Behavioural and Scenario-Based Questions: Use The STAR Method To Structure Effective Answers
In the previous video, we showed you how to answer common or frequently asked teaching interview questions.
This time, we’re going to focus on supporting you with answering behavioural or scenario-based questions.
Please Watch the Video Below
Please click each of the below questions and then read the advice linked to each question. We would advise that you practice answering these questions prior to your interview to ensure that you are well-prepared.
*Please be aware that the ‘Advice for Answering’ is merely guidance and offers a suggested example of what to include and what to avoid in your responses. You are free to approach the question in a different way if you prefer.
Behavioural Teaching Interview Questions (STAR Method)
Click each question below to expand
→ Can you describe a time you had to deal with challenging behaviour in the classroom?
- Do: Clearly set the Situation and Task to explain what led to the behaviour and your role in it.
- Do: Focus your Action on preventative and restorative steps, and your Result on the outcome for learning.
- Don’t: Skip the Result—interviewers want to know the impact of your intervention.
- Don’t: Generalise your Action (e.g., “I managed it calmly”)—be specific.
→ Tell me about a time you adapted your teaching to meet the needs of a pupil with SEND.
- Do: Use the Situation to explain the pupil’s needs and context, and the Task to outline your planning goal.
- Do: Emphasise your Actions—differentiation, scaffolding, and collaboration with SENCO or TAs.
- Don’t: Leave out the Result—mention the pupil’s progress or increased engagement.
- Don’t: Speak in hypotheticals; use a real example to keep your STAR structure clear.
→ Describe a time when a lesson didn’t go as planned. How did you handle it?
- Do: Frame the Situation honestly to show reflection, not failure.
- Do: Show how your Actions demonstrated flexibility and quick thinking.
- Don’t: Make the Result sound negative without learning—end with growth or improvements.
- Don’t: Avoid responsibility by blaming external factors alone.
→ Give an example of how you have worked effectively as part of a team.
- Do: Define your role (Task) in the team and be clear about shared goals.
- Do: Highlight collaborative Actions like co-planning, communication, or supporting colleagues.
- Don’t: Dominate the example—team questions are not about individual heroics.
- Don’t: Forget the Result—mention how the collaboration positively impacted pupils or outcomes.
→ Tell me about a time you gave effective feedback to a pupil.
- Do: Set the Situation with context (age group, subject, specific task).
- Do: Include how your Actions (e.g., formative assessment, one-to-one support) led to progress (Result).
- Don’t: Forget the pupil’s response—feedback is two-way, so show impact.
- Don’t: Just say “I marked their work and gave advice”—explain how it helped learning.
→ Describe a time when you had to handle a safeguarding concern.
- Do: Outline the Situation and be clear on your Task in recognising and reporting appropriately.
- Do: Emphasise following procedure in your Actions, maintaining professionalism and confidentiality.
- Don’t: Speculate or share sensitive detail—focus on the process, not the specifics.
- Don’t: Miss out the Result—such as how it led to further support/intervention.
→ Can you give an example of a time you had to meet a tight deadline or balance competing priorities?
- Do: Frame the Situation in terms of workload or key responsibilities.
- Do: Show time management and prioritisation in your Actions, and how you maintained quality (Result).
- Don’t: Make the example purely about being stressed—show strategies, not just struggle.
- Don’t: End without explaining what you learned or improved going forward.
To test your knowledge on what you have learned, please complete the below quiz.
Quiz: Answering a Question Using the STAR Method
Which is the most effective response?
Tell me about a time you managed challenging behaviour in the classroom.
Response A
Situation: During a Year 6 maths lesson, one pupil repeatedly challenged instructions and attempted to distract others.
Task: I needed to ensure learning continued without escalating the situation or losing the attention of the rest of the class.
Action: I calmly reiterated expectations and adjusted the pupil’s position in the classroom. I also ensured the next task had more scaffolding to reduce potential frustration. After the lesson, I recorded the behaviour and spoke to the pupil privately to understand the trigger.
Result: Behaviour improved slightly over the next week, and I continued monitoring. The strategy helped maintain a more settled learning environment for the rest of the class.
Situation: During a Year 6 maths lesson, one pupil repeatedly challenged instructions and attempted to distract others.
Task: I needed to ensure learning continued without escalating the situation or losing the attention of the rest of the class.
Action: I calmly reiterated expectations and adjusted the pupil’s position in the classroom. I also ensured the next task had more scaffolding to reduce potential frustration. After the lesson, I recorded the behaviour and spoke to the pupil privately to understand the trigger.
Result: Behaviour improved slightly over the next week, and I continued monitoring. The strategy helped maintain a more settled learning environment for the rest of the class.
Response B
Situation: During a whole-class reading session, a student kept interrupting the discussion with off-topic comments and was clearly disengaged.
Task: My goal was to bring them back on task without losing the momentum of the lesson.
Action: I acknowledged their contributions without reinforcing the disruption, then redirected their attention by involving them in the questioning. I also made a note to adapt my seating plan the next day to limit peer-triggered disruptions.
Result: The pupil engaged more meaningfully after that and didn’t interrupt for the remainder of the session. Over time, with more active participation strategies, they became more consistent in their behaviour.
