IntechOpen

Home > Books > Pedagogy, Learning, and Creativity

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Full STEAM Ahead with Creativity

Written By

Catherine Conradty, Sofoklis A. Sotiriou and Franz X. Bogner

Submitted: 16 January 2023 Reviewed: 03 February 2023 Published: 01 March 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.110359

Pedagogy, Learning, and Creativity IntechOpen
Pedagogy, Learning, and Creativity Edited by Maria Ampartzaki

From the Edited Volume

Pedagogy, Learning, and Creativity

Edited by Maria Ampartzaki and Michail Kalogiannakis

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

94 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

The integration of arts in science education (STEAM) aims to provide innovative activities to reach deeper learning levels and generally promote student engagement in (science) education. The European Horizon 2020 project CREATIONS with 16 partner institutions addresses this challenge with more than 100 initiatives over three years. All initiatives followed our STEAM guidelines based on the fundamental principles of responsible research and innovation (RRI). The positive effects of STEAM on cognition and motivation were evident in all initiatives with a sufficient empirical database. Besides the intention to integrate creativity, our study focused on flow that is experience of total immersion and exhilarating absorption in an activity that is experienced as effortlessly mastered. The productivity resulting from the self-rewarding creative rush makes flow particularly interesting. This chapter contributes to the open question of how flow is triggered with an exemplary meta-analysis of motivation and creativity scores of ten interventions ranging from complex projects at CERN to art-centred, play-based, laboratory-oriented projects or almost classical school initiatives. The regression analysis decoded self-efficacy as the crucial factor enabling the flow experience—which was demonstrated in this study for the first time, moreover, in a variety of age groups in the context of classroom activities.

Keywords

  • creativity
  • flow
  • self-efficacy
  • secondary school students
  • arts and science
  • STEM
  • European-wide study

1. Introduction

The need of creativity in science has been highlighted over the last 50 years [1]. Researchers such as Moravcsik [2] allocated creativity even as the key element of science (education): “Without [creativity], science turns into a sterile manipulation of fixed rules and their embellishment without any tangible result, whether in the conceptual or practical sense” (p. 222). Science, like arts, requires a high degree of open network thinking and the ability to question established knowledge to ask the right question and find the appropriate ways to answer it [3]. Both, scientists and artists alike, are fond of understanding the world although their methods and choice of means differ and often misunderstand each other by disregarding potential benefits. A well-known historical example is Leonardo daVinci, who acted as both, a scientist and an artist. His scientific work on mechanics, proportions or anatomy is hardly distinguishable from art, and one would not have been possible without the other.

It has been a long definition process of creativity as it is a rather complex construct [4]. Starting from a rather general definition which regards creativity as a pivotal competence to solve current problems and to meet the requirements of the post-industrial age [5, 6], the view became increasingly broader as the complex problems of our global, post-industrial culture required education that fostered skills such as self-responsibility, creativity and reflection [7]. Dealing with that requires complex products that need multi-level creativity to develop [8]. For a possible solution, the ability to generate and pre-select ideas through imagination is needed [9]. Thus, creativity is not only declared to be the key element of science [2] but is also considered to be the key competence of the twenty-first century [10]. Reactive real-time creativity is characterized by spontaneity with improvisational and immediacy skills [9]. This high level of cognitive creativity is not innate and requires constant training. Hsu [11], for instance, indicated an incubation period prior to creativity as crucial for various individual traits relevant to creativity.

Today, as knowledge is always accessible and with constant updates, it seems to be increasingly an erroneous path to teach knowledge instead of creative competencies. Formerly, education was optimized for standardization and conformity, leading to compulsory curricula and strict testing requirements. Arts was reduced to a mere element of subject teaching, ignoring more or less the essence of creativity rather than using it as an element of learning across all classroom subjects [12]. For a long time, little had changed in the curricula. Nowadays, a fundamental shift in teaching objectives is emerging, away from the traditional teaching of “knowledge” (cognition) toward the promotion and development of students’ “skills” (competence orientation) [13]. After the extensive discussion of art and the definition of creativity and the investigation of the connections, STEAM instead of STEM is now gradually finding its way into the classroom.

