Teaching Interview English: A 75-Minute ESL Lesson Plan

Use this lesson with adult B1–B2 students who need to explain their experience in an English-language interview. The outcome is a short mock interview in which each student connects relevant experience to a role, gives one concrete example, and asks a useful question.

Interview questions differ by employer, role, and hiring stage. Teach students to listen for the purpose of a question and choose evidence that addresses it. A candidate who can adapt an honest example is better prepared for this classroom task than one who can recite an impressive paragraph without understanding the follow-up.

Lesson overview and preparation

Allow 75 minutes for a class of three to twelve adults. Students work in pairs for preparation and groups of three for the interview. You need the fictional job brief below, a timer, and paper for an evidence bank. No student needs to disclose their employer, salary, personal history, or a confidential workplace incident. They may use an anonymized experience, a study project, volunteering, or the fictional profile provided here.

Write three success criteria on the board: answer the question asked; support a claim with an example; manage a clarification or follow-up. Explain that students will repeat part of the interview after feedback. This makes revision part of the lesson rather than treating the first performance as a verdict on their ability.

Before class, choose four words from the brief that your group needs. For this version, use enquiry, handover, accurate, and availability. Do not turn the warm-up into a test of every unfamiliar business term. If the students are preparing for actual interviews, replace the fictional brief with a short, public job description and keep the same procedure.

The fictional job brief and candidate profile

Role: Customer Support Coordinator at North Quay Learning. The coordinator answers customer enquiries by email, keeps accurate records, and hands unresolved questions to the right colleague. The team needs someone who can explain a process clearly, prioritize work, and ask for help when information is missing. Training on the booking system is provided. Some shifts include an agreed evening rota.

Candidate: Alex. Alex has worked at a community centre reception desk for two years. Alex books rooms, replies to visitors, and updates the shared calendar. Last month, two groups believed they had booked the same room. Alex checked the calendar, contacted the supervisor, found a suitable second room, and confirmed the new arrangements with both group leaders. Alex has not used North Quay Learning's software. Alex wants a role with more responsibility for written customer communication.

Everything in this profile is invented for classroom practice. Students must not present Alex's experience as their own in an actual application. Keep this distinction visible when discussing strong examples: a convincing answer is specific, but specificity does not justify inventing achievements.

Ask pairs to underline three needs in the job brief and circle matching evidence in the profile. They should identify a gap as well as strengths. The gap is useful because a good interview answer can explain how someone would learn, rather than pretending they already know every system.

Minutes 0–12: diagnose and match evidence

Begin with a 45-second answer to “Why are you interested in this role?” Partners listen without correcting and write down one relevant point they understood. Collect two common difficulties, such as listing unrelated biographical facts or making a claim without an example. Save grammar corrections for the language stage.

Next, give pairs four possible statements about Alex:

- A: “I am the best person for any customer service job.”

- B: “I update a shared booking calendar and check changes with colleagues.”

- C: “I already know your booking software very well.”

- D: “I have handled a room-booking problem by checking the records and agreeing another arrangement.”

Students label each statement supported, unsupported, or too broad to be useful, and explain their reasoning. Answer key: B and D are supported. C contradicts the profile. A is an unsupported comparison and does not show what Alex can do. Accept students' wording if their reasoning uses the supplied evidence.

Ask students to turn A into a supported claim. One possible repair is: “My reception work has given me practice answering enquiries and keeping booking records accurate.” Then ask which part of the job brief that claim addresses. This final question prevents the exercise from becoming a hunt for a polished sentence with no connection to the role.

Minutes 12–25: build a flexible evidence bank

Students draw three columns: requirement, example, and useful language. They add two rows using Alex or their own permitted experience. A requirement such as “prioritize work” needs an example of a decision, not only the adjective organized. Help students distinguish what the team did from what the speaker personally did.

For Alex, one row could read: clear communication; confirmed new room arrangements with two group leaders; “I checked…”, “I explained…”, “We agreed…”. A second could address accurate records through the shared calendar. An honest development area is unfamiliar software, with a plan to practise the booking steps during training.

Model how the same evidence can answer different questions with a different opening. For “How do you communicate changes?”, Alex starts with the explanation to the group leaders. For “Tell me about a problem you solved”, Alex starts with the double booking. The facts stay the same; the selection and emphasis change.

