an organization needs to do, think, and prepare as a job search begins? What kind of communication does a hiring manager form between a hiring organization and potential candidates? How does a hiring manager collaborate with other employees on a search committee to identify and hire the best candidate for the job? These are examples of questions that faculty can help students consider from the hiring manager’s perspective as part of the assignment, but they also can provide a perspective that can help the students better prepare for future job interviews.
Second, it is important to consider the role of feedback, and especially outside peer-to-peer feedback, for mock interview education. Results from this study suggest that integrating multiple opportunities for and different perspectives of feedback is important for mock-interview assignments. Although job searches strive for objectivity as much as possible, there is an important subjective element to them (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Each search is dependent on the people involved in the search, the culture or fit of the organization, and even the discipline or industry itself. Enabling students to get different perspectives on what makes for the right or even just a good answer to the question, for example, “Tell me about yourself” in an interview can help students figure out a way to come up with their own answer and how to adapt it to different interview search scenarios.
It will be useful to think about how to integrate opportunities for feedback through the assignment. Should students receive feedback after they draft a resume and cover letter? How about again after receiving instruction on best practices for resumes and cover letters? This could be resource intensive for the faculty member teaching the class. What about feedback for the job posting, screening grid, interview questions, the actual interviews themselves, the hiring decision, and even the communications between managers and candidates? And then the question of who provides the feedback at each of these junctures is critical.
Expanding feedback to include peer student learners from outside of the class can be important to learning and practicing job interview skills. Peer-to-peer learning can provide unique learning opportunities because of the perceived power similarities, shared life experiences and references, and the lack of authority threat that comes with offering a grade. Partnering with peer educators, like in a communication center, career center, or advising office, can offer that peer-to-peer learning opportunity, help reduce some of the feedback demands from faculty members, and provide a collaborative learning experience for the peer educator (and their department).
Third, interview education moving forward should integrate opportunities for online or digital interview practice as a majority of our research participants indicated having the mock-interview assignment online made them comfortable, boosted their confidence, and made interviewing seem easier. Even before COVID-19, it was common for some employers to use Skype or other video-conferencing platforms to conduct screening interviews as part of the job application process. A way in which society adapted to COVID-19’s impact was to increase the use of video technologies for work, education, family, and community connecting. Companies moving forward will continue to use video-conferencing platforms for hiring and likely even increase the usage of virtual interviews as society has become more comfortable with technologies like Skype and Zoom, which also offer a way for organizations to reduce some of the costs associated with recruitment (Maurer, 2021). To help prepare college graduates for these hiring and onboarding environments, it will become imperative to provide opportunities for students to learn and practice job interview skills in intentionally designed and scaffolded mock-interview assignments.
A fourth implication for the future of interview education is to carefully collaborate and scaffold the mock-interview assignment from the student learner perspective. For instance, when identifying partners within your department, college, university, or community, it is important to consider what experience and networks they bring not only in the job recruitment process but also in supporting student learners. Furthermore, when designing an assignment that integrates online or virtual components, consider student accessibility and inclusion. Results from this study suggest that students are nervous about technical issues related to the internet connection. This is especially true in a project that might include intensive group work, collaboration across groups, and significant internet bandwidth needs for video-conferencing support. Taken together, these two pieces can help faculty carefully scaffold a mock-interview assignment that builds group collaboration across low-stakes assignments early before higher stakes mock interviews later or invite appropriate collaborators into the classroom as guest lecturers or into the mock interviews as potential hiring managers.
Limitations and Future Research
The limitations of the current study offer important implications for others interested in designing and studying the impact of mock-interview assignments on student learning. First, the current study showed that students who participated as hiring managers acquired the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to be successful as well as comfortable in future job interviews. Nevertheless, because data were collected after the mock interviews, there was no way to measure specific changes to students’ skills, knowledge, and qualities through taking the course. Future research should consider pre- and posttesting of participants, control or other comparison groups, or a retrospective pretest model. In addition, a high percentage of our research participants had previous work or job experiences. Although the survey did not ask for a specific job or industry type, having previous job experience may or may not have affected our findings. However, it should be noted that even with on-the-job and interview experience, students may not have experience interviewing job candidates as a hiring manager, and all students need practice and the opportunity to gain the reported benefits from mock-interview assignments.
