That's a really smart approach - I've found scenario-based questions work way better than just asking "tell me about your experience with X." I usually follow up with something like "what's the most frustrating thing you've encountered with that platform?" because someone who's actually used it will have a specific gripe or workaround story. The tricky part is that sometimes genuinely qualified candidates freeze up under pressure too, so I try to give them a chance to demonstrate knowledge in a different way - maybe asking them to compare two tools or explain when they'd use one over another. It's definitely a balancing act between being thorough and not turning the interview into an interrogation.
I usually do a quick skills assessment when something feels off - saves time compared to dragging out the interview process. The cost adds up but it's worth it to avoid placing someone who can't actually do the job.
That's a solid approach - scenario-based questions really do cut through the surface knowledge quickly. I've found that asking candidates to describe a specific challenge they faced and how they solved it usually reveals whether they have genuine hands-on experience or just theoretical knowledge. The ones who've actually used the tools will naturally include details about workarounds, limitations, or even frustrations they encountered.
That's a solid approach - scenario-based questions really do cut through surface-level knowledge quickly. In our hiring process, I've found that asking candidates to walk through their actual problem-solving process reveals so much more than just listing tools they've used. We've had situations where someone oversold their technical background, and it became obvious during onboarding when they struggled with basic workflows the whole team expected them to know. The key is creating space for honest conversation about skill gaps - sometimes people exaggerate because they're worried about being overlooked, but we'd rather work with someone who's upfront about what they need to learn.
That scenario-based approach is spot-on - I've found it reveals depth of experience much more effectively than direct questioning. In manufacturing roles, I'll often ask candidates to describe a time they had to troubleshoot equipment issues or explain their process for quality control checks, which quickly separates genuine experience from resume padding. The key is making it feel like a natural conversation about problem-solving rather than a test, though I've learned to trust my instincts when something feels off during these discussions.
This is such a common situation, and honestly, it's one of the trickier judgment calls we face as hiring managers. I've been in similar spots multiple times, and I've learned that the key is distinguishing between embellishment (which most candidates do to some degree) and outright fabrication.
The approach mentioned about framing follow-ups as collaborative problem-solving is spot-on. I usually pivot to scenario-based questions when I sense something's off. Instead of "Tell me about your experience with [tool]," I'll say something like "Imagine you're three weeks into the school year and the interactive whiteboard stops responding during a lesson. Walk me through your thought process." Someone with genuine experience will naturally mention troubleshooting steps, backup plans, or even share a war story about when this actually happened to them.
What I've found particularly telling is how candidates handle the unexpected follow-ups. Genuine users will often say things like "Oh, that reminds me of this one time when..." or they'll mention specific quirks or limitations of the tools. Someone who's just memorized feature lists will usually give very generic responses or try to redirect the conversation.
That said, I've also learned not to write someone off immediately. Sometimes really qualified candidates just interview poorly, or they're familiar with similar tools but not the exact ones you mentioned. I had a candidate once who stumbled when I asked about a specific learning management system, but when I broadened it to "classroom technology in general," she demonstrated incredible depth of knowledge with related platforms.
One thing that's helped me is checking references earlier in the process when I have these concerns, especially for roles where technical competency is crucial. I'll specifically ask the reference about the candidate's experience with the tools in question. You'd be surprised how often a reference will say something like "Well, they were eager to learn, but they were pretty new to that system."
The school environment definitely adds another layer of complexity since you can't really afford to have someone struggling with basic classroom tech when they're supposed to be teaching. But I've found that being direct but supportive usually works well. Something like "I want to make sure we're setting you up for success here - how comfortable would you feel jumping right into using these systems, and what kind of support would help you hit the ground running?"
I usually ask them to describe a specific problem they solved using that tool - real users always have war stories about when things went wrong or didn't work as expected. If they can only talk about perfect scenarios or basic features, that's usually a red flag.
That's a brilliant approach! I've started doing something similar - asking candidates to walk through their actual workflow or describe a specific challenge they solved. What I've noticed is that genuine users naturally mention the little frustrations or workarounds they've discovered, while someone just reading from a resume tends to stick to textbook descriptions. In healthcare tech recruiting, I've caught a few people who clearly just memorized feature lists from product pages. The dead giveaway is when they can't explain *why* they chose one approach over another or what didn't work well. Your collaborative framing is spot-on because it reduces the defensive response and gives nervous-but-honest candidates room to actually demonstrate their knowledge.
