Sexing Shakespeare Reflection

In the first part of this reflection, I hypothesized differences I expected between this class, and General Psychology. I hypothesized Sexing Shakespeare to encourage in class involvement and participation of the students as opposed to General Psychology. This is most certainly the case as I predicted General Psychology to utilized zero interactive participation, due to the professor’s preference of Idiosyncratic lecture setting. Another statement proven true would be the utilization of social skills, given the discussion class environment. The majority of what I expected of the class Sexing Shakespeare was proven true, as I utilized both social and listening skills in order to be successful. However, few cracks emerged throughout this semester, creating faults in my reflection.

One fallacy arisen, is the statement of Sexing Shakespeare holding my attention due to interactive class participation. Utilization of clickers indeed enhances one’s attention during a lecture, however many other factors play a pivotal role in determining a student’s digestion of lecture material. Factors include Student’s attention span, topic discussion, professor’s knowledge on a
In my reflection I stated General Psychology to induce more work outside the classroom as opposed to Sexing Shakespeare, given General Psycholgy’s research requirement; I was indefinitely proven wrong in this remark. The second half of the semester has barely begun and I have already completed my research hours for General Psychology; furthermore, outside of the research hours I conducted for the class, I rarely have to do activities outside of the classroom setting. Sexing Shakespeare however, has induced me to perform a sustainable amount of activities outside the classroom, such as reading about Judith Butler’s essay about sexuality and reading Shakespeare Midsummer’s Nights