View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Creativity in STEM Education: Exploring Students' Creative Behaviors in an Engineering Design Course

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Creativity in STEM Education: Exploring Students' Creative Behaviors in an Engineering Design Course
Language: English
Authors: Brenda C. Matos (ORCID 0000-0001-9581-5218), Shahnaz Safitri (ORCID 0000-0003-3632-6136), Brendha Christie Tanujaya (ORCID 0000-0001-9451-2776), Sarah Bright (ORCID 0000-0002-6349-8788), Nielsen Pereira (ORCID 0000-0002-5399-4622)
Source: Journal of Advanced Academics. 2026 37(1):41-73.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 33
Publication Date: 2026
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) (ED), Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
Contract Number: S206A190020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Creativity, STEM Education, Engineering Education, Concept Formation, Synthesis, Personality Traits, Persistence, Creative Thinking, Skill Development, Design, Planning
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X251394692
ISSN: 1932-202X
2162-9536
Abstract: Research on creativity in engineering has expanded, yet empirical evidence remains limited on how creativity develops through secondary school engineering curricula. This qualitative study examined teachers' perceptions of middle and high school students' creativity while designing and building chain reaction machines. Using the "Assessing Creativity" framework, deductive analysis of eleven teachers' interviews revealed students' creative behaviors across all four categories: (a) generating ideas (e.g., fluency, originality, flexibility), (b) digging deeper into ideas (e.g., synthesizing, resolving ambiguity), (c) openness and courage to explore ideas (e.g., curiosity, imagination, tenacity), and (d) listening to one's "inner voice" (e.g., persistence, self-direction, awareness of creativity). Teachers most frequently reported convergent thinking and traits such as curiosity, openness to experience, and risk-taking. Findings provide preliminary insights into the understanding of creativity in education, suggesting that engineering-design curricula foster creative thinking while preparing students with essential skills required in STEM pathways.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496580
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHg5aQt9jcBr-kXAk-YmzKXAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMDCCmxcy0e2MhdU_AIBEICBmnELykaytLYbwbvzMiGUE6t3bD8Cb7nBeMymE8H8I_Jy5DdoBUgI6n77BfAAtPVvj8EwvEb2zkK0S8eSPjt6yWxkivZTs3rQgHI_J1_Cq2uK0CoTVGtrPXJ06O4h7ENHsa4GJhKGCUfzQxwFFNn4_7yqixA6YILQ5EXEOJCyoLVRBNERR86OcodoQ7IbdPCXSTyeMqvg98EJdXY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191011250;[261p]01feb.26;2026Jan23.04:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191011250-1">Creativity in STEM Education: Exploring Students' Creative Behaviors in an Engineering Design Course </title> <p>Research on creativity in engineering has expanded, yet empirical evidence remains limited on how creativity develops through secondary school engineering curricula. This qualitative study examined teachers' perceptions of middle and high school students' creativity while designing and building chain reaction machines. Using the "Assessing Creativity" framework, deductive analysis of eleven teachers' interviews revealed students' creative behaviors across all four categories: (a) generating ideas (e.g., fluency, originality, flexibility), (b) digging deeper into ideas (e.g., synthesizing, resolving ambiguity), (c) openness and courage to explore ideas (e.g., curiosity, imagination, tenacity), and (d) listening to one's "inner voice" (e.g., persistence, self-direction, awareness of creativity). Teachers most frequently reported convergent thinking and traits such as curiosity, openness to experience, and risk-taking. Findings provide preliminary insights into the understanding of creativity in education, suggesting that engineering-design curricula foster creative thinking while preparing students with essential skills required in STEM pathways.</p> <p>Keywords: creativity assessment; creative behaviors; engineering design; STEM education; teachers' perceptions</p> <p>Creative teaching and teaching for creativity are different concepts in the study of creativity in classroom settings. Creative teaching addresses teachers' capacity for being creative in their teaching process, whereas teaching for creativity refers to teachers' actions that foster students' creativity during classroom activities ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]). In the gifted field, creativity plays a vital role in areas ranging from curriculum and pedagogy to assessments and screening. Previous studies revealed that creativity can be developed by all students and enhanced using various methods and strategies ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). Creative thinking, defined as the ability to combine and connect ideas ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]), is a teachable skill that can be observed in classroom settings during activities that promote creative behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although creativity can be taught and nurtured, it is hard to predict which students will become creatively productive adults ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). Recent research has focused on teaching for creativity in engineering courses, especially after the twenty-first century skills movement ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>]), which emphasizes creativity skills as essential competencies in the industry. However, there is limited research that addresses the connection between creativity development and engineering curricula in secondary education ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication are listed as essential competencies needed to work in the engineering industry ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]). However, competency gaps among recently graduated engineers leave them unable to meet some professional demands ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]). Few studies analyze occupational accomplishments related to creative behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]), even though research findings confirm that developing creative skills is a valuable educational goal ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]) and the best way to support and prepare students to navigate uncertainty in their future careers ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]). According to [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>], there does not seem to be a specific approach or best practice in engineering curricula to teach students these skills.</p> <p>Creativity is an important component of twenty-first-century skills ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]) and can be a solution to the competency gaps highlighted in the research. According to [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>], engineering "is fundamentally a process of creative problem solving" (p. 156), and successful engineers apply convergent and divergent thinking to the creation of engineering solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-2">Creativity in STEM Education</hd> <p>Regarding engineering education, scholarly literature has highlighted the gaps between teaching practice and research ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref24">35</reflink>]), which is exacerbated by the fact that higher education encourages empirical studies while K-12 education does not focus on research development. In the case of higher education, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>] noted a decade ago that creative experiences in engineering were notably absent. Ten years later, a systematic review conducted by [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref26">52</reflink>] revealed an increase in efforts to cultivate creativity in engineering education among college students around the world. This systematic literature review listed 40 studies conducted from 2011 to 2019 addressing creativity through engineering curricula. Unfortunately, when comparing approaches that combine creativity and engineering in K-12 education, a meta-analysis exploring design thinking in creativity development revealed only 18 studies from 2011–2023 ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]). Therefore, by comparing research conducted through a similar period of time addressing creativity development in engineering education, studies in higher education still outnumber those in K-12 education, and creative approaches in K-12 education continue to receive minimal emphasis in comparison ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many agree that creativity is vital in educational processes; however, it is unclear to many educators how to foster this important skill ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]). Creative gifted students thrive in environments that go beyond traditional methods of pedagogy, fostering original thinking, inquiry process, and problem-solving skills ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref31">60</reflink>]). However, teachers in gifted education continue to struggle with a lack of resources to implement measurable strategies that nurture creativity ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref32">60</reflink>]). Even when creativity is understood