Finding Balance
As an educator working in aviation and aerospace programs, I’ve come to believe STEM education requires a dual perspective. Specifically, one that harnesses technology’s precision while preserving the messy, creative problem-solving that drives real innovation. This balanced approach aligns with the recognition that seemingly contradictory methods can actually enhance one another when properly integrated. The technological model provides the structured foundation for skill development, while the naturalistic approach fosters the adaptive thinking needed to apply those skills in unpredictable real-world scenarios. Aviation and aerospace are fields where things don’t always go according to plan, so it’s important to be prepared, but also flexible enough to adapt when needed.
As I’ve mentioned in previous curriculum portfolio posts, I think balance has a place in every classroom. When we stick with a single perspective, it may benefit many students (or even most in some cases), but there will always be students who will benefit from alternative perspectives. I think this is increasingly true in today’s diverse classrooms, where students come from a range of different backgrounds and bring a diverse range of skills and abilities.
The technological model’s value becomes clear every time I introduce flight simulation software. There’s undeniable power in watching students manipulate virtual wing designs and receive instant feedback on lift and drag calculations. These digital tools create opportunities that textbooks simply can’t match. I think our students might fall asleep from boredom if we tried explaining some of our lessons in the classroom, rather than allowing them to experience it on the simulators. The structured progression from basic to complex simulations mirrors the instructional systems design approach, and ensures all students master fundamental concepts before advancing. Yet this strength also reveals the model's limitation: while excellent for teaching what we know, it struggles to prepare students for problems we haven't yet anticipated.
This limitation became painfully clear during our post-pandemic return to in-person programming. Students who excelled in virtual environments often faltered when faced with equipment malfunctions that lacked predefined solutions. Their experience reflects the difficulty of applying classroom learning to novel situations. The naturalistic approach addresses this gap by creating instructional events, where understanding emerges through authentic problem-solving rather than direct instruction. When students wrestle with uncooperative drones or unstable rocket designs, they're not just learning aerospace principles, they're building the adaptive expertise that distinguishes technicians from innovators.
To me, the challenge lies in balancing these approaches systematically rather than opportunistically. In our program, structured technological tools provide initial learning supports that are gradually withdrawn as students gain competence, creating space for naturalistic exploration. This mirrors the aviation industry's own training evolution, where simulator time is carefully balanced with actual flight experience. Our assessment methods must similarly evolve beyond binary choices, recognizing that technological precision and naturalistic flexibility aren't endpoints on a spectrum, but interdependent dimensions of deep learning. Aviation is not a field where multiple choice questions can effectively evaluate an individual’s knowledge or skill levels.
In aviation, as in all STEM fields, we need professionals who can both follow precise procedures and think creatively when those procedures fail. The Wright brothers' breakthrough wasn't just their wind tunnel data or their daring test flights, but their ability to synthesize both. Our curriculum should cultivate this same synthesis and use technology to illuminate fundamental principles, then create space for students to discover how those principles bend and flex in the real world. Only by honoring both models can we prepare students for a future where the only certainty is change.
References
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2019). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (5th ed.). SAGE.