Because of its importance in science, creativity is recognized as a critical component of STEM at school [14, 15]. Many educators consider science as creative and regard the relationship between knowledge and creativity in science as a special opportunity [16]. Creative approaches in science education are supposed to generate alternative ideas and foster everyday creativity, which results in purposive, imaginative, activity-generating outcomes. Although creativity is not limited to a particular subject area, Torrance [15] argued that science offers a much broader range of activities that can be used to foster creativity than other school subjects. The process of creativity, preparation, incubation, illumination and verification, follows similar steps to the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, experiment and verification [17, 18]. All scientific processes require a creative mind: hypothesis generation and observation require high levels of open-mindedness to experience and sensitivity, which in turn are components of creative thinking [19, 20, 21].

Despite the emergence of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics (STEAM) as a popular pedagogical approach to foster students’ creativity, problem-solving skills and interest in STEM subjects, definitions and goals of STEAM education remain inconsistent [22]. The Horizont2020 STEAM project CREATIONS was set up to support this link by including partners from different fields for preparing and implementing innovative examples of STEAM [23]. A roadmap guided the development of more than 105 interventions within the three-year project period. The idea in a nutshell: why are students more creative in their leisure time than in school and how can school be designed to provide the same research environment as creative leisure time [24, 25, 26, 27]?

All STEAM interventions followed the key principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The creative elements followed the 5E teaching model by proposing the five phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation [28, 29]. Creativity was integrated in the classroom environment as students were able to imagine, explore, experiment, test, manipulate, take risks and speculate as well as to make mistakes [30]. Inquiry-based learning in the CREATIONS modules promotes deeper learning [31]. What has been worked out independently is understood and thus rarely forgotten but transferred and used in other contexts [32]. Special attention was given to the creativity supporters as well as of “killers” in learning environments (Table 1) [33].

Creativity killer (modified after [34]Creativity supporter (CREATIONS)
Surveillance: Hovering over students, making them feel as if they are constantly being monitored while they are workingStudent-oriented self-regulated learning environment with a teacher as a tutor;
Evaluation: Making students worry about how others judge what they are doingStudents and teachers in the role of research colleagues; excellent error management culture: There are no failures, only experiences with falsification of an experiment;
Competition: Putting students in a win/lose situation in which only one person can come out on topConfidence within the team; each team member contributes valuable;
Overcontrol (perfect structured lessons): Telling students exactly how to do things and forbidding any explorationWell-prepared working material for self-regulated learning with space to elaborate and even fail;
Pressure (closely defined goals): Establishing grandiose expectations for a student’s performance.Error management culture:open-minded for new, even unconventional proposals. Everything is a step toward a bigger goal;

Table 1.

Killer of creativity and supporters.

Teachers offered this creativity-supporting social environment by adopting the role of a tutor [62]. They were responsible for a well-structured learning environment but left enough room for self-responsibility to deal with problems and scientific questions [35, 36]. This provides space for self-experience; it practices dealing with failure in a safe environment and recognizes failure as an elementary part in scientific work [37]; furthermore, this way of teaching supports self-efficacy because every increase in knowledge and success is based on students’ own work [34, 38]. As an example of some of the teaching interventions analyzed, we briefly describe the structures below. These show the variability in which the basic structure of a CREATIONS intervention can be applied.

Gen-ious is an intervention carried out in a student laboratory in addition to the classroom. The engagement with the technology-loaded genetics lab and the DNA replications model, which has a reputation for being complex, is split up by a creative inquiry-based construction phase. Students can craft models that can symbolize the DNA structure while observing the creativity facilitators. The lightness and playful creativity relieve the fear of making mistakes, which would basically reveal misconceptions that can then be identified and corrected on one’s own. With the creative teaching structure, the motivation to finish difficult (thought) processes, work on science and learning increased, as did long-term learning performance. More information about the intervention design of Gen-ious is described in [39, 40].

Art of Flying—the Jurassic fossil bird Archaeopteryx. The instructional content of the module on bird flight approached the topic in an interdisciplinary way with biology and physics. Introductory phase and final plenary provided the safe framework in which the teacher provided rules and basic information about the work processes. Within this framework, the students worked cooperatively in small groups of 3–4 participants (assembled by free choice) and completed the working stations’ tasks autonomously. With a focus to support self-efficacy, tutoring should be provided without negative feedback or too much help. For this, not the teacher but instead a workbook with instructions for each task supported the autonomous learning process. The educational module followed the concepts of open Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) by integrating elements of creativity and arts to extend STEM to STEAM instruction. Within the creativity approach, the arts aspect in science education was applied via two workstations with collaborative handicraft artwork on natural fossils and paper glider models [41, 42] (Table 1).