as a desirable attribute, the translation of creativity into curricula is inconsistent ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this context, building chain reaction machines presents a great approach to developing creative skills in a team-based setting in K-12 education, providing students with opportunities to apply engineering skills using creativity and problem-solving situations and inspiring invention and innovation in younger students ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]). These chain reaction contraptions use complicated and often detailed steps to achieve simple outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref35">56</reflink>]). Through constructing these machines, students are encouraged to integrate the engineering design process into the creation of chain reaction mechanisms. This curriculum, called <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> (https://steamlabs.education), was designed to develop, among many things, creative skills in a STEM-based engineering course for middle and high school students. Immersing gifted students in complex real-world problems, this approach can further engage students in new ways of thinking and creating ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]). Creative design processes, such as the ones developed through chain reaction machines, can achieve innovative solutions and foster creative skills in students ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The potential of building chain reaction machines to foster creativity within K-12 education has been discussed in the engineering education literature ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]). In this context, students apply engineering skills through problem-solving situations. Although chain reaction machines have been widely used to teach science concepts ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref43">32</reflink>]), only a few studies have attempted to investigate how creativity develops through these experiences ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref45">27</reflink>]). Consequently, teachers might not be aware of this learning outcome, even though they have consistently supported its development as a natural part of the course.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-3">Design-Thinking Process in Chain Reaction Machines</hd> <p>In the curriculum that was used in this study, students are shown examples of chain reaction machines and learn about the engineering design process, which involves a series of steps to design creative solutions involving analysis, imagination, planning, creation, and improvement of their machine. During this process, students draw their sketches on paper and discuss with their group to decide on a final design. While planning their machines, students are asked to think about the type of task they want their machines to accomplish, dividing the tasks into steps that represent small actions performed by the machine. These steps are combined into a module that is a series of two or more steps. The modules are then put together to design the machine that should perform the task decided by the group.</p> <p>After this planning phase, students start to build the machines. They first explore the materials provided and decide which materials to use to accomplish their goal. During the building process, students need to analyze the performance of the chosen objects and evaluate whether their material choices are aligned with their outcomes. Through this process, students need to assess their decisions, take risks, and show the ability to adapt to different situations that appear during the production process.</p> <p>This curriculum is considered a maker activity, a contemporary learning approach in which students engage in innovation, creativity, and problem-solving, collaboratively producing artifacts as part of hands-on projects ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]). The design-thinking process that students use in planning and building chain reaction machines is vital for creativity and innovation because it offers different perspectives and approaches to solving problems ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>]). This ability gives students an advantage in future endeavors when they need efficient skills for their future careers. In this study, we examined if the combination of the <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> curriculum with students' intrinsic personal creative characteristics and the operations performed in their classroom settings led the students to creative outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref48">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-4">Conceptual Frameworks of Creativity</hd> <p>It is important to select an appropriate framework to support the goal of understanding creative behaviors in an engineering-based course. Although the 4P's of creativity stated by [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>] as Person, Product, Process, and Press (environmental context) have been proven to be a solid foundation to understand creativity, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>] argued that this framework remains too diffuse to effectively identify and foster creativity in engineering. Specifically, it overlooks a critical aspect of the engineering process: the phases involved in generating engineering products ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]). To address this suggestion, the present study incorporated Cropley's concept of "Phases" by describing the creative behaviors observed across different stages of the engineering design process.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-5">Assessing Student Creativity</hd> <p>The "Assessing Creativity: A Guide for Educators" is a framework designed to help teachers recognize and assess creativity through the identification of key characteristics and indicators of creative behaviors expressed among middle and high schoolers ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref52">55</reflink>]). Creative behaviors can be expressed in a variety of ways ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>]), but in this study, only personal creative characteristics were considered. According to [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>], the person aspect of creativity "covers information about personality, intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense mechanisms, and behavior" (p. 307). The choice to focus on the person provides an understanding of the psychological characteristics of the individual who is behaving creatively, allowing for distinctive patterns of experience with creativity and behavioral variation among individuals ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>] proposed a framework that organizes creativity into four broad categories: generating ideas (divergent thinking), digging deeper into ideas (convergent thinking), openness and courage in exploring ideas (personal characteristics), and listening to one's inner voice (metacognition). These categories were synthesized from existing literature and emphasize that creativity emerges from the interplay of multiple factors that vary across contexts and tasks. It is well known that creativity is a core component of giftedness ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref59">48</reflink>]). We selected this framework because it captures creativity through multiple dimensions that align well with gifted students' profiles as established by [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]: (a) originality of thinking, (b) constructive ingenuity, (c) ability to set aside established conventions, and (d) ability to provide adequate and original fulfillments of the major demands. In this sense, the [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref61">55</reflink>] framework appears to be a suitable choice for examining gifted students' creative traits in the classroom environment, as it focuses on the creative person, resonating with the gifted traits of creativity.</p> <p>The framework of [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref62">55</reflink>] has been used in the USA ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]) and around the world ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref65">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref66">42</reflink>]) to assess students' creative behavior in K-12 settings, showing positive results for the effectiveness of the tool across diverse contexts and students' grade levels. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>] applied Treffinger's model to preschool children through a three-month quasi-experimental program integrating music and movement activities to develop students' creative thinking, showing that the framework is useful in assessing creative behaviors. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref68">28</reflink>] adapted the Treffinger's framework to a digital context, using it as the foundation to evaluate high school students' creativity in biology course for an online portfolio assessment. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref69">42</reflink>] further demonstrated its applicability in mathematics instruction for elementary school students. Using an experimental design incorporating Treffinger's framework into a structured stage of math learning instruction, this model significantly enhanced learners' creative thinking skills when compared with conventional methods even after accounting for students' numerical ability.