Learning styles can vary in each student depending on how he/she is able to easily understand methods of approach in a given task. Any student who faces challenges in a certain learning style or finds strength in a different style should be given options when in school. At GCE, the teachers embark on many methods to try to help students gain the fullest understanding on a subject matter. I personally have a wide range of learning styles depending on how I calculate information and find answers. Taking a survey, I received 100% in the following categories: Linguistic, Logic-Mathematical, Intrapersonal, and Visual-Spatial learning. Having these different ways of learning, I see how I am able to find what is best for my education in matters of problem solving tactics to produce knowledge in a subject I analyze and study. As a logical thinker, I can apply this coherently with my abilities to support others in finding different approaches to a solution. I often find myself wanting very solid facts to stem off of, then I use creativity in spatial thinking and linguistics to apply different ways to learn about a situation. Being able to interpret things in front of you or a part of your existence makes it a lot easier to understand something. Using this information, I am expected at GCE to allow my thinking to be fully extended in each subject matter and find any approach that is easiest for me in order to justify how I comprehend the lesson being taught. I hope to be able to produce as many options as I can for myself in order to completely express my interests and look for personal goals in my learning. That is what I feel is expected of me as a student, and how I should go about contributing to GCE as a whole in order to make the best of my education. Specifically in my Crimes Against Humanities class, it offers a wide range of different focuses when it comes to committing to education in ways that is meant to impact studies on a global scale. At GCE, core studies are given and can be seen as something to manipulate and become personally useful for goals. A more condensed goal I have is studying human society and how individuals impact the world on a global and micro scale. In essence, studying how art represents abstract thinking and deeper meaning, how individual people experience life, and using mathematics and logic to make sense of this occurring around the world is a broad way to learn how to be an independent adult and expand options for career studies.
In Crimes Against Humanity, I see more potential in my studies because they have meaning towards how I want to impress my abilities to analyze and create resources for a study. I expect myself to learn more about organizing studies and getting down to the core of the subject to produce a proper analysis blog. I am offered a wide range of opportunities to self reflect, and that is resourceful when I am practicing writing and deduction skills. A few examples of these studies where incorporated in my Crimes Against Humanities course, where our class participated in an analytical study that involved Pablo Picasso’s bull 11 impression series. I documented a personal analysis for each bull, and this allowed me to apply a knowledge-based grasp of what each bull symbolized in terms of how I related it to the world, interpreted it for physical symbolism, and derived personal connections. Picasso’s bull series was important for understanding changes in observation where a person can analyze and contrast similarities to distinguished differences. This series signified an abstract approach toward symbolism which allows observations to be very differently applied according to the person. Picasso guides us through this learning by making progressive changes that have certain similarities to each bull; so as to distinguish a pattern where we know and see that there is a bull. The significance of it is how it changes throughout the series. The similarities of them to each other force the viewer to want to think more about its meaning. A picture can paint many words, but that depends on the interpreter if they are getting the whole story.
Now, looking at the approach for seeing ways to interpret individual impacts on the world, we study a young woman named Chimamanda Adichie, who was raised in Africa and transferred as a student scholar in America. She faced a lot of oppression from how she compared her real life experiences to how people in America have committed themselves to believe through bias. In “The Danger of a Single Story” she discusses how she gained experience through contrasting events throughout her life to people who considered opinion a fact. The “story” in this case is the story people have been given to create their own individual opinions, processed through the bias of their resource. She read books when she was younger to represent what she gained through the eyes of a culture about which she knew nothing of as a young child. This story was dangerous towards her view of society because from the books she learned to read where written in the perspective of a different culture. She did not understand that there were people who have a general idea of societies based on their culture and region of birth. There was an opinion based on an individual’s experiences in life in which they gained their views of Nigerian/African people as inequal to different races and cultures. Because this woman is African, the automatic impression is that people from this country are living in darkness, they have animalistic personalities, and they are not fully civilized. This is a stereotype created by people who have explained the situations within Africa, and how this places bias against people who live there. Moreover, a “single story” is based on the observations of those who create personalized views of societies based on how they interact with the principles of their economy and society in other places. What gives power to a “single story” is the way people relate ideas to their understanding of norms in their own society, which obscures from analyzing the history of a culture’s own society and what influences the population’s lifestyles. There is no one way to tell a single story, and there is never a single story when describing a country. A single story should not justify itself based on catastrophes where people live. There should never be too much negativity; true records in history become inauthentic. People create stereotypes to explain the way people function, and this is due in large amount to what we are given from a single resource. What we gain by “losing” the single story is the understanding that there is no single story to describe a person or country. We only gain understanding by experiencing or studying it from legitimate perspectives. We gain knowledge that is trustworthy and true, when there is no single perspective.