DNA-dance—simulating a double helix in schoolyards. As an example of involving one cohort of a total school, that simulation game was implemented within a schoolyard (Figure 1). All 7th-graders assembled in the schoolyard by wearing six different colors of T-shirts: white (= Desoxyribose) and black (=phosphate) formed the helix backbone, while blue, green, red and orange symbolized the different bases (cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine) containing the genetic information (purple = enzyme helicase). Half of the cohort danced in the manner of a row dance and symbolized a double helix (see Figure 1; 1 + 2). In the second step, the double helix has been split up by the appropriate enzyme helicase (see Figure 1; 2 + 3). In order to duplicate the double helix, the other half of the cohort substituted the emptied places and finalized two identical separate double helices (see Figure 1; 3 + 4). In summary, this inquiry-based laboratory module about genetics needs about one lesson and, beforehand, theoretical background knowledge by regular classroom lesson about genetics.

Figure 1.

DNA—Dance in a school yard: Dancing scheme for the replication of a short double-stranded DNA molecule.

1. The students with the T-shirts symbolizing the single “players” of a DNA-double helix

2. Preparation: “Constructing” a double-stranded DNA molecule.

3. Separating the double helix into strands with the enzyme helicase.

4. Complementing each strand by supplementing base-pairings with free nucleotides fitting in a 5′ to 3′ direction.

Altogether, the STEAM CREATIONS projects addressed all areas of science (Physics, Mathematics and Biology). We investigated the relationship between self-efficacy and flow. Flow is often misjudged as a special feeling of happiness of talented artists. Due to the positive effects of flow experiences on well-being and productivity, the feasibility of consciously provoking flow in everyday life is being explored. The present study investigates the hypothesis that self-efficacy experiences can trigger flow. For this purpose, students participated in creative STEAM projects that were developed according to CREATIONS guidelines and monitored by a pre-post-test evaluation design.

Advertisement

2. Methodology

Students completed an online questionnaire before and after participation. Bias was avoided as participants were never aware of any testing cycles [43]. The basis of subject selection was participation in the standard test design. We applied the subscale “self-efficacy” of the science motivation questionnaire [44], using a 5-point Likert scale pattern ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5). To improve applicability, we have chosen the four best-loading items of each subscale. The strong factor structure of the total toolset allows for this reduction in the item count, which has been confirmed in many studies [45, 46, 47].

For creativity measurement, we focused on the level of motivation and attitudes associated with personal creativity, as well as on the cognitive (thinking) and non-cognitive (motivation) dimensions of creativity [4]. We applied two subscales modified by [48]: “Act” quantifies cognitive processes of conscious and active thinking which can be trained and taught. “Flow” monitors typical elements of an individual flow experience [1] which is supposed to assess motivational experiences at school related to creativity. The creativity measure employed a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never” (1) to “very often” (4). For the present analysis, we focused on flow.

Data from ten randomly selected projects with large numbers of participants with pre- and post-tests were analyzed (N per project: 100–330). In the total data set, complete question sets of 1358 students (aged 10–18 years, M ± SD = 12.82 ± 2.6) were analyzed. The gender ratio was almost balanced with 51% female students. This proportion by chance was the same in all STEAM implementations.

For statistical analyses, IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0 was used. Outliers were rejected. Following the central limit theorem, we assumed normal distribution of the data [49], p. 9. A Wilcoxon test was applied to calculate potential differences in gender. A regression model was calculated with flow as the dependent variable and SE, age and gender as predictors. We calculated this regression model for both the pre-test and the post-test data.

Advertisement

3. Results

No gender effects appeared. To analyze the dependence of flow on self-efficacy, a regression model was calculated with flow as the dependent variable and SE, age and gender as predictors. We calculated this regression model for both the pre-test and the post-test data.

The technical prerequisites for the regression were given in both data sets: After analyzing the student-sampled excluded residuals, only four outliers were excluded. Leverage and Cook distance showed no outliers. The P–P diagram of standardized residual suggested normal distribution. The Durbin–Watson statistic suggested that there was no autocorrelation (Table 2). The Pearson correlations proved the data set to be very suitable with Person Corr. max. 0.387 (which should be <0.7). Multi-collinearity was excluded with values above 0.77 (tolerance openness: 0.838; treatment 0.773; SE 0.914) (tolerance should be >0.1). Homoscedasticity of the residuals was ensured, which indicated that our model did not make better predictions for some values than for others.