</p> <p>Finally, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref70">22</reflink>] expanded the framework into engineering course situated in a summer talent development program for high-ability students. In this study, they used the framework as the basis for developing the Input–Process–Outcome Model of Collaborative Creativity (IPOCC) to incorporate collaborative learning and group-level dynamics into the creative process. Collectively, these studies illustrate the adaptability of Treffinger's framework across disciplines, educational levels, and instructional modalities, reinforcing its value as a robust model for assessing creativity in diverse learning environments.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-6">Assessing Teachers' Behavior Towards Fostering Creativity</hd> <p>The process of teaching for creativity is a dialectical interaction that involves teachers' fostering of creativity and students' behaviors as a response to this nurturing process. This study will consider additional analysis to confirm that the results obtained using the Assessing Creativity guide ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref71">55</reflink>]) are a result of this dual effect. For this purpose, the creativity-fostering teacher behavior (CFTB) developed by [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>] will be used to assess teachers' role in shaping students' creativity.</p> <p>CFTB summarized the behaviors exhibited by teachers who actively encourage and nurture students' creativity. These include (a) encouraging independent learning, (b) adopting a cooperative and socially integrative teaching style, (c) motivating students to master factual knowledge as a foundation for divergent thinking, (d) withholding judgment on students' ideas until they are fully developed and articulated, (e) fostering flexible thinking, (f) promoting self-evaluation, (g) taking students' suggestions and questions seriously, (h) providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions, and (i) helping students navigate frustration and failure, thereby building the confidence to experiment with novel and unconventional ideas ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]). This study's results are reported using students' creative behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]) in combination with CFTB ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref75">12</reflink>]) for a broader perspective on creativity development through the building of chain reaction machines.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-7">Definition of Creativity</hd> <p>A widely adopted definition of creativity in gifted education is the one proposed by [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref76">45</reflink>]. Considered as a standard definition by [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref77">44</reflink>], it describes creativity as "the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by which an individual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context" (Plucker et al., 2004, p. 90). Although this well-accepted definition aligns with the 4P's of creativity proposed by [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref78">49</reflink>], it focuses on the product as an outcome of creativity. The definition proposed by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref79">14</reflink>] defines creativity as novel thinking that is marked by the redefinition of problems, the generation of ideas, and risk-taking attitudes for idea development. Due to its relation to the design thinking process, this definition aligns better with the engineering-based design approach proposed in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-8">Purpose</hd> <p>Even though educational systems around the world acknowledge the importance of creativity ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref80">44</reflink>]), actions to purposefully support creativity in classroom environments are still scattered. Given the limited research on creativity development in designing chain reaction machines, this study examines creative behaviors through teachers' interviews during an engineering design course (<emph>STEAM Labs</emph>). This approach answers the need for teacher support, turning theory into practice, and recognizing teachers' attitudes towards promoting students' creative behaviors in classroom environments.</p> <p>In this study, the "Assessing Creativity" guide ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref81">55</reflink>]) will be used to analyze students' behaviors as described by their teachers in classroom settings. This analysis will help to answer the research question: Do teachers perceive students' creative behaviors during participation in an engineering design course using chain reaction machines? The study will specifically examine creative traits that the teachers noted in the students' work and behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-9">Methods</hd> <p>This qualitative study aims to analyze teacher interviews and identify any indicators of creativity traits observed in their classrooms during an engineering-based course. Through this analysis, we hope to understand whether this specific engineering course, combined with teachers' fostering behaviors for creativity and students' personality traits, could contribute to the development of creativity among middle and high school high-ability students.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-10">Context</hd> <p>This study is part of a project funded by the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Act in which this curriculum was implemented in several schools in the USA as part of a STEM talent development intervention. The students receiving this curriculum were gifted and non-gifted students in middle and high schools in which at least 30% of the student population was from one or more of the following groups: Black, Latino/x, or Native American students, English language learners, students of lower socioeconomic status, and students in rural school systems.</p> <p>Students in this study participated in a STEM enrichment program that was part of a larger research project that involved universal screening, enrichment courses, affective curriculum, and mentoring available to students within a given grade or set of grades. The project provided access to the Tier I curriculum to all students in the participating grades without any screening criteria, and all teachers in participating schools were invited to participate in the Tier I training sessions. For later tiers of the project, student self-ratings and interest surveys, teacher surveys, and students' performances in Tier I were considered in the student selection process.</p> <p>The project curriculum differed from typical STEM curriculum for those grades in that it offered smaller class sizes and in-depth, hands-on activities with STEM materials, coding programs, and such hardware as robotic cars, Raspberry Pis, and light and movement sensors. In addition, the curriculum integrated STEM enrichment activities with an affective curriculum that fostered critical thinking and cognitive skills, executive functioning skills, and STEM career information.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-11">Participants</hd> <p>Nine teachers from five public schools in three states within the USA were selected to participate in this study. The teachers taught in a variety of academic areas, including science, chemistry, and history. Because the curriculum was intentionally designed to be interdisciplinary, neither disciplinary background nor prior subject knowledge served as a criterion for inclusion in the project. However, the inclusion criterion for our study was that the teacher had to teach the <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> curriculum at least once during the program.</p> <p>During the implementation phase of the project, a total of 27 interviews were conducted with all teachers teaching various STEM courses as part of the STEM enrichment initiative. Of these, 11 interviews were conducted with 9 teachers who implemented the <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> curriculum in their classrooms, with two of these teachers being interviewed twice. Table 1 includes demographic information about the participating teachers in this study, and Table 2 includes demographic information about the participating schools.</p> <p>Table 1. Participants' Descriptive Information.