Which evidence fits the advertised role?
Mara has experience in teaching and research and is preparing for two fictional interviews.
The question
One institution advertises a teaching-focused Lecturer role with core-course coordination. The other seeks a tenure-track assistant professor with an independent research agenda and advising responsibilities. Mara used AI to organize preparation notes.
- TeachingMara designed two practical classes, aligned their grading criteria with the course rubric and checked student responses to an exit task. The course lead ran the full redesign.
- ResearchMara led the validation plan for a completed project and can explain a result and a proposed independent follow-up.
“Select evidence for each role and explain what you can substantiate.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Which example would you lead with?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Lead with course work for the Lecturer role and the validation for the research role
The strong move. Both answers use the candidate’s own evidence and connect to the advertised work.
Use the research project first in both interviews
Tempting, but it misses something. That can show scholarship. It gives the teaching-focused panel little initial evidence about teaching or course coordination.
Use the practical classes first in both interviews
Tempting, but it misses something. That shows teaching evidence and delays the independent research plan the second role requests.
See how a strong candidate says it
“For the Lecturer role, I would explain the practical classes, grading criteria and student work. For the tenure-track role, I would explain the validation I led and the independent question it makes possible.”
Why it works: Each example starts with evidence that serves the post’s main duties.
Step 2: What was your part in the course?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Describe the two classes and the specific learning check
The strong move. The candidate can explain a decision and the evidence she saw.
Say you led the redesign and discuss the timetable
Tempting, but it misses something. The full redesign belonged to the course lead. Scheduling also misses the candidate’s teaching contribution.
Give the course title and say the whole team contributed
Tempting, but it misses something. That credits the team and still leaves the candidate’s own work unclear.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I designed two practical classes and aligned their grading with the course rubric. I used an exit task to check whether students could apply the criteria. The course lead owned the full redesign.”
Why it works: This makes the candidate’s contribution and the team’s roles clear.
Step 3: How would you align grading across sections?
The Lecturer panel says two instructors graded the same sample submission differently on one rubric criterion. It asks Mara how she would help instructors apply that criterion across sections.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Calibrate with shared examples and record the decisions
The strong move. The plan gives instructors a common reference while respecting the authority over the rubric.
Tell each instructor to apply the rubric independently
Tempting, but it misses something. That preserves instructor discretion without addressing why similar work gets different judgments.
Replace the course rubric with the one from your two classes
Tempting, but it misses something. The candidate does not own the course-wide criteria and has yet to check the source of disagreement.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would ask who owns the course criteria, then have instructors explain their judgments on the sample. We would test a shared interpretation on a second example, document it and check it again after the next grading round.”
Why it works: The instructors make the same criteria concrete and can revisit remaining differences.
Step 4: What would you correct in the draft?
An AI-generated draft says Mara led the whole redesign and improved course results. Her records cover the two classes and their rubric check. They contain no course-wide outcome evidence.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Replace the broad claim with the two documented contributions
The strong move. That keeps the relevant evidence and corrects the scope.
Say you co-led the redesign instead of saying you led it
Tempting, but it misses something. That still claims a responsibility the records do not support.
Keep the outcome claim and add a note that AI helped draft it
Tempting, but it misses something. Disclosing drafting assistance does not verify the claimed result.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would say that I designed two practical classes and checked how students applied the rubric. I would remove the whole-course claim and describe the evidence from the two classes in my own words.”
Why it works: The corrected answer gives specific facts the candidate can explain during follow-up.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use evidence you can trace to your own role and the advertised work.
- Because
- The panel can ask about a real decision, its scope and how you would apply it in this job.
- What would change it
- A new responsibility in the posting would change which example you lead with.
Common traps
- Use the actual duties to choose an example.
- Check an AI-generated claim against records before using it.
Check your answer
- I matched my evidence to each role.
- I named the part I owned.
- I explained how instructors would apply shared criteria.
- I corrected claims my records did not support.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026