The Responsibility for Learning
Teachers remain responsible for creating a learning environment, but students take responsibility for learning (Weimer 2002). Many of the example questions, exercises, and activities provided in the appendix were created by students in the ERM course. Students on a rotating basis provide discussion questions and serve as small group moderators. Student small group moderators are encouraged to have every student engage in the discussion process, limiting individual students who may try to dominate, and motivating timid students. Engaged students accept the linkage between their actions and learning. Misbehavior is better corrected by peers who see that learning is being prevented than by teacher retribution.
Students are also responsible for contributing to course content, further engaging their interest and ownership of the responsibility for learning. For example, in the Appendix, the tornado incident at the truck yard in LCT Example #6, Chapter 13: "Quantitative Risk Assessment in ERM," was found by a student. The student was delighted to share the discovered risk example, as other students accepted a challenge to find additional videos of the incident or similar catastrophic events. The whistle-blowing websites and information in LCT Example #12, Chapter 20: "Legal Risk Post-SOX and the Subprime Fiasco," were also found by students. The content served as a basis for spirited group discussions on whistle-blowing. Consider the benefit of 30 students searching and exploring the web for current content versus the teacher presenting a few selected sites in a TL. Avoid the classic student statement, "That seems like a good example, but I cannot quite relate to it. It was before I was born."
Evaluation Purpose and Process
It reasonably follows that LCT also results in a change in evaluation procedures, essentially orienting the evaluation process to promote learning. LCT does not reduce the importance of evaluations and the structural value of course grades. LCT does alter the focus of evaluations to learning, as grades do not necessarily reflect the desired higher-level learning, especially if exams only measure recall and rote memorization of base knowledge.
It is not a straightforward change for evaluations to emphasize learning. Accordingly, Weimer (2002) considers the opportunities in greater detail:
• As a foundation to reduce the stakes and stress of the exam, provide review sessions, make sure exams reflect covered content, offer multiple opportunities, or have exams taken as a group.
• For papers, suggest appropriate paper topics, and clearly state academic coverage expectations.
• Develop participation through both self and peer assessment.
• Utilize review sessions at the end of classes and prior to exams as learning exercises, allowing groups to summarize important content and topics that are expected to be on the exam.
• Avoid returning to the TL in the review, however tempting and accidentally reverted to it may be.
• Continue LCT into the postexam review by encouraging students to support answers they argue are correct, citing content or their reasoning process. How often, when a student states that answer C seems to be correct, we respond with "Sorry, B is the only correct answer." Imagine the different response of "Why do you think C is correct?" Place the emphasis on learning, and we may sometimes discover that answer C may also be correct.