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Pseudonym</th><th align="left">Gender</th><th align="left">Teaching level</th><th align="left">State</th><th align="left">Teaching background</th><th align="left">Courses taught</th><th align="left">Years taught</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher 1</td><td>Male</td><td>High School</td><td>Indiana</td><td>Chemistry</td><td>STEAM Labs</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 2</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Michigan</td><td>Science</td><td>STEAM Labs</td><td>2021, 2022</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 3</td><td>Female</td><td>Elementary School</td><td>Michigan</td><td>Elementary Education</td><td>Affective curriculum and STEAM Labs</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 4</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Illinois</td><td>Science and Social Studies</td><td>STEAM Labs</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 5</td><td>Female</td><td>K-8</td><td>Michigan</td><td>Gifted education</td><td>Affective curriculum and STEAM Labs</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 6</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Indiana</td><td>Science</td><td>Affective curriculum and STEAM Labs</td><td>2021, 2022</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 7</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Michigan</td><td>Science</td><td>Affective curriculum, Autonomous Cars, and STEAM Labs</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 8</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Illinois</td><td>Technology</td><td>STEAM Labs</td><td>2023</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 9</td><td>Female</td><td>Middle School</td><td>Illinois</td><td>Language arts</td><td>Affective curriculum and STEAM Labs</td><td>2023</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive Details of Participating Schools: Percentage of Student Population by Category.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">School</th><th align="left">Black</th><th align="left">Hispanic</th><th align="left">White</th><th align="left">Asian</th><th align="left">Native American</th><th align="left">Two or more races</th><th align="left">English learners</th><th align="left">Low income</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>89.2%</td><td>3.7%</td><td>2.1%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td>21.6%</td><td>59.5%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td>38%</td><td><1%</td><td>52%</td><td>8%</td><td>61.2%</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>4.9%</td><td>94.3%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td>92.1%</td><td>42.2%</td></tr><tr><td>4*</td><td>1.5%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>92.7%</td><td><1%</td><td><1%</td><td>2.8%</td><td>N/A</td><td>48%</td></tr><tr><td>5*</td><td>5.4%</td><td>4.8%</td><td>85%</td><td>1.1%</td><td><1%</td><td>3%</td><td>N/A</td><td>33.4%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Schools marked with an asterisk indicate rural school districts.</p> <p>All teachers received training prior to the implementation, and the research team provided the necessary instructional materials as well as ongoing support throughout the duration of the program.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-12">Data Collection</hd> <p>Two members of the research team conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with the nine participants between 2021 and 2023 as part of the data collection process. The interviews were conducted online via Zoom with a duration of 14‒45 min, 26 min on average. The variation in interview duration occurred because some teachers taught more than one course in the program, resulting in longer discussions about the broader impact of the STEM enrichment program on students. While shorter interviews can limit the depth of data collected, a point we note in the limitations section, the average duration of 26 min was appropriate for the study's design and purpose, and similar durations have been effectively employed in other educational studies (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]), supporting the adequacy of this approach for our study context.</p> <p>Teachers were interviewed during the final week of curriculum implementation or right after its conclusion, based on their availability to be interviewed. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using Zoom software tools, after which several team members cleaned the transcripts.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-13">Serendipity Pattern as a Methodological Approach</hd> <p>It is important to note that during the implementation of this curriculum, teachers were not prompted to connect their responses to creativity (see Appendix for the interview protocol). Consequently, any references to creative behaviors emerged spontaneously in the course of the interviews. The absence of creativity-related questions reflects the fact that this topic was not included in the stated objectives or goals of the project. The unexpected emergence of creativity in participants' responses is precisely what drew the researchers' attention to the topic. This serendipitous discovery highlights the value of semi-structured interviews, which allow for the open expression of personal perspectives and the emergence of themes that are not explicitly solicited by the interviewers ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Serendipity has gained credibility in research, primarily through the work of Merton in 1946, which explained the phenomenon of observation and recognition of irregular findings with potential to develop or advance a theory ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref85">39</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref86">38</reflink>] study revealed that serendipity is a fairly common phenomenon among graduate students, with the potential to impact their research results. Qualitative studies allow for serendipity due to their inherent nature of openness, especially within case study methodology ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the serendipity pattern, the findings are unexpected and surprising, requiring a strategic interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref88">39</reflink>]). The unexpected leads to valuable and unanticipated outcomes, with potential to add perceived gains to research studies ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref89">38</reflink>]). Considering that the discovery occurs when seekers are not intentionally searching for it, serendipity involves some deviation from theoretical expectations ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref90">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>The observation of creative behavior perceptions in teachers' interviews was unexpected, but this unexpected finding led to a carefully planned piece of work. The essence of this study is founded on accepting and recognizing accidental observations as an opportunity for research ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref91">50</reflink>]), highlighting the importance of researchers' ability to handle unexpected and unplanned results obtained through research.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-14">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Two members of the research team independently analyzed the transcripts using deductive coding based on [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref92">55</reflink>], looking for specific words that referred to student personality traits or descriptions of creative processes. With a focus on creative behaviors in the classroom, quotes were selected that captured students' behaviors or traits demonstrating creativity as noted by teachers during class sessions. Subsequent data analysis of interviews revealed that only six of the nine participants explicitly discussed students' creative behaviors during interviews. Eleven quotes were analyzed by four coders based on the Assessing Creativity guide ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref93">55</reflink>]) to understand teachers' perceptions of creativity in this engineering-based course. When team members analyzed the framework ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref94">55</reflink>]) to create the coding scheme, it was observed that the specific characteristics described in each category sometimes overlapped. This effect was observed, for example, with "tenacity" described by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>] as a trait associated with personality, while "persistence or perseverance" were traits expressed as part of students' process of metacognition. After identifying these overlapping situations, the coding schema represented in Figure 1 was generated by the coders, including an overarching trait at a higher level of the assessing guide proposed by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref96">55</reflink>], as represented in the top squares of Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Decision Tree for Selecting Categories Based on [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref97">55</reflink>].</p> <p>In this process, the initial intercoder agreement was essential to identify imprecision in the coding process and the need for adjustment in the coding schema ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref98">7</reflink>]). This coding decision helped assess the information provided by teachers, improving the percentage of agreement found during the first coding process. After adjusting the schema, the same four coders independently coded the previously selected quotes. The decision tree diagram created by coders during the coding process is detailed in Figure 1.