Dear Theo, <u>Interview question and answer expectations: mini-speech vs dialogue.</u> I recently had a 'bad' interview, which in large part seemed to be because the panel expected a mini-speech in answer to their questions, whereas I'm more used to (and better at) an answer which can generate dialogue in a series of extended turns. (There was also a pre-prepared topic, which would lend itself more to a formal presentation.) 3 thoughts: 1) which do you think gives the panel a better picture of the candidate? 2) which do you think is more common? 3) do you think the expectations (of either a mini-speech or a dialogue) should be explicitly stated (perhaps in advance of ther interview) to give candidates a fair chance of satisfying the panel's criteria? This could be done by stating that the panel will not interrupt until candidates have finished, or alternatively by saying that if the panel want to know more, or clarification, that they'd find a suitable opportunity to engage in conversation about the topic, pay devil's advocate etc... When I examine spoken English candidates (ESOL) the rubrics and expectations are clear, and it struck me as being a similar procedure.