traditional vs. constructivist classrooms

Thanks to the link from Jessica (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/eitankaplan/pages/home.htm ) I delved into this website's understanding of constructivist teaching, which was laid out in a much easier format than the wordy (albeit interesting) essays.

Focusing on the chart (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/eitankaplan/pages/classroom.htm )

made it easier to understand RC and made me realize that much of what was taking place, according to this site, in a constructivist classroom was taking place in our own PTL class, much like a lot of my other classes here at the College.

In the constructivist classroom the teacher becomes a guide for the learner, providing bridging or scaffolding, helping to extend the learner's zone of proximal development. The student is encouraged to develop metacognitive skills such as reflective thinking and problem solving techniques. The independent learner is intrinsically motivated to generate, discover, build and enlarge her/his own framework of knowledge.

I feel as if in class we do just that. We discuss among ourselves in class, and online, with only slight prompting, or bridging as they write, from Professor Johnson. We also develop concepts ourselves by writing a Q&A.

The constructivist classroom, as laid out on this site, seems to provoke a deeper learning and critical thinking, like we discussed earlier this semester. The classrooms of the past were traditional and straightforward. I believe that classrooms of the present are much more based on constructivist theories.

- Is there any merit to teaching traditionally as laid out in the chart on that website?