</p> <p>Initial findings presented by [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref99">22</reflink>], cited the 2002 guide by Treffinger et al. as an effective assessment tool to identify students' creative behaviors in engineering curricula. Deductive coding is used for confirmatory analysis to better understand initial findings ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref100">10</reflink>]). Following this, the data in this study was analyzed through deductive coding to find creative behaviors described by teachers during their interviews according to the framework selected ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref101">46</reflink>]). Considering that the process of data analysis was deductive and the four coders were using a specific framework to code teachers' quotes, coders were not looking for agreement as a result of chance, but instead as a result of a better understanding of the framework and how it should be applied to identify creative behaviors in classroom settings ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref102">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The coders met to discuss their interpretations of the previously coded quotes ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref103">10</reflink>]). Agreement was achieved by peer debriefing that involved systematic discussion of individual coding processes among coders, establishing consensus on the themes that each quote should be coded, and ensuring that the coding process represents the understanding of all coders and not individual perspectives ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref104">44</reflink>]). The intercoder reliability (ICR) achieved between coders before any agreement discussion ranged from 58%–100%. After the discussion, the agreement percentage between coders increased to 100% in all categories. With the percentage agreement being reported by each variable independently, as suggested by [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref105">19</reflink>], this percentage reflects how reliable the coding schema was in categorizing teachers' quotes using [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref106">55</reflink>] framework.</p> <p>From the 11 quotes analyzed, only one quote presented no agreement between coders, and for this reason, this quote was removed from the final results. Most of the differences in coding decisions were a result of different interpretations of what teachers were referring to in their quotes. The coders also decided under agreement that one of the quotes (T2) should be classified in two different categories because its contents covered two themes proposed by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>] framework. The results for the number of citations by category, and the teachers who cited each category are represented in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Categories and Frequency of Themes.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left">Frequency</th><th align="left">Teacher quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Generating Ideas</td><td>1</td><td>T1</td></tr><tr><td>Digging Deeper into Ideas</td><td>3</td><td>T2*, T3, T6</td></tr><tr><td>Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas</td><td>5</td><td>T1, T1, T2*, T3, T4</td></tr><tr><td>Listening to one's 'inner voice'</td><td>2</td><td>T2, T5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> An asterisk indicates that the same quote was classified in two categories after coders' agreement.</p> <p>After the analysis and categorization of quotes selected from interviews, teachers' excerpts were also analyzed to identify CFTBs as a complementary analysis to confirm the active encouragement and nurturing of creative behaviors among students ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref108">12</reflink>]). The research team attributed the teacher's fostering behaviors based on the list of behaviors provided by [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref109">12</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-15">Positionality Statements</hd> <p>All the authors were part of the project in different capacities, which may have influenced our assumptions about the value of the curriculum and its potential to foster creativity. Four of the authors have teaching experience across different grade levels, ranging from elementary to higher education. Two of them had already implemented this curriculum in their gifted classrooms across various educational settings prior to this project. In addition, the use of Treffinger's framework to analyze creativity introduced another potential source of bias, as some members of the research team were already familiar with and inclined toward its categories.</p> <p>To mitigate these biases, several strategies were employed. First, the quote selection and coding processes included researchers who were not involved in the original design, implementation, or data collection in the project, ensuring that the selection of quotes and coding decisions were based on evidence of creativity rather than prior assumptions. The project team consisted of two doctoral students, one post-doctoral researcher, and the primary investigator for the project, who were involved in different roles in the implementation of the intervention and collection of data. An outside researcher was added to the team at the time of data analysis and coding. Each member of the team brought their own perspective and positionality based on their different levels of experience in schools, curriculum development, academic research, and qualitative analysis.</p> <p>Second, the coding process was designed to be blind. Each coder independently rated quotations to determine whether they aligned with any of the creativity themes in Treffinger's framework, using Qualtrics (https://<ulink href="http://www.qualtrics.com">www.qualtrics.com</ulink>) to ensure that coding was conducted separately and without influence from other team members. This minimized the risk of coders seeing and being influenced by other coders' work during the initial analysis phase.</p> <p>Third, the research team engaged in multiple discussion sessions during the data analysis process to incorporate diverse perspectives and strengthen the consistency of coding within the framework. Finally, cross-checking was emphasized throughout these discussions to reduce the influence of individual assumptions and enhance the credibility of the analysis.</p> <p>Through these steps, the research team sought to establish a level of trustworthiness that incorporated—or, at a minimum, considered—the core concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability as described in Lincoln and Guba's examination of trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref110">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-16">Results</hd> <p>Examining creative traits that teachers noted in the students' work and behaviors, teachers' reports were used to answer the research question: Do teachers perceive students' creative behaviors during participation in an engineering design course using chain reaction machines? The obtained results fit in all four of the categories created by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref111">55</reflink>]: (a) generating ideas, (b) digging deeper into ideas, (c) openness and courage to explore ideas, and (d) listening to one's "inner voice." Within each of these four categories, three sublevels of categorization describe specific behaviors, which are the traits that teachers refer to in their interviews. See Figure 1 for the specific behaviors in each category. Table 4 includes the teachers' quotes, categories of creativity, creative traits observed, as well as CFTBs. These quotes describe teachers' observations of students, who were in grades 6–9, during the <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> class. The number of students in each class varied, but was typically 10–12 students, and the duration of the course was approximately 12 h, which could be distributed according to the teachers' choices, varying from once a week to multiple times a week.</p> <p>Table 4. Students' Creative Behaviors Reported by Teachers.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Teacher quotes</th><th align="left">Categories of creativity and observed traits (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">Treffinger et al., 2002</xref>)</th><th align="left">Creativity-fostering teacher behavior (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">Cropley, 1995</xref>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teacher 1: "We encourage them to think out of the box [about] anything that they had at home that they wanted to bring in, some of the kids brought in some different things from their house that they felt like they wanted to put into their project."</td><td>Generating Ideas: Divergent thinking and creative thinking (Fluency, flexibility, originality, metaphorical thinking).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Fostering flexible thinking</p></list-item><list-item><p>Taking students' suggestions and questions seriously.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 1: "If you're able to get the kids interested in something and you're able to build that trust, then that's when they can reach their full potential. So, whether you're building [chain reaction] machines which is, which is obviously a neat thing, because you're asking the kids to be creative and stuff like that, or whether you're having to do some other tasks. I think the whole creativity thing is a real big deal for students too, it gives them the energy to actually express themselves versus if you have a more, more structured environment, I think it, it, it tends to squash a little bit of that individuality and stuff so."</td><td>Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas: Interests, experiences, attitudes and self-confidence (Curiosity, fantasy and imagination, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, openness to experience, adaptability, willingness to grow).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Adopting a cooperative and socially integrative teaching style.