In the United States, one of the most polarizing aspects of American society is how American children, the future generation, should be educated. From the conservative educational approach of essentialism to the more activist-driven form of education of reconstructionism, the debate over the best educational philosophy is one that many disagree with. One of these philosophies is constructivism, a form of education “in which students construct new understandings through active engagement with their past and present experiences” (Koonce 48). The student is in control of what they are learning based on their best interests and constructivism addresses the student based on their perception of reality and development as an intellectual and that "knowledge or truth is subjective and relative to the individual " (Carson ). This student-centered philosophy seems like an ideal form of education and may be considered the best educational philosophy for some because of its theme of freedom in an educational context and how it produces “deeper levels of understanding”; however, many argue that this form of education is difficult to implement, “imprecise, overly permissive, and lacking in rigor,” compared to a more traditional form of education known as objectivism (Koonce 48). After reading the articles in Koonce's text and recalling my experiences in school before going to college, I firmly believe that constructivism is not the best educational philosophy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Like any other form of educational philosophy, constructivism can be considered the best form of education. In Koonce's text, both sides of the argument are presented through the writings of child development professor David Elkind, a proponent of constructivism, and education professor Jamin Carson, an opponent of constructivism. Although Professor Elkind supports constructivism in which he states that “children are not containers to be filled to a certain amount” after each chapter of their educational journey, he recognizes that it presents obstacles to being a viable form of teaching (Elkind). . He believes that these obstacles, or “failures in preparation,” are failures in “teacher preparation, curricular preparation, and social preparation” (Elkind). Elkind takes aim at the lack of adequate teacher training, believing that teachers need to be experts in both their curricular and instructional skills. She believes that a curriculum that takes into account children's mental abilities and development should play a role in the timing of when and how to teach certain subjects. He also believes that society is not prepared for a major change in education because there is no “energetic social consensus” to change general education (Elkind). Elkind believes that constructivism would be ready to be implemented in education once these failures were resolved, but Jamin Carson, an objectivist, believes that the reason constructivism is difficult to adopt in education is not only because of lack of preparation, Elkind says, but because constructivism is difficult to adopt in education. the principles of constructivism are wrong. Regarding Elkind's preparation failures, Carson states that teacher preparation is contradictory because teachers cannot prepare their students without a plan of what knowledge they "would like [their] students to acquire", which is not constructivism (Carson). He statesthat any curricular decision is objective because it is up to the teacher to formulate the curriculum. He also states that there is a desire in society to reform education to close the gap between socioeconomic groups, but constructivism is not a philosophy that can help this (Carson). These arguments made by Carson to counter Elkind's reasoning as to why constructivism has not yet been implemented address both the flaws of constructivism's principles and how impractical this philosophy might be. He also believes that allowing students to believe that “there are no right or wrong answers” ​​for how to interpret information creates “careless and uncritical thinkers” (Carson). Although both Elkind and Carson agree that students should have freedom in their education, Elkind advocates a student-centered educational philosophy while Carson advocates an educational philosophy that gives students the freedom to learn, but what they are learning must conform to a objective reality. and is monitored by the teacher. My position on constructivism as an educational philosophy is that it seems ideal, but it is difficult to agree with it. Although I recognize that there is a bias in considering objectivism as a more ideal form of education since I have experienced that form of education, I would choose the former if given the choice between objectivism and constructivism. Active engagement is not bad at all, it is preferable; however, there needs to be an agreed consensus on which interpretation best represents a given concept. During my APUSH class's freshman year of high school, my teacher dedicated students to reenacting trench warfare in World War I. This active engagement was fun and helped the class learn a lot about the topic, but in the end, the class had to agree that trench warfare was not easy and there wasn't much room to have a different interpretation of trench warfare. trench. Having multiple points of view on reality in an educational context is inefficient. According to Elkind, if education is true to teach people how to behave towards others, having different views on reality will make it very difficult to resolve problems between those who argue because they both believe and are told to believe that they are right based on their perception of reality. If education is about understanding a concept, then the principles of constructivism are difficult to use because if “30 different students…come to 30 different understandings…of a concept, all of which are not equally appropriate” there is really no point in teaching it. . concept in a classroom because it will be difficult to accommodate all students and allow them to reflect on their interpretation of the concept without the contribution of someone else (Abdal-Haqq). In an experiment with sixth graders, divided into two groups: one with a constructivist approach, the other with a traditional approach, it was demonstrated that, although constructivist teaching can improve students' academic performance, "it is not effective in terms of improving students' self-concept and students' learning strategies in general,” (Kim). While higher achievement can be positive, this contrasts with constructivism, which aims to develop a deeper understanding of the material a student is learning. One of the major challenges of constructivism is that it is difficult to “translate a theory of learning into a theory of teaching” and this “raises questions about what teachers need to know and be able to do”, which is difficult if the educational philosophy is student-centered where the student is free to interpret information in any way he or she prefers,.