Situation: During a whole-class reading session, a student kept interrupting the discussion with off-topic comments and was clearly disengaged.
Task: My goal was to bring them back on task without losing the momentum of the lesson.
Action: I acknowledged their contributions without reinforcing the disruption, then redirected their attention by involving them in the questioning. I also made a note to adapt my seating plan the next day to limit peer-triggered disruptions.
Result: The pupil engaged more meaningfully after that and didn’t interrupt for the remainder of the session. Over time, with more active participation strategies, they became more consistent in their behaviour.
Response C
Situation: In a mixed Year 4/5 class, I worked with a pupil who displayed frequent low-level disruption and often refused to follow adult instructions, especially during transitions.
Task: My task was to support this pupil in regulating their behaviour while maintaining the pace and focus of lessons for the rest of the class.
Action: I collaborated with the SENCO to develop a short-term support plan with visual cues and a predictable routine. I used pre-emptive praise (positively reinforcing expected or desired behaviour before it happens or just as it begins) and quiet proximity (moving closer to a student or group in a non-verbal, calm, and unobtrusive way to manage behaviour or provide subtle support) to reduce escalation. I also built in check-in moments where the pupil could reflect using a traffic-light system.
Result: Over the course of the term, incidents decreased from several times a day to once or twice a week. Other pupils also reported feeling more settled, and the pupil started using strategies independently. I reflected on how structure and autonomy can coexist when managed carefully.
Situation: In a mixed Year 4/5 class, I worked with a pupil who displayed frequent low-level disruption and often refused to follow adult instructions, especially during transitions.
Task: My task was to support this pupil in regulating their behaviour while maintaining the pace and focus of lessons for the rest of the class.
Action: I collaborated with the SENCO to develop a short-term support plan with visual cues and a predictable routine. I used pre-emptive praise (positively reinforcing expected or desired behaviour before it happens or just as it begins) and quiet proximity (moving closer to a student or group in a non-verbal, calm, and unobtrusive way to manage behaviour or provide subtle support) to reduce escalation. I also built in check-in moments where the pupil could reflect using a traffic-light system.
Result: Over the course of the term, incidents decreased from several times a day to once or twice a week. Other pupils also reported feeling more settled, and the pupil started using strategies independently. I reflected on how structure and autonomy can coexist when managed carefully.
Why Response C is strongest:
Response A:
Decent, but more generic and less impactful — there’s little evidence of long-term success or reflection.
Response B:
Shows some quick thinking and awareness, but lacks depth in terms of planning or follow-up — it feels more like a surface-level intervention.
Response C:
Stronger understanding of the behaviour context:
“…a pupil who displayed frequent low-level disruption and often refused to follow adult instructions, especially during transitions.”
This shows a nuanced understanding of when and why the behaviour occurs (transitions = a known trigger for many students). That level of specificity demonstrates insight, not just observation.
Multi-layered and proactive action:
“I collaborated with the SENCO… visual cues and a predictable routine… pre-emptive praise and quiet proximity… traffic-light system.”
Instead of just using reactive measures (like warnings or sanctions), the teacher in Response C builds a proactive, personalised support plan, drawing on collaboration and inclusive practice. It includes differentiated strategies (visual cues, routines), emotional regulation tools (traffic-light system), and relational management (quiet proximity).
Clear, measurable result:
“Incidents decreased from several times a day to once or twice a week.”
This response gives concrete evidence of improvement — something interviewers love. The reference to peer feedback (“Other pupils also reported feeling more settled”) shows awareness of the whole-class impact, not just the individual.
Reflective and pedagogically sound:
“I reflected on how structure and autonomy can coexist when managed carefully.”
This kind of reflective statement elevates the response. It links practical experience to broader teaching philosophy — a marker of a confident and thoughtful practitioner.
Response A:
Decent, but more generic and less impactful — there’s little evidence of long-term success or reflection.
Response B:
Shows some quick thinking and awareness, but lacks depth in terms of planning or follow-up — it feels more like a surface-level intervention.
Response C:
Stronger understanding of the behaviour context:
“…a pupil who displayed frequent low-level disruption and often refused to follow adult instructions, especially during transitions.”
This shows a nuanced understanding of when and why the behaviour occurs (transitions = a known trigger for many students). That level of specificity demonstrates insight, not just observation.
Multi-layered and proactive action:
“I collaborated with the SENCO… visual cues and a predictable routine… pre-emptive praise and quiet proximity… traffic-light system.”
Instead of just using reactive measures (like warnings or sanctions), the teacher in Response C builds a proactive, personalised support plan, drawing on collaboration and inclusive practice. It includes differentiated strategies (visual cues, routines), emotional regulation tools (traffic-light system), and relational management (quiet proximity).
Clear, measurable result:
“Incidents decreased from several times a day to once or twice a week.”
This response gives concrete evidence of improvement — something interviewers love. The reference to peer feedback (“Other pupils also reported feeling more settled”) shows awareness of the whole-class impact, not just the individual.
Reflective and pedagogically sound:
“I reflected on how structure and autonomy can coexist when managed carefully.”
This kind of reflective statement elevates the response. It links practical experience to broader teaching philosophy — a marker of a confident and thoughtful practitioner.