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 1: "I've had a number of kids coming in, on their own. (...) Yesterday, I had five students in here, early on, working on it, you know, just on their own."</td><td>Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas: Interests, experiences, attitudes, self-confidence (curiosity, playfulness, tenacity, openness to experience, willingness to grow).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 2: "The only other thing that I think they weren't really ready for, was how much they were going to fail. So, we've had to have a lot of conversations about that's just part of the engineering design process, you might have a really good idea, but you might have to modify that or, maybe you come up with something better and that's okay, that's all in part of the improving, part of the engineering design process."</td><td>Listening to One's "Inner Voice": Personal understanding of who you are, a vision of where you want to go, a commitment to do whatever it takes to get there (awareness of creativeness, persistence or perseverance, self-direction, internal locus of control, introspective, concentration, energy, work ethic).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Helping students navigate frustration and failure, thereby building the confidence to experiment with novel and unconventional ideas.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Fostering flexible thinking</p></list-item><list-item><p>Adopting a cooperative and socially integrative teaching style</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 2: "So, there were some kids who started to get frustrated that things weren't working the way they had originally planned. And I have one group whose original plan is not at all what they have now, they've changed pretty much every step, with the exception of the mouse trap going off, and we've just had conversations about that's okay, that's how engineers work, and they just figure out ways to make their outcome happen and they're doing that now so. I think just knowing that ahead of time was helpful for the kids and having those conversations was helpful for the kids."</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Digging Deeper into Ideas: Critical thinking (analyzing a situation, synthesizing ideas/goals, reorganizing or redefining ideas/plans, evaluating previous decisions, desiring to resolve ambiguity or bringing order to disorder).</p></list-item><list-item><p>Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas: Attitudes, self-confidence (playfulness, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, tenacity, emotional sensitivity, adaptability, willingness to grow).</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Helping students navigate frustration and failure, thereby building the confidence to experiment with novel and unconventional ideas.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Withholding judgment on students' ideas until they are fully developed and articulated.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Fostering flexible thinking.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Promoting self-evaluation.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Adopting a cooperative and socially integrative teaching style.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 3: "I have a stack of cups in our room too and they're even 'can we build with these, can we create something with these?'. They're all, like I said, they're always wanting to go, as soon as it's Thursday, 'when are we going to go build, when are we going to go do our machine?'."</td><td>Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas: Interests, experiences, attitudes, self-confidence (curiosity, playfulness, fantasy and imagination, risk-taking, tenacity, openness to experience, willingness to grow).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 3: "[T]hey've tried to use almost all of them [materials], there are a few here and there, that they haven't really figured out how they could do it in theirs. But a lot of them, they would start come, they'd see it, and then they come up with a whole bunch of different ideas and it was more of just figuring out which ones that they wanted to use."</td><td> Digging Deeper into Ideas: Critical thinking (analyzing a situation, reorganizing or redefining ideas/plans, evaluating previous decisions, seeing relationships between things/objects, desiring to resolve ambiguity or bringing order to disorder, preferring complexity or understanding complexity).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Withholding judgment on students' ideas until they are fully developed and articulated.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 4: "[W]hat I learned was some of them were interested in making stuff and trying things out, trial and error. (...) So it's more the motivational stuff, you know. What they were interested in, and that was it. "</td><td> Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas: Interests, attitudes (curiosity, playfulness, fantasy and imagination, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, tenacity, openness to experience, intuition, willingness to grow).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Providing opportunities for students to work with diverse materials and in varied conditions</p></list-item><list-item><p>Fostering flexible thinking.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Withholding judgment on students' ideas until they are fully developed and articulated.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 5: "The [<italic>STEAM Labs</italic> curriculum]. I've done it with students for that and a couple other things. I really like that it focuses more on soft skills development with students. It makes them a bit more mindful of why they do what they do or kind of the idea of how to set a goal and how to actually take the steps to reach that goal. I think that's really valuable."</td><td>Listening to one's "inner voice": Personal understanding of who you are, a vision of where you want to go, a commitment to do whatever it takes to get there (persistence or perseverance, self-direction, internal locus of control, introspective, concentration, energy).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Encouraging independent learning.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Promoting self-evaluation</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Teacher 6: "The kids really enjoyed it. I feel like in tier two they learned a lot about the design process, going back over, back over. I especially like where they test the effectiveness of each step. I think that was really important, they realized, you know, the importance of taking it one step at a time. And, you know, handling the problem at hand first, and then moving on to the next problem, and the next problem."</td><td>Digging Deeper into Ideas: Convergent thinking (analyzing a situation, synthesizing ideas/goals, reorganizing or redefining ideas/plans, evaluating previous decisions, seeing relationships between things/objects, desiring to resolve ambiguity or bringing order to disorder).</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Promoting self-evaluation</p></list-item><list-item><p>Motivating students to master factual knowledge as a foundation for divergent thinking</p></list-item><list-item><p>Fostering flexible thinking</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191011250-17">Generating Ideas</hd> <p>In the initial phase of the engineering course, during which students sketched their machines and explored the available materials, it is easier to see creative processes underlying the first category, "generating ideas." In this category, divergent, and creative thinking are seen in students' fluency, originality, flexibility, and metaphorical thinking.</p> <p>Teacher 1 described observing student behaviors that could be classified in this category while the students were selecting materials for their projects. The teacher mentioned that students were encouraged to "think out of the box," bringing objects from their homes to be incorporated into the machine (see Table 4 for quote). The expression used by the teacher, "think out of the box," is used to express flexibility in someone's way of thinking. It requires openness to examine possibilities in unexpected ways; in this case, the teacher was referring to students' ability to look at objects they had in their homes and think creatively about how to use them for other purposes beyond their original use. Because of this flexibility in thinking, students also showed originality when using the objects they brought from home in unusual ways as they incorporated them into their machines. For example, suppose a student has a roll of duct tape and a balloon. In that case, they might initially think that these two objects may not be easily used together, then come up with an idea to use the balloon's rubber and the tape roll's structure to create a trampoline for marbles. This ability to create new possibilities by making the strange familiar or the familiar strange is an expression of metaphorical thinking, which is described by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref112">55</reflink>] as one of the characteristics of personal creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-18">Digging Deeper into Ideas</hd> <p>During later phases of the machine building, in which students started the module creation and faced specific challenges such as the objects not fitting in the machine, the second category in Treffinger's creativity guideline, "Digging Deeper into Ideas," was observed in teachers' reports. This category includes convergent and critical thinking, with such examples as analyzing a situation, synthesizing ideas, seeing relationships between things, and desiring to resolve ambiguity or bring order to disorder. When students started putting their ideas into practice, they were required to use higher-level thinking abilities. The ability to come up with more complex ideas shows that students are motivated to improve. Then they need to analyze and reflect on their ideas, evaluating if their choices are resulting in the desired outcomes. They need to make choices to solve ambiguities that may appear during their building process; for example, they may need to design alternative routes for balls that are not following the path they were supposed to, due to other physical variables that the student did not consider while generating ideas. To solve these problems, students need to show they can understand complexity and shape their ideas to their given situation.