**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.

#### *Pedagogy, Learning, and Creativity*

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


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

#### **Table 2.**

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


#### **Table 3.**

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

#### **Figure 2.**

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

#### *Full STEAM Ahead with Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110359*

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). Multicollinearity 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

#### **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.*

was ensured, which indicated that our model did not make better predictions for some values than for others.

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**).

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 posttest (**Figure 3**).

## **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

#### *Full STEAM Ahead with Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110359*

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.