Second, the study was limited by the inability to solicit follow-up questions on the 10 open-ended questions directed to students on the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment, what they learned, and the role that technology played in the mock-interview assignment. Collecting open-ended responses in our study encouraged anonymity and discouraged cognitive dissonance by participants. Nevertheless, follow-up questions allow researchers and interviewers to confirm whether research participants understand the questions asked. They also allow research participants to provide more depth or width of information (Creswell, 2007). Future research may consider conducting interviews that will allow for follow-up questions. Such interviews may lead to understanding which components of the interview assignment had the most impact, how different feedback opportunities contributed to their learning, or other ways in which their interview education experience can be improved.
Finally, data were obtained from a conveniently selected sample of SRM students at a Mid-Atlantic mid-sized regional university. This study comprised 70% male and 87% White participants. The findings from this study cannot be generalized to other SRM programs. Whether or not a mock-interview assignment is useful is dependent on the situation the student is in (Welzel & Wolff‐Michael, 1998). The workplace in sport organizations is more diverse, inclusive, and equitable now than in the past (Barnhill et al., 2021). Future research should endeavor to look into having more diverse SRM students and focus on their current situations in terms of their geographical location and sociodemographic categorization.
References
Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.786
Barnes, R.J. (2021). Mock interviews in the virtual environment. UNLV Best Teaching Practices Expo. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=btp_expo
Barnhill, C., Czekanski, A., & Pfleegor, A. (2018). Getting to know our students: A snapshot of sport management students’ demographics and career expectations in the United States. Sport Management Education Journal, 12(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2015-0030
Barnhill, C.R., Smith, N.L., & Oja, B.D. (2021). Diversity in sport organizations. In C.R. Barnhill, N.L. Smith, & B.D. Oja (Eds.), Organizational behavior in sport management: An applied approach to understanding people and groups (pp. 23–34). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67612-4_3
Black, S.L., DeGrassi, S.W., & Sweet, K.M. (2021). Multisource feedback as an experiential learning enabler in large-format management classes. Journal of Management Education, 45(3), 479–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920987292
Blau, I., Weiser, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2017). How do medium naturalness and personality traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-face and synchronous E-Learning. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1945. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1974
Brown, C., Willett, J., Goldfine, R., & Goldfine, B. (2018). Sport management internships: Recommendations for improving upon experiential learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 22, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2018.02.001
Buckley, K., Karr, S., Nisly, S.A., & Kelley, N. (2018). Evaluation of a mock interview session on residency interview skills. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(4), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.021
Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Chuang, A., & Sackett, P.R. (2005). The perceived importance of person-job fit and person-organization fit between and within interview stages. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(3), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.209
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
DeLuca, J.R., & Brunstein-Minkove, J. (2016). An evaluation of sport management student preparedness: Recommendations for adapting curriculum to meet industry needs. Sport Management Education Journal, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/SMEJ.2014-0027
DeLuca, J.R., & Fornatora, E. (2020). Experiential learning from a classroom desk: Exploring student perceptions of applied coursework. Sport Management Education Journal, 14(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2019-0015
de Schepper, J., Sotiriadou, P., & Hill, B. (2021). The role of critical reflection as an employability skill in sport management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 21(2), 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1742184
Diacin, M.J. (2018). An experiential learning opportunity for sport management students: Manager interview and facility inspection. Sport Management Education Journal, 12(2), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2017-0033
Doll, J.L. (2018). Structured interviews: Developing interviewing skills in human resource management courses. Management Teaching Review, 3(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298117722520
Foster, S.B., & Pierce, D.A. (2021). Improving experiential learning in sport management through work-integrated learning. Sport Management Education Journal, 15(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2020-0044
Gray, E., & Weese, W.J. (2021). Does the next generation of sports leaders perceive the presence of the glass ceiling and the need to shatter it? Insights of undergraduate students. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 18(4), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v18i4.4642
Gregory, J.G. (2021). How to conduct great video interviews. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/people-managers/pages/conducting-good-video-interviews.aspx
Hancock, M., & Greenwell, C. (2013). The selection of a sport management major: Factors influencing student choice from a consumer-oriented perspective. Sport Management Education Journal, 7(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.7.1.13
Handshake. (2021). One year into a pandemic, students sound off about virtual recruiting. https://joinhandshake.com/blog/students/virtual-recruiting-survey-results-2021/
Hansen, K., Oliphant, G.C., Oliphant, B.J., & Hansen, R.S. (2009). Best practices in preparing students for mock interviews. Business Communication, Quarterly, 72(3), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909336951
Hasan, N., & Khan, N. H. (2020). Online teaching-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspective. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 8(4), 202–213.
