For so long the one-shot has been the dominating force of how we engage in library instruction. There is a lot of meaning and debate saturated in this faux-innocuous activity, yet there is not always consensus as to how we define a one-shot. Is it doing a library "spiel" to demo a database, present the library website, or give a tour? Is it visiting a class once without an explicit connection to an assignment? Is it even embedding a learning object in a class without assessment feedback or other interaction? To have a central, salient definition of the one-shot for the purpose of this editorial, I view it as a standalone session, superficially (or not at all) connected to course content, that is tacked onto a class. Within a curriculum, the one-shot has no memory of where information literacy has been and no vision of where it is going. It is ephemeral within cycles of ineffectiveness. I am writing this guest editorial to talk this through and share my thoughts, and then invite you to share yours in a special issue of C&RL on the contested one-shot (see the Call for Proposals at the end). We do not need consensus but sharing different perspectives and exploring what "effective" teaching means is important to support our instruction programs. This guest editorial will discuss one-shots in the context of effective teaching practices; assessment; and power structures related to care-work and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). The hope is to expand our pedagogical imagination through questioning what appear to be common-sense practices in order to create better systems and structures. 1
Effective TeachingWhat do we actually mean when we say "effective?" This is difficult to identify and measure. Learning is messy and doing more one-shots does not equate with more effective teaching or guarantee student learning. I started to think about what was problematic with the one-shot in my first library job at a community college where I would teach a large amount of these singular sessions each semester. The issue is less about them being "one" and more about them often being tacked on to the curriculum, regardless of how many there were. This idea has persisted in my mind and is expressed well in a 2006 article I assign to iSchool students in my LIS course. Dane Ward explains that, "Students do not achieve information literacy by attending more library sessions. Rather, students learn relevant information skills when they are systematically