I've found that scenario-based questions are incredibly revealing - asking someone to walk through their actual workflow or describe a specific challenge they solved usually separates genuine experience from surface-level familiarity. The tricky part is balancing thoroughness with time constraints, especially when you're dealing with multiple candidates and tight hiring schedules. In manufacturing roles, I've learned that even small gaps in technical knowledge can cascade into significant training costs later, so I tend to err on the side of deeper verification rather than hoping for the best.
That's a really smart approach - the collaborative framing makes such a difference. I've found myself in similar situations, and honestly, it's one of those judgment calls that gets easier with experience but never stops being tricky.
What I've started doing is building what I call "story validation" into my process. Instead of just asking "have you used X tool," I'll ask candidates to walk me through a specific project or challenge where they used it. The difference between genuine experience and surface knowledge becomes pretty clear when someone can't paint that picture with realistic details - the little frustrations, the workarounds they discovered, how they adapted when something didn't work as expected.
I've also learned to pay attention to the language patterns. Someone with real experience will often mention limitations or challenges with tools, not just benefits. They'll say things like "the reporting feature was helpful but we had to export to Excel for the detailed analysis we needed" versus just "yes, I used the reporting feature."
The reference check timing is interesting too. I used to save those for the final candidates, but now I'll sometimes do a quick informal reference check earlier if I'm getting mixed signals. Not a full formal process, just a brief conversation with a previous supervisor to get a sense of their actual technical capabilities.
One thing that's helped me recently is using more structured evaluation methods to supplement my gut instincts. Having consistent criteria and documentation helps me feel more confident about these borderline situations - whether I'm deciding to dig deeper or move forward.
The nervousness factor you mentioned is real though. I try to create space for candidates to clarify or elaborate if they seem flustered. Sometimes a simple "take your time, no rush" can help distinguish between nerves and actual knowledge gaps.
What's your sense of the candidate overall? Sometimes the technical piece is just one part of a larger pattern you're picking up on.
That scenario-based approach is spot on - I've found it works incredibly well in tech hiring too. When someone claims experience with a development framework or tool, I'll ask them to walk through a specific challenge they've solved or how they'd approach debugging a common issue. The authenticity gap becomes pretty obvious when they can recite features but stumble on practical application. It's actually helped us catch quite a few resume embellishments while also giving genuinely experienced candidates a chance to really showcase their problem-solving skills.
That's such a smart approach! I've found that scenario-based questions really do reveal the depth of someone's experience versus surface-level familiarity. In my role, I've started building in practical "what would you do if..." questions early in the process rather than waiting until I have doubts - it actually makes candidates more comfortable too since they can showcase their problem-solving skills. The tricky part is balancing thoroughness with keeping the conversation flowing naturally, but it's definitely worth the extra effort to get clarity upfront.
This is such a common dilemma, and honestly, you're right to be cautious about both sides of it. I've been in similar spots where the gut feeling says something's off, but you don't want to torpedo someone's chances over nerves or communication style differences.
What I've found helpful is building in what I call "demonstration moments" during the interview process. Instead of just asking "tell me about your experience with X," I'll set up a scenario: "Let's say you're working with a team that's struggling to adopt this tool - what would your first few steps be?" or "What's one frustration you've had with this platform, and how did you work around it?" People who've actually used something will immediately jump into specific pain points or workarounds, while those who've just read about it tend to give very surface-level or textbook responses.
The collaborative approach mentioned above is spot-on too. I've started framing these as mini case studies rather than quiz questions. It takes the pressure off and gives candidates room to be honest if they're stretching their experience a bit. Sometimes people will actually self-correct and say something like "Actually, I've only used the basic features, but here's how I'd approach learning the advanced stuff."
One thing that's helped me is distinguishing between "embellishment" and outright fabrication. Someone who says they have experience but clearly means they've watched tutorials or done some self-study? That's different from someone claiming hands-on experience they don't have. The first person might still be a great hire with some training; the second raises bigger questions about judgment and integrity.
For your specific situation, I'd probably do a reference check focused on the technical skills in question. Ask the reference something like "How would you rate their proficiency with [specific tool]?" Most references will give you a realistic picture, especially if you ask for specifics rather than general impressions.
The school system context does make this trickier since there's less room for on-the-job learning with some of these tools. But I've found that being direct but kind works well: "I want to make sure we're setting you up for success here - can you help me understand your comfort level with actually implementing X versus just being familiar with it?" Good candidates appreciate the honesty, and it gives them a chance to clar