It started out like a typical large-enrollment lecture course. Hundreds of students filed into Berkeley's Pimentel Hall for Chemistry 1A, sat in their seats, and began taking notes as the instructor started to lecture. The students paid close attention to the front of the classroom, where three large projection screens displayed the instructor's lecture notes and animations.

But then something unconventional happened. The lecturer, Mark Kubinec, displayed a slide that contained a multiple-choice question called a ChemQuiz. On cue, students reached into backpacks, pockets, and elsewhere and pulled out little remote control-like devices. They pointed the devices up to the ceiling, pressing one of the many buttons.

As the students did this, colored blocks with ID numbers scrolled across one of the projection screens, recording their responses. After a few minutes when Kubinec asked for final votes, a histogram showing the distribution of responses was displayed. Kubinec then asked the students to talk among themselves for a couple of minutes and answer the question again. After a few minutes of animated discussion, the second tally showed convergence to one of the possible answers. Kubinec then announced the correct answer and further explained the concept behind the question.

The pedagogical style of quizzing students during lecture and having them vote individually and then again after consulting with their peers is based on the work of renowned science education expert Eric Mazur from Harvard. Known as "peer instruction," this method allows for interaction in large lecture classes. Mazur has proven that this approach improves learning outcomes. In addition, the students appear to enjoy the interaction, and Kubinec says that his students have rated this approach very highly in the years that he has implemented it.

Before Kubinec installed the wireless voting system - known as either a personal or audience response system - two years ago, students answered ChemQuizzes by a show of hands. "With the personal response system the participation rate among students is approximately twice that observed with the show of hands method," says Kubinec. "Students used to look at each other to find out how others were voting and the shy ones didn't answer at all."

With the technological method, students have anonymity and thus are more likely to participate. Kubinec is also able to give credit for participation because each response is recorded (but not graded). This, and the interactivity and engagement produced by the ChemQuizzes, encourages students to attend class, he says.

Kubinec uses the EduCue Personal Response System, which is composed of receivers, which are mounted on the walls or ceiling, individual transmitters for the students, and software. The receivers collect the responses from the students' transmitters and interact with software running on an ordinary PC that then displays the data in real time and represents final results in a graph format.

At Berkeley, four instructors (including Kubinec) in three classrooms are using audience response systems and are finding them useful for increasing interest and interaction in large-enrollment classes. This spring, UC Davis is planning to install these systems in three of its general assignment lecture halls for courses in Physics, the Graduate School of Management, and Political Science.

"Several of our faculty are interested in engaging students and making them feel more connected, especially in large-enrollment classes," says Victoria Cross, Assistant Director of the UC Davis Teaching Resources Center. "When given a quiz we all want to get it right. It sparks you into thinking about the topic instead of passively receiving information. And because it's anonymous, there is no peer pressure or censoring of responses."