Can short, ungraded, free-writing assignments promote learning of course material? We randomly assigned introductory psychology recitation sections (N = 978 students) to writing or thinking conditions. For all sections, teaching assistants presented students with a discussion topic based in current coursework. Students either wrote or thought about the topic for 5 min. All sections then discussed the topic for approximately 10 min. Exams included questions related to the discussion topics. Students in the writing condition attended class more often and performed better on factual and conceptual multiple-choice exam questions than students in the thinking condition, even after controlling for measures of student quality. The results suggested that brief free writing improved factual and conceptual learning.Active learning, described as more learner-than content-centered, leads to better retention of course material than passive learning and includes such techniques as writing and class discussion (Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). Writing promotes critical and flexible thinking, develops expressive abilities, facilitates reflecting on course content, and encourages students to develop their own perspectives (Bensley & Haynes, 1995;Wade, 1995;Waller, 1994). Classroom discussion provides many similar benefits, including promoting and modeling critical thinking and developing expressive abilities (Connor-Greene, 2005;Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt, 2004;King, 1995). Despite these benefits, incorporating active learning techniques into the classroom is not necessarily easy. Writing assignments are often perceived as onerous for students to carry out and for educators to grade (Madigan & Brosamer, 1991). Common concerns about holding classroom discussion include the many students who are reluctant to participate and the quality of students' responses (Connor-Greene, 2005;Dallimore et al., 2004).Our study evaluated the combination of nononerous in-class writing and related class discussion. The writing component builds on the minute-paper technique described by Angelo and Cross (1993). Minute papers entail students' writing for several minutes in class in response to a specific question, such as what students found unclear or most valuable from a previous lecture (Angelo & Cross, 1993;Dunn, 1994). Minute papers confer many of the benefits of writing described earlier (Stead, 2005). In addition, because minute papers are not graded, students are more likely to focus on content and clarity of expression, rather than formal aspects of writing, such as spelling and grammar (MacKinnon-Slaney, 1991).Little research has examined modifications of the minute-paper technique. A notable exception (Butler, Phillmann, & Smart, 2001) combined minute papers and the think-pairshare technique to create CARDS, so named because students use index cards with this strategy. Specifically, students write responses to a question that addresses a specific psychological concept, exchange responses with partners, and discuss responses in small g...

Most rats maintained on a food-deprivation schedule for 2 wk. killed mice when hungry. A large proportion continued to kill after being food satiated for 2 or more wk. Rats that had never been food deprived were much less likely to kill. Rats first tested when food satiated, but with a history of food deprivation, were somewhat more likely to kill than were rats first tested without a history of food deprivation. These effects were obtained in male Long-Evans rats bred for killing, and in male randomly bred Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley rats with low base rates of spontaneous killing. Hunger had a smaller effect on killing by Sprague-Dawley rats. Female Long-Evans rats, bred for killing, killed less frequently than did their male littermates, both while food satiated and while hungry. Water deprivation had no effect on the initiation of killing. Relationships of mouse killing to feeding and to less homeostatic instinctual responses were discussed.

Hunger potentiated mouse killing by naive rats, but not by rats familiarized with mice before and during food deprivation. Once rats had been made hungry, mouse killing was unaffected by increasing or decreasing severity of food deprivation or by time of testing with respect to a regular feeding hour, variables which do control feeding. Rats fed either dead mice, powdered chow, or hard pellets while on cyclic food deprivation were about equally likely to kill, showing that hunger does not indirectly potentiate lulling by increasing practice of responses like pouncing and biting. Whether hungry or not, killers were likely to eat their prey, whereas nonkillers were unlikely to eat the same prey. Rats killed 12-14 day-old rat pups as often as they killed mice, but they killed weanling rat pups less often. These findings questioned several common notions regarding predatory aggression.

The probability that male rats would kill and eat rat pups was inversely related both to age of the pup and to the amount of prior exposure to pups. Other experiments investigated (a) the effects of hunger and subsequent food satiation on killing of neonatal rat pups, (b) the generalization of experience in lulling neonatal rat pups to the killing of weanling rats and of mice, (c) the effect of nonkilling experiences with either neonatal rat pups or with weanling rats in reducing the probability of killing neonatal rat pups, and (d) the effects of these variables when mouse pups were the stimuli. The data suggested that (a) neonatal pups, conspecific or not, are killed because they are perceived as food and not because they trigger aggressive response systems, (b) older pups do trigger aggressive response systems, and (c) species-specific characteristics of rat pups trigger maternal response systems in the male rat with a subsequent decrease in the incidence of rat pup killing.With the exception of Johnson (1972), reviewers of mammalian aggression consider conspecific killing to be a very rare event (e.g., Lorenz, 1966;Moyer, 1968;Tinbergen, 1968). Nevertheless, the young of a given species may be particularly susceptible to attack by adult conspecifics. Conspecific young are sometimes attacked and killed by feral lions (