RR2Corrected R2Durbin–Watson statistic
Pre-Test.335.112.1191.720
Post-Test.469.220.2181.659

Table 2.

Model summary of regression analysis (incl. The influencing variables).

Influencing variables: (constant), SE, gender and age; dependent variable: Flow

Thus, all prerequisites for a meaningful interpretation of the regression analysis of the two data sets were proven. For the post-test data, collected after students participated in a STEAM intervention following the CREATIONS guideline, the R for the overall model was 0.48 (adjusted R2 = 0.22), indicative for a high goodness-of-fit according to Cohen [50] (Table 2). Self-efficacy, gender and age were able to predict flow statistically significantly, F(3, 1129) = 106.200, p < 0.001 (Table 3). Even in the pre-test, when students have never received explicit creativity-enhancing STEAM education, the effects of SE, gender and age on flow were found. The R for the overall model was 0.34 (adjusted R2 = 0.11), indicative for a medium goodness-of-fit according to Cohen [50] (Table 2). Self-efficacy, gender and age were able to statistically significantly predict flow, F(3, 1358) = 56.935, p < .001 (Table 3).

dfFsig.
Pre-TestRegression356.935<.001
Non-standardized residuals1355
total1358
Post-TestRegression3106.200<.001
Non-standardized residuals1129
total1132

Table 3.

ANOVA of regression analysis (incl. The influencing variables).

Influencing variables: (constant), SE, gender and age; dependent variable: Flow

The effect of the predictors gender and self-efficacy on flow can also be seen in the scatterplots. There is a trend toward a decrease in flow with increasing age. This is identical at both test times (Figure 2). Self-efficacy strengthens the ability to experience flow. This strengthening of flow through SE became even stronger in the post-test (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Scatterplot of residuals illustrating the relationship between age and flow. Pre- and post-test showed an identical trend (not illustrated here).

Figure 3.

Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between SE and flow. Pre- and post-test show the similar trend upper vs. lower plot, whereby it is stronger for post-STEM scores lower plot.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

CREATIONS projects implementation has demonstrated innovative approaches and activities that involve teachers and students in scientific research through creative ways that are based on art and focus on the development of effective links and synergies between schools and research infrastructures to spark young people’s interest in science and in the following scientific careers. In this framework, the present work demonstrates self-efficacy experiences as a trigger of flow which is considered to greatly contribute to students’ motivation and achievement in science [51]. Work in the field highlights the role of time, place and attention for setting up conditions for flow experiences, in general, and in scientific inquiry in particular [52]. Furthermore, the use of innovative tools and advanced technologies contributes to both student performance improvement and the appearance of flow [53].

Not physiology but also culture may cause gender differences [54]. Csikszentmihalyi [55] reported that traditional gender discrimination in education determines how boys and girls develop. In line with other studies in Germany [32, 42, 56, 57], this meta-analysis of various STEAM projects found no differences, probably suggesting a gradually changing gender equality culture. Education that naturally integrates all genders ensures that it is less social desirability and more personal interest that decides which talents and career aspirations young people develop [58]. The teacher’s attitude in particular can be inspiring in role development [59, 60]. Teachers may educate students to become creative democrats, but they need a modern, open-minded attitude as tutors of scientifically working students [61]. Such teacher trainings need modern forms that train the development of attitudes and ways of communication [62].

In our CREATIONS project, designing a number of learning experiences was the main focus that met the conditions for the development of flow. The term “experience” plays a special role in the framework of the current study and is defined as perceiving, discerning or understanding something that stands out in the student’s consciousness, or how personal experiences stand out in their consciousness [63]. Students had numerous chances to pose questions and explore techniques and various approaches, or they were given a scientifically oriented question to investigate. Balance and navigation through dialog supported teachers and students in creatively solving educational tensions. Questions arose through dialog between students’, professionals’ and educators’ scientific knowledge or through dialog inspired by interdisciplinary and personal, embodied learning.