</p> <p>One teacher described the students' experiences of these processes, saying that students revisited their decisions while building the machine, testing the effectiveness of each step, realizing the importance of the iterative process, in a decision process that went step by step (see Teacher 6 quote in Table 4). Students were able to develop these creative behaviors after teachers modeled reflection behaviors in the classroom. Teacher 2 described how she helped encourage creative thinking in students, explaining that when students started to feel frustrated because their machines were not working as originally planned, she led conversations with them reflecting on the engineering-design process that incorporates failures (and reflections on these failures) to address the problems in a way to achieve the established goals. The teacher normalized failures, saying that it is part of the engineering process of invention (see Teacher 2 quote in Table 4). This experience confirms findings in previous research that creativity can be suppressed or encouraged by teachers who have a positive attitude toward creativity ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref113">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-19">Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas</hd> <p>The third category in Treffinger's guideline is "openness and courage to explore ideas," which includes personality traits, such as interests, experiences, attitudes, and self-confidence. In this category, students also showed characteristics related to problem sensitivity, curiosity, playfulness, fantasy and imagination, risk-taking, tolerance for ambiguity, tenacity, openness to experience, adaptability, and willingness to grow.</p> <p>Teacher 3 described students' imagination and openness to experience when reporting that students saw a stack of cups and were eager to build with the cups, asking when the next day of construction would be, showing motivation and engagement with the course's proposal of building machines (see Table 4 for quote).</p> <p>The natural curiosity of creative people makes them much more open to new experiences, their tenacity helps them to identify problems, and their willingness to grow increases their interest in facing new challenges. Students' intuition and imagination are also an important part of their openness to experience. Their detachment from rules and order gives them flexibility to deal with ambiguities and dichotomies. With the support of a flexible environment, the students' tolerance for ambiguity gives them more courage to take risks. This was observed in Teacher 1's report, which says that students were free to express themselves, which would not be the case in a more structured environment. This flexibility allows students to show their individuality and personal traits (see Table 4). Teacher 4 noted a similar interest in students trying things out. The expression used to say that students were "making stuff and trying things out" suggests that students were combining objects to produce different outcomes, taking risks, and showing adaptability, while using flexible thinking to create connections between objects. Students had to use their ability to compare and analogize, being playful with objects while using their imagination to explore them.</p> <p>In addition to students' problem sensitivity and imagination, students also showed tenacity and willingness to grow, as noted by Teacher 1 when reporting that five students were coming to the project classroom on their own, earlier than the assigned time, to work on their machines, even without any guidance from the instructor (see Table 4). These students proactively utilized their time to explore ideas to solve a problem, confirming their intrinsic creative traits related to their personality.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-20">Listening to One's "Inner Voice"</hd> <p>The fourth category of creative behavior in [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref114">55</reflink>] guide is "listening to one's 'inner voice.'" Key characteristics of this category involve long-term behavior developed through a continuing creative curriculum experience. Some of the characteristics listed in the category involve students' self-perceptions of who they are, where they want to go, and what is needed to get there. Some of the traits described in this category are awareness of creativity, persistence or perseverance, self-direction, concentration, and work ethic.</p> <p>Teacher 5 described her experience fostering these skills with her students by saying that she focuses on soft skill development, helping students to be mindful of the reasons for doing things, setting a goal, and walking the path to achieve it (see Table 4).</p> <p>Metacognition processes were also observed when teachers helped students navigate frustration to develop the ability to understand their goals while building their awareness of creativity. Teacher 2 reported having many conversations with students about the engineering process and how a good idea needs to be modified sometimes to improve. Failure is a big part of the engineering process, which demands students' ability to understand their vision and ways to achieve it. Considering failure as an opportunity to reflect, students need to express an internal locus of control and persistence, self-directing their energy to commit to their goals.</p> <p>The characteristics and examples of students' creative behaviors described above have been grouped based on Treffinger's categories; these are shown in Table 4. These alignments of the teacher descriptions of student behaviors with Treffinger's categories show that [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref115">55</reflink>] is an appropriate and helpful tool to identify students' creative behaviors in classroom settings.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-21">Discussion</hd> <p>Teaching creativity in engineering courses is crucial for fostering students' creative processes, which are necessary for solving problems or designing artifacts. Problem-solving and innovative creation are essential competencies in engineering professions ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref116">18</reflink>]). These traits can be supported by a teaching process that is focused on the development of creative skills ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref118">13</reflink>]). These preliminary findings suggest potential benefits that warrant further investigation into whether designing and building chain reaction machines can be an important preparation for K-12 students to gain skills for engineering career paths. The engineering-design curriculum prepares students, fostering their development of creative and critical thinking skills, in addition to providing them with early exposure to engineering design ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-22">How Students Demonstrate Creative Behaviors</hd> <p>In this study, teachers reported students' behaviors that we interpreted as creative during participation in an engineering-design course, predominantly showing convergent thinking and personality traits related to creative behaviors. These results align with the findings of [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref120">14</reflink>] of convergent thinking through strong analytical, evaluative, and redefining skills in college-level students in engineering courses. The participating teachers consistently noted the evaluation and analytical aspects of building the machines. In our study, students demonstrated more convergent thinking than divergent thinking during the process of building machines, as shown in Table 4. This finding supports the potential value of combining an engineering-based design with a curriculum that promotes critical thinking skills ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref121">43</reflink>]). Previous studies that have tried this combination have been shown to effectively foster divergent thinking ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref122">1</reflink>]). Many personality traits related to creativity were also observed, including personal attitudes, self-confidence, and willingness to grow. According to teachers' reports, several students showed creative behaviors during the engineering design process of building chain reaction machines.