Teaching of Psychology, 37: 46–49, 2010 Copyright C  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0098-6283 print / 1532-8023 online DOI: 10.1080/00986280903425813 Enhanced Learning and Retention Through “Writing to Learn” in the Psychology Classroom Tracie L. Stewart, Ashley C. Myers, and Marci R. Culley Georgia State University We assessed the benefits of employing microthemes—short in-class writing assignments designed to facilitate active learning—as pedagogical tools in psychology courses. Stu- dents in target course sections completed 10 in-class mi- crothemes during a semester. We designed the microthemes to serve as active learning assignments that would en- hance student learning and long-term retention, as well as strengthen students’ writing skills. The instructors provided feedback to students on the content and writing quality of each microtheme. Students reported that the microthemes were effective and engaging learning tools. A comparison of essay and multiple-choice scores for students in target versus control course sections suggested the effectiveness of the microthemes for student learning, retention, and writing development. Given the importance of writing to psychology and to the stimulation of “active learning” (engagement in the learning process; Bloom, 1956; McKeachie, 1994; Weimer, 2002), it is not surprising that approximately 15% of the more than 2,000 articles published thus far in Teaching of Psychology (ToP) concerned writing as- signments. However, it is, perhaps, surprising to learn that fewer than 10 articles focused on in-class writing exercises, despite evidence of their learning benefits in other disciplines (Bean, 2001), and that there has been little systematic assessment of their effectiveness in psychology courses (e.g., Dunn, 1994; McGovern & Hogshead, 1990). Furthermore, none described the graded in-class writing assignments designed to facili- tate active learning,or microthemes, that we introduce here. Although other instructors might employ varia- tions of this technique, this article is the first to report an empirical assessment of its effectiveness. The few assessments of ungraded in-class writing assignments in ToP reported divergent findings (e.g., Butler, Phillmann, & Smart, 2001; Drabick, Weisberg, Paul, & Bubier, 2007). However, these assignments might not have fully captured the potential of strate- gically crafted microthemes to elicit substantial crit- ical and elaborative thinking, followed by a small amount of writing (Bean, 2001). For example, stu- dents in one study answered factual questions about concepts to be covered on an examination (Butler et al., 2001), which facilitated their performance on cor- responding examination questions. However, students received no instructor feedback and rated the assign- ments low in intellectual stimulation. Also missing in the literature is systematic assessment of longer term knowledge retention (e.g., over 2 months after ma- terial is taught) as a function of graded or ungraded microthemes. We designed our technique to enhance psychology students’ mastery and retention of course content, stim- ulate active learning, and improve writing quality. To achieve these goals, assignments were (a) constructed to prompt students to think critically about and ap- ply course topics, (b) followed by discussion to further stimulate active learning, (c) implemented through- out the semester to provide practice analyzing course content and communicating these analyses effectively, and (d) graded, with feedback, by instructors. We ac- knowledge that ungraded assignments can be benefi- cial (Dunn, 1994); however, our emphasis on grad- ing in this assignment is congruent with McKeachie’s (1994) contention that active learning approaches are most effective when incorporating progress measurement. Our previous pretest–posttest evaluation of this technique suggested its short-term effectiveness in meeting these pedagogical goals, but did not incor- porate a control group, tempering interpretation of its findings (Stewart & Myers, 2008). Our new as- sessment employed a larger sample, introduced group 46 Teaching of Psychology