Ethics and trusteeship were important considerations in experimental design and collaborative work, as well as in the initial choice of question. Students gave priority to evidence, which came from individual, collaborative and communal activity such as practical work or from sources such as data from professional scientific activity or from other contexts. To maintain the flow experience, we had to restore the balance between challenges (situations in which a student has major freedom of action) and skills (the capabilities or tools that a student needs to be able to cope with a challenge like and experiment or a project) [1]. One of the things analyzed in our study was what characterizes the students’ approaches to restore this balance in group work while working with 3D environments and visualizations. Immersion and play were crucial in empowering pupils to generate, question and discuss evidence.

Students used evidence they had generated and analyzed to consider possibilities for explanations that were new to them. They used argumentation and dialog to decide on the relative merits of the explanations they formulated, playing with ideas. Students connected their explanations with scientific knowledge, using different ways of thinking and knowing to relate their ideas to both disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge to understand the origin of their ideas and reflect on the strength of their evidence and explanations in relation to the original question. Experiencing a phenomenon is the same as discerning aspects of the phenomenon in question [61]. For this to be possible, the student must be given opportunity to experience multiple aspects of the same phenomenon simultaneously [64]. This means that students need to be able to compare their previous experiences with the current one and then to adopt them for applicability in solving a problem in a new situation.

Communication of possibilities, ideas and justifications through dialog with other students, with science educators and with professional scientists offered students the chance to test their new thinking and to be immersed in a key part of the scientific process. Such communication was crucial to an ethical approach to work scientifically. Finally, it has to be noted that individual, collaborative and community-based reflective activity for change both consolidates learning and enables students and teachers to balance educational tensions such as that between open-ended inquiry learning and the curriculum and assessment requirements of education. This is likely to be an appropriate form of feedback that reinforces students’ self-efficacy and thus enables flow experiences.

Having created the conditions for the development of flow, our analysis indicates that the conditions the students have at their disposal to create a balance between challenges and skills relate to the intended projects and activities that they were involved. The results of this study show that the versatility of the proposed STEAM approach offers a modular framework for the design of similar activities in the field. The analysis of the students’ work on the selected challenges in the different learning settings shows that variation exists in the balance between skills and challenges.

This study shows that we can systematically analyze characteristics of flow within the framework of inquiry lessons in science. Although this study does provide an applicable flow model and offers certain insights into some of the generic properties of flow, it is too early to specify how the model can be used in various science lessons. Further systematic research is needed, and the concepts should be studied in other areas to see if similar conclusions can be drawn.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the European HORIZON-2020 framework, in detail by CREATIONS—Developing an Engaging Science Classroom (Grant Agreement No.665917; http://creations-project.eu). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the founding institutions. We are very thankful to all project partners for steadily supporting the vision and, last but not least, to all students and teachers for implementing the modules and completing all the questionnaires. Additionally, we thank T. Baierl for reading the final paper versions.

Advertisement

Funding

This research was funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Program (grant number 665917) as well as by the University of Bayreuth and the Ellinogermaniki Agogi. Funded by the Open Access Publishing Fund of the University of Bayreuth (German Research Foundation, grant number LA 2159/8-6).

