Month: May 2026

One class I found really beneficial was COMM 101 because it felt like one of the few classes that directly translated into real life situations. A lot of college classes can start to feel repetitive or disconnected from reality, but COMM 101 was different because we were constantly applying what we learned instead of just memorizing information for a test. The class was very interactive with presentations, discussions and group activities, which made it easier to stay engaged and actually retain the material. I also think having to practice communication in front of other people helped build confidence over time, even if it was uncomfortable at first. This connects a lot with the training material from this week, especially the idea that effective training should make content meaningful, provide opportunities to practice and connect directly to real situations employees or learners will face (Lecture 1 – Training). The feedback throughout the class also made a big difference because it gave people the chance to improve instead of just getting a grade and moving on.

Then the opposite would be the classes I’ve taken where the entire structure was basically just slides, readings and quizzes with very little interaction. Those classes usually felt harder to care about because there was no real application behind the material. Even if the information itself was important, it never really stuck because we weren’t using it in a meaningful way. Looking back, those classes lacked a lot of the things the lectures described as important for creating an effective learning environment, like relevance, practice and regular feedback (Lecture 1 – Training). It made the experience feel more like trying to survive the class instead of actually learning something useful.

Even though I haven’t personally been on the interview side as a candidate, I have been the one running interviews for people at my own company, and that experience has definitely changed how I think about the process. Looking back, I can see how inconsistent interviews can become if you don’t have a clear structure going in. Some interviews felt more like conversations, others felt rushed, and the questions would shift depending on the person. At the time it didn’t seem like a big deal, but now it’s clear that this hurts reliability. If every candidate isn’t being evaluated the same way, it’s hard to compare them fairly or feel confident in the decision (Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection).

Another thing that stands out is how easy it is to focus on the wrong things. It’s natural to pay attention to how someone talks, their energy, or how well you connect with them, but that doesn’t always mean they’ll perform well on the job. That’s where validity becomes an issue. The lectures explain that interviews should be tied directly to job requirements, which is why structured interviews with set questions and scoring guides tend to work better (Lecture 4 – Increasing Interview Effectiveness). Thinking back, I can see how first impressions or small details could influence decisions more than they should have.

If I could go back, I would approach interviews with a lot more intention. I’d build questions around the actual job and what success looks like, and I’d use a consistent way to evaluate answers. That would make the process feel more fair and less dependent on gut instinct. It would also improve utility, since better hiring decisions save time, reduce turnover and make the whole process more efficient in the long run (Lecture 2 – Introduction to Selection).