Kirkpatrick, N. (2020). Reality check: Helping students recognize, evaluate, and pursue realistic entry-level jobs in business. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(2), Article 100384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100384
Kirschner, P.A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
Koenigsfeld, C., Wall, G., Miesner, A., Bryant, G., Haack, S., Eastman, D., Grady, S., & Fornoff, A. (2012). A faculty-led mock residency interview exercise for fourth-year doctor of pharmacy students. Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 25(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190011431632
Kristof, A.L. (1996) Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00217.x
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Kucuk, B.A. (2022). Work flow experience in the light of leader-member exchange and person-job fit theories. Psychological Reports, 125(1), 464–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120981927
Küsel, J., Martin, F., & Markic, S. (2020). University students’ readiness for using digital media and online learning—Comparison between Germany and the USA. Education Sciences, 10(11), Article 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110313
Latino, J.A., & Unite, C.M. (2012). Providing academic support through peer education. In J.R. Keup (Ed.), Peer leadership in higher education. New directions for higher education (pp. 21–43). Jossey-Bass.
Layzer, C., Rosapep, L., & Barr, S. (2017). Student voices: Perspectives on peer-to-peer sexual health education. Journal of School Health, 87(7), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12519
Mani, S., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R., & Ashnai, B. (2015). Sales role-plays and mock interviews: An investigation of student performance in sales competitions. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315606785
Marks, M., & O’Connor, A.H. (2006). The round-robin mock interview. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569906291257
Maurer, R. (2021). The pros and cons of virtual and in-person interviews. The Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/pros-and-cons-virtual-in-person-interviews.aspx
McCarthy, J.M., Truxillo, D.M., Bauer, T.N., Erdogan, B., Shao, Y., Wang, M., Liff, J., & Gardner, C. (2021). Distressed and distracted by COVID-19 during high-stakes virtual interviews: The role of job interview anxiety on performance and reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000943
McKenzie, L. (2021). Students report mixed feelings about virtual job recruiting. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/03/students-report-mixed-feelings-about-virtual-job-recruiting
Miragaia, D.A.M., & Soares, J.A.P. (2017). Higher education in sport management: A systematic review of research topics and trends. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 21, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2017.09.001
Oshiro, K.F., Brison, N., & Bennett, G. (2021). Personal branding project in a sport marketing class. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 28, Article 100308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100308
Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141.
Powell, D.M., Stanley, D.J., & Brown, K.N. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relation between interview anxiety and interview performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 50(4), 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000108
Reddan, G. (2008). The benefits of job‐search seminars and mock interviews in a work experience course. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 9(2), 113–127.
Roth, K. (2021). Parks and recreation feels impact of labor shortage. NRPA’s Monthly Magazine. Retrieved December 31, 2021, from https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2022/january/parks-and-recreation-feels-impact-of-labor-shortage/
Sato, S., Kang, T.A., Daigo, E., Matsuoka, H., & Harada, M. (2021). Graduate employability and higher education’s contributions to human resource development in sport business before and after COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 28, Article 100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100306
Sattler, L., & Achen, R. (2021). A foot in the door: An examination of professional sport internship job announcements. Sport Management Education Journal, 15(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2019-0059
Schoo, A.M., Lawn, S., Rudnik, E., & Litt, J.C. (2015). Teaching health science students foundation motivational interviewing skills: Use of motivation interviewing treatment integrity and self-reflection to approach transformative learning. BMC Medical Education, 15, 228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0512-1
Shreffler, M., Cocco, A., Presley, R., & Police, C. (2018). Testing the learning styles hypothesis: An assessment of the learning styles, learning approaches, and course outcomes in the sport management classroom. Sport Management Education Journal, 13(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2019-0028
Sincoff, M.Z. (2004). The dyadic interview project. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569904265302
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (vol. 15). Sage Publications.
Topping, K.J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138870
Welzel, M., & Wolff‐Michael, R. (1998). Do interviews really assess students’ knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200103
Werbel, J.D., & Johnson, D.L. (2001). The use of person-group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person-environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.1013
