Mock Interview Reflection
The mock interview was closely related to the topics covered in the readings and in class. Getting practice using the techniques we have been learning in real time, with a real person, made the content more concrete. I was conscious of employing solution focused techniques as much as possible in the short time we had to conduct the interview. While my performance produced mixed results, the practice was a good start to becoming an expert using the technique.
Strengths and Effectiveness
When reflecting on my performance, I was able to express to the client I was fully engaged in our conversation by intentionally implementing a variety of reflection strategies. One of my goals going into the interview was to …show more content…
By sitting forward in the chair and maintaining an erect, attentive posture, I communicated genuine interest and complete engagement during the discussion. Moreover, I made appropriate use of minimal responses by maintaining eye contact without staring, nodding my head to confirm understanding, while using utterances that indicated I was paying close attention. Through this experience, I learned that using attentive body language goes a long way in clients feeling comfortable during the interaction, resulting in a smooth conversation leading to quick rapport building, and contributing to free flowing dialog. Subsequently, the importance of attentive body language cannot be overstated. However, displaying attentive body language for a six-minute conversation is not as difficult as doing so for a full fifty minute session. Consequently, it is important to note that being mindful of body language for the entirety of the session is of the utmost …show more content…
Unfortunately, some of my peers did not fully understand the instructions for the evaluation form forcing me to remove the evaluations without numerical data. The only exception was the additive empathy indicator as it is a nominal measurement. Generally, the feedback supported my overall impression of the interview. My cohort indicated that I averaged 1.9 simple, 1.3 double sided, 1.6 affective, and .6 reframing reflections. Conversely, I found it interesting that most of my peer group detected a reframing reflection as I did not do so intentionally. Additionally, the data indicated that I made use of far more open-ended questions (3.5) than the close-ended (1.6) variety as I intended. Likewise, my classmates found that I did not use many affirmations (0.6) or emphasize autonomy (0.1) as much as I could have. On the plus side, every evaluation except one indicated that I employed additive empathy, which I thought I did well, and none of the evaluations indicated that I utilized “no nos”. Lastly, my peers consistently provided feedback indicating my body language, presentation, and tone was engaging and helpful in building rapport, which I am proud of. Appropriately, the professor's feedback was generally consistent with my peer group. Not surprising, the largest difference between my cohort and the professor’s
The mock interview was closely related to the topics covered in the readings and in class. Getting practice using the techniques we have been learning in real time, with a real person, made the content more concrete. I was conscious of employing solution focused techniques as much as possible in the short time we had to conduct the interview. While my performance produced mixed results, the practice was a good start to becoming an expert using the technique.
Strengths and Effectiveness
When reflecting on my performance, I was able to express to the client I was fully engaged in our conversation by intentionally implementing a variety of reflection strategies. One of my goals going into the interview was to …show more content…
By sitting forward in the chair and maintaining an erect, attentive posture, I communicated genuine interest and complete engagement during the discussion. Moreover, I made appropriate use of minimal responses by maintaining eye contact without staring, nodding my head to confirm understanding, while using utterances that indicated I was paying close attention. Through this experience, I learned that using attentive body language goes a long way in clients feeling comfortable during the interaction, resulting in a smooth conversation leading to quick rapport building, and contributing to free flowing dialog. Subsequently, the importance of attentive body language cannot be overstated. However, displaying attentive body language for a six-minute conversation is not as difficult as doing so for a full fifty minute session. Consequently, it is important to note that being mindful of body language for the entirety of the session is of the utmost …show more content…
Unfortunately, some of my peers did not fully understand the instructions for the evaluation form forcing me to remove the evaluations without numerical data. The only exception was the additive empathy indicator as it is a nominal measurement. Generally, the feedback supported my overall impression of the interview. My cohort indicated that I averaged 1.9 simple, 1.3 double sided, 1.6 affective, and .6 reframing reflections. Conversely, I found it interesting that most of my peer group detected a reframing reflection as I did not do so intentionally. Additionally, the data indicated that I made use of far more open-ended questions (3.5) than the close-ended (1.6) variety as I intended. Likewise, my classmates found that I did not use many affirmations (0.6) or emphasize autonomy (0.1) as much as I could have. On the plus side, every evaluation except one indicated that I employed additive empathy, which I thought I did well, and none of the evaluations indicated that I utilized “no nos”. Lastly, my peers consistently provided feedback indicating my body language, presentation, and tone was engaging and helpful in building rapport, which I am proud of. Appropriately, the professor's feedback was generally consistent with my peer group. Not surprising, the largest difference between my cohort and the professor’s