References

  1. 1. Csikszentmihalyi M. The Systems Model of Creativity: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Netherlands: Springer; 2014 https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=1973782
  2. 2. Moravcsik MJ. Creativity in science education. Science Education. 1981;65(2):221-227. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730650212
  3. 3. Popper KR. In: Keuth H, editor. Gesammelte Werke in deutscher Sprache: Vol. 3. Logik der Forschung. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck; 2005
  4. 4. Cropley AJ. Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review. 2000;23(2):72-79. DOI: 10.1080/02783190009554069
  5. 5. Boden M. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. London, UK: Routledge; 2004
  6. 6. Wagner T. Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. New York: Scribner; 2012
  7. 7. Craft A. Little C' creativity. In: Craft A, Jeffrey B, Leibling M, editors. Creativity in Education. London, UK: Continuum International; 2001
  8. 8. Urban KK. On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal. 1991;4(2):177-191. DOI: 10.1080/10400419109534384
  9. 9. Mau W-C. Parental influences on the high school students' academic achievement: A comparison of Asian immigrants, Asian Americans, and White Americans. Psychology in the Schools. 1997;34(3):267-277. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199707)34:3<267::AID-PITS9>3.0.CO;2-L
  10. 10. Chan S, Yuen M. Creativity beliefs, creative personality and creativity-fostering practices of gifted education teachers and regular class teachers in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014;14:109-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.10.003
  11. 11. Hsu Y. Advanced understanding of imagination as the mediator between five-factor model and creativity. Journal Psychology. 2019;53:307-326. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1521365
  12. 12. Beghetto RA. Creativity in the classroom. In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010. pp. 447-459
  13. 13. ISB. LehrplanPlus 2017. Munich; 2017
  14. 14. Perkins DN. Creativity: Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm. In: Boden MA, editor. A Bradford Book. Dimensions of Creativity. 1st ed. Boston: MIT Press; 1996. pp. 119-141
  15. 15. Torrance EP. A National Climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today Magazine. 1992;15(1):10-14. DOI: 10.1177/107621759201500103
  16. 16. Hetherington L, Chappell K, Ruck Keene H, Wren H, Cukurova M, Hathaway C, et al. International educators’ perspectives on the purpose of science education and the relationship be-tween school science and creativity. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2019;2(10):1-23. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1575803
  17. 17. Gallagher JJ. Unthinkable thoughts: Education of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2000;44(1):5-12. DOI: 10.1177/001698620004400102
  18. 18. Santamarina JC, Akhoundi K. Findings in creativity and relevance in civil engineering. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 1991;117(2):155-167. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)1052-3928(1991)117:2(155)
  19. 19. Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1005/2010000993-b.html
  20. 20. Chappell K, Cremin T. Anna Craft… and beyond. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014;14:A3-A5. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.10.001
  21. 21. Chappell K, Hetherington L, Keene HR, Wren H, Alexopoulos A, Ben-Horin O, et al. Dialogue and materiality/embodiment in science| arts creative pedagogy: Their role and manifestation. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019;31:296-322
  22. 22. Perignat E, Katz-Buonincontro J. STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019;31:31-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
  23. 23. Thuneberg HM, Salmi HS, Bogner FX. How creativity, autonomy and visual reasoning contribute to cognitive learning in a STEAM hands-on inquiry-based math module. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018;29:153-160
  24. 24. Albert RS, Runco MA. A history of research on creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999. p. 5
  25. 25. Mumford MD. Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal. 2003;15(2-3):107-120
  26. 26. Sternberg RJ. Creativity. In: Cognitive Psychology. 6th ed. Wadsworth, USA: Cengage Learning; 2011. p. 479
  27. 27. Runco MA, Acar S, Cayirdag N. A closer look at the creativity gap and why students are less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017;24:242-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.04.003
  28. 28. Bybee RW, Taylor JA, Gardner A, van Scotter P, Powell JC, West-brook A, et al. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Vol. 5. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS; 2006. pp. 88-98
  29. 29. Sotirou S, Bybee RW, Bogner FX. PATHWAYS – A case of large-scale implementation of evidence-based practice in scientific inquiry-based science education. International Journal of Higher Education. 2017;6(2):8. DOI: 10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p8
  30. 30. Spencer A, Lucas B, Claxton G. Progression in creativity: Developing new forms of assessment. Final Research Report
  31. 31. Franklin B, Xiang L, Collett J, Rhoads M, Osborn J. Open inquiry-based learning elicits deeper understanding of complex physiological concepts compared to traditional lecture-style or guided-inquiry learning methods. The FASEB Journal. 2015;29(1)
  32. 32. Conradty C, Bogner FX. Hypertext or textbook: Effects on motivation and gain in knowledge. Education Sciences. 2016;6(3):29. DOI: 10.3390/educsci6030029
  33. 33. Amabile TM, Fisher CM. Stimulate creativity by fueling passion. In: Locke EA, editor. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence-Based Management. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: Wiley; 2009. pp. 481-497
  34. 34. Heyne T, Bogner FX. Strengthening resistance self-efficacy: Influence of teaching approaches and gender on different consumption groups. Journal of Drug Education. 2009;39(4):439-457