Give students two minutes to rehearse from keywords only. Then ask them to close their notes and tell a partner which detail they would keep if the answer had to be shorter. The aim is control of meaning, not the elimination of every pause. A brief pause to choose a relevant example is acceptable.

Minutes 25–38: model an answer and a follow-up

Read this possible answer aloud: “At the community centre, two groups thought they had the same room. I needed to find out what had happened and help them start their activities. I checked the booking calendar and asked my supervisor which other rooms were available. We found a suitable second room, and I confirmed the arrangement with both group leaders. Both groups were able to use a room that evening. Afterwards, I suggested that we confirm changes in writing.”

Students identify the situation, responsibility, actions, and result. Teacher key: the first sentence provides the situation; the second gives the task; checking, asking, finding, and confirming supply the actions; both groups using a room is the result. The final suggestion is a reflection. It does not claim that a new procedure was adopted.

Now ask: “What did you personally decide?” Alex could answer, “I decided to check the records before offering a solution. My supervisor helped identify the available room.” This is stronger evidence of ownership than changing every we to I. Collaboration is not a weakness that students need to edit out.

Contrast this with “I solved everything and everyone was happy.” Ask students what a listener still cannot tell. Expected answers include what the problem was, what the speaker did, and how the outcome was known. Avoid insisting on a numerical result where the scenario provides none. A clear qualitative outcome is enough for this practice task.

Minutes 38–48: practise clarification and honest gaps

Teach three short responses: “Could you repeat the last part?”, “Are you asking about my role or the team's result?”, and “I haven't used that system yet, but I have learned a similar booking process.” The third response must be adapted if the learner has not learned a similar process; an honest alternative is to describe a realistic first learning step.

In pairs, interviewers choose an intentionally broad question, such as “How would you handle that?” Candidates request the missing detail before answering. The interviewer then specifies an upset customer, a record error, or an unfamiliar system. Rotate roles after two turns. Praise questions that clarify the task; do not require students to apologize for needing clarification.

For pronunciation, choose one short phrase from each student's answer and mark the information that needs emphasis. Have the partner write down the key action they heard. If they misunderstood, the speaker tries again with clearer grouping or pace. Assess intelligibility through that listening result, not through imitation of a particular accent.

Minutes 48–67: run and repeat the mock interview

Use triads: candidate, interviewer, and observer. Each round lasts five minutes, followed by one minute to change roles. Allow one minute to explain the rotation. Give the interviewer these prompts:

- “Tell me briefly about your experience and why this role interests you.”

- “Tell me about a time you helped resolve a problem.”

- “What would you need to learn before starting this role?”

- “What would you like to ask us?”

The interviewer asks one follow-up based on the actual answer, such as “How did you check that?” Do not use trick questions. The observer records one phrase showing relevant evidence and one point that needed clarification. If the class size is not divisible by three, pair a student with you or let one group have two observers with different listening jobs.

Minutes 67–75: feedback, second attempt, and assessment

Score four dimensions from 0 to 2: relevance, evidence, organization, and interaction. 0 means the criterion was not demonstrated; 1 means it appeared but needed prompting or clarification; 2 means the listener could follow it independently. This is a classroom feedback tool, not a hiring score or a CEFR assessment.

For evidence, an answer containing a real action and a supported outcome can earn 2 without percentages. For interaction, a well-chosen clarification question can earn 2 even when the candidate needed repetition. Do not subtract points for an accent or for refusing to disclose private information.

Each candidate chooses one answer to repeat for a partner. The partner reports whether the specific issue improved: “I can now tell which action was yours” is more useful than “You sounded better.” Keep the original and revised notes so the student can explain what changed.

Adaptations and the next lesson

For B1 groups, reduce the brief to three requirements, provide action verbs, and allow a four-box planning sheet. For B2 groups, add a follow-up that challenges an assumption without contradicting the scenario. In individual lessons, take the interviewer role and ask the learner to use the rubric on a second version of the model before evaluating their own answer.

For homework, students prepare one new evidence-bank row and two questions about a role. Offer a written version instead of recording if they prefer. In the next class, change the question so they practise adapting the evidence rather than memorizing the previous answer.

Use the tell-me-about-yourself lesson for a focused introduction session before repeating the complete interview. For a longer sequence, explore Teach: Job Interview English and inspect the first free lesson before deciding whether it fits your students.