  35. 35. Scharfenberg FJ, Bogner FX. A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students’ activities during experimentation in an outreach gene-technology lab. Research in Science Education. 2011;41(4):505-523
  36. 36. Dieser O, Bogner FX. Young people’s cognitive achievement as fostered by hands-on-centred environmental education. Environmental Education Research. 2016;22(7):943-957
  37. 37. Fremerey C, Bogner FX. Cognitive learning in authentic environments in relation to green attitude preferences. Studies in Education-al Evaluation. 2015;44:9-15
  38. 38. Schmid S, Bogner FX. How an inquiry-based classroom lesson intervenes in science efficacy, career-orientation and self-determination. International Journal of Science Education. 2017;39(17):2342-2360
  39. 39. Mierdel J, Bogner FX. Is creativity, hands-on modeling and cognitive learning gender-dependent? Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019;31:91-102
  40. 40. Mierdel J, Bogner FX. Simply In GEN(E)ious! How creative DNA Modeling can enrich classic hands-on experimentation. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 2020;21(2). DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.1923
  41. 41. Buck A, Sotiriou S, Bogner FX. Bridging the gap towards flying: Archaeopteryx as a unique evolutionary tool to inquiry-based. In: Harms U, Reiss MJ, editors. Evolution Education Reconsidered: Understanding What Works. New York: Springer; 2019
  42. 42. Conradty C, Bogner FX. From STEM to STEAM - cracking the code? How Creativity & Motivation Interacts with inquiry-based learning. Creativity Research Journal. 2019;31(3):284-295. DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1641678
  43. 43. Bogner FX. The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education. 1998;29(4):17-29
  44. 44. Schumm MF, Bogner FX. Measuring adolescent science motivation. International Journal of Science Education. 2016;38(3):434-449. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1147659
  45. 45. Ferdous AA, Plake BS. Item selection strategy for reducing the number of items rated in an Angoff standard setting study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2016;67(2):193-206. DOI: 10.1177/0013164406288160
  46. 46. Marth M, Bogner FX. How a hands-on BIONICS lesson may intervene with science motivation and technology interest. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2017;16(5):72-89
  47. 47. Baierl TM, Bonine K, Johnson B, Bogner FX. Biosphere 2 as an informal learning platform to assess motivation, fascination, and cognitive achievement for sustainability. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2021;70(101061):1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101061
  48. 48. Conradty C, Bogner FX. From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2018;2018. DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195
  49. 49. Wilcox RR. Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. In: Statistical Modeling and Decision Science. 3rd ed. London, Oxford, Boston, New York, San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2012. DOI: 10.1016/C2010-0-67044-1
  50. 50. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1988
  51. 51. Ellwood R, Abrams E. Student’s social interaction in inquiry-based science education: How experiences of flow can increase motivation and achievement. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2018;13(2):395-427. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-016-9769-x
  52. 52. Gyllenpalm J. Inquiry and flow in science education. Cultural Stud-ies of Science Education. 2018;13(2):429-435. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-016-9794-9
  53. 53. Giasiranis S, Sofos L. Flow experience and educational effectiveness of teaching informatics using AR. Educational Technology & Society. 2017;20(4):78-88
  54. 54. Matud MP, Rodríguez C, Grande J. Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007;43(5):1137-1147. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.006
  55. 55. Csikszentmihalyi M. Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In: Sternberg RJ, editor. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1988. pp. 325-339
  56. 56. Randler C, Bogner FX. Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2009;7(2):315-337
  57. 57. Schmid S, Bogner FX. Effects of students’ effort scores in a structured inquiry unit on long-term recall abilities of content knowledge. Education Research International. 2015;2015(2):1-11. DOI: 10.1155/2015/826734
  58. 58. Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: Primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 2013;21(1):171-194. DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2012.74867
  59. 59. Conradty C, Bogner FX. Conceptual change when growing up: Frameset for role models? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 2020;25(1):292-304. DOI: 10.1080/02673843.2019.1622581
  60. 60. Hattie J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London, UK: Routledge; 2010. ISBN 9780415476188
  61. 61. Desimone LM. Improving impact studies of teachers’ profession-al development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher. 2009;38(3):181-199. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
  62. 62. Conradty C, Bogner FX. Education for sustainable development: How seminar design and time structure of teacher professional development affect students’ motivation and creativity. Education Sciences. 2022;12(5):296. DOI: 10.3390/educsci12050296
  63. 63. Marton F, Booth S. Learning and Awareness. London, UK: Routledge; 2013. DOI: 10.4324/9780203053690
  64. 64. Bergström T, Gunnarsson G, Olteanu C. The importance of flow for secondary school students’ experiences in geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2021;2021:1-25

Written By

Catherine Conradty, Sofoklis A. Sotiriou and Franz X. Bogner

Submitted: 16 January 2023 Reviewed: 03 February 2023 Published: 01 March 2023

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All