</p> <p>Our results also include additional competencies demonstrated by students during the experience. Teachers highlighted students' acquisition of competencies such as teamwork and cooperation between teams in this experience. This finding is consistent with [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref123">31</reflink>], who also found that curricula emphasizing creativity foster greater cooperation and collaboration among students working in groups. Teachers also addressed the ability to deal with mistakes and pressure to achieve, indicating their intentional intervention to help students develop these skills.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-23">Teachers' Perceptions About Creative Behaviors</hd> <p>Although creativity is recognized as a key capability that needs to be fostered by all educators, challenges remain in teaching for creativity in K-12 settings ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref124">44</reflink>]). Teachers may see creative students as inattentive or disruptive ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref125">13</reflink>]), and without reliable creativity assessment tools, teaching for creativity remains difficult ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref126">16</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref127">25</reflink>] show that teachers' attitudes and subjective norms positively influenced their intentions to implement creative pedagogy. Meanwhile, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref128">47</reflink>] found that, in general, teachers often hold mixed perceptions of students' creativity, and their knowledge and experiences influence these perceptions. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref129">29</reflink>] argued that teachers may present contradictory perceptions of creative behaviors, stating that teachers value creativity but find creative behaviors undesirable in classroom settings, mainly because they classify these behaviors as disruptive. Some teachers may associate creativity with characteristics such as independence, nonconformity, and divergent thinking, which can sometimes clash with traditional classroom expectations. As a result, creative students may be misunderstood or overlooked, especially when their unconventional problem-solving approaches deviate from standard curriculum goals. The way teachers perceive and respond to creativity is shaped by their training ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref130">57</reflink>]), experience, and familiarity with strategies for nurturing creative potential in students. These differences in the ways that teachers perceive and interpret students' creative behaviors may create a selection bias in the sample, as some teachers who spontaneously mention creativity may differ from those who do not.</p> <p>In analyzing teachers' open-ended responses about typical classroom experiences with a design-based curriculum, we found that they used negative, mixed, and positive affective descriptors. This pattern appeared most clearly when teachers described students' frustration with machines that did not work as expected. However, teachers themselves consistently evaluated the learning experience as positive when highlighting students' creative behaviors, even in the presence of negative emotions. Overall, these findings suggest that the experience was ultimately positive, reflecting a process of learning through failure.</p> <p>In this study, all participants perceived creative behaviors as good and desirable outcomes of their classes' experiences. This may be an indicator that the teachers participating in our study have higher levels of personal creativity themselves, and consequently, they perceive creative behaviors as desirable for their students ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref132">29</reflink>]). Another possible reason is that teachers in our study are more familiar with gifted education due to their participation in a training offered as part of the talent development program associated with this study. This preparation to support and nurture gifted characteristics may be relevant to creating a positive attitude toward creative behaviors. However, further research is needed to prove this claim.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-24">Implications for Practitioners</hd> <p>Teachers often highlight barriers to teaching for creativity. Some barriers were mentioned by [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref133">5</reflink>] as a lack of time and pressures related to the standards imposed by the curriculum. Curricular frameworks typically emphasize content knowledge over creative exploration, and teacher training rarely focuses on fostering creativity. Heavy workloads and limited resources further restrict time for innovative teaching, while standardized testing reduces opportunities for creative approaches ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref134">59</reflink>]). Thus, this aspect of the study highlights the need for creativity to be included in the curriculum as an intended learning outcome. The absence of this important component in the regular curriculum limits teachers from creating creative outcomes for their classes ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref135">44</reflink>]). Such a curriculum can help meet the demand for twenty-first-century skills in K-12 engineering education.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref136">55</reflink>] describe creative productivity as a complex system involving three elements: individuals' personal characteristics, students' immersion in a supportive context that fosters creative behaviors, and the application of strategies and techniques to guide students' thinking and analytical skills. Combined, these elements produce creative outcomes. In this complex setting, the learning environment plays the most significant role in determining whether creative potential is suppressed or supported ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref137">3</reflink>]). Providing a friendly environment by modeling creative behaviors is pivotal for both teaching for creativity and creative learning ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref138">23</reflink>]). In this study, we observed the potential for creativity naturally shown by gifted and non-gifted students who participated in a specific curriculum that offered a context favorable to the development of creative behaviors, combined with teachers who applied strategies and techniques to develop students' creativity. Because these components occurred together, the creative outcomes expressed by students' behaviors were observed throughout the study.</p> <p>As [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref139">53</reflink>] emphasized, creativity flourishes when students are encouraged to discover and develop their unique skills and interests. In practical terms, this means that teachers should create learning environments that value exploration, experimentation, and self-directed learning. In K-12 engineering education, from this study we can see that teachers can do this by facilitating open-ended design tasks (e.g., through chain reaction machines), encouraging students to take intellectual risks, and guiding them through reflective discussions about their problem-solving processes. Moreover, teachers should act as facilitators providing scaffolding, resources, and constructive feedback while allowing space for student autonomy and divergent thinking. Ultimately, fostering creativity in engineering classrooms requires an intentional shift from content transmission toward cultivating curiosity, persistence, and ownership of learning or self-directed learning, key dispositions for future engineers ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref140">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study provides preliminary insights to the understanding of creativity beyond the field of psychology, by highlighting the potential that creative outcomes can have in STEM education and suggesting ways to nurture and foster creativity through engineering-design curriculum. Improving the dissemination of evidence-based knowledge on creativity is crucial to counteract prevailing misconceptions teachers hold about creativity ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref141">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref142">47</reflink>]). For that reason, it is important that educators share their positive experiences in the classroom. As suggested by [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref143">35</reflink>], a gap appears to exist between teaching practice and engineering education research. One way to reduce this gap is to empower educators to turn their practical experiences into research papers, especially in academic genres that present fewer requirements related to methodological rigor, emphasizing the practical aspects of positive teaching experiences. Teachers can be inspired by studies that previously suggested strategies for developing creativity in engineering education ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref144">61</reflink>]), or by real-world example studies, such as ours, which present a curriculum and a design approach that allow the expression of creative behaviors in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-25">Limitations</hd> <p>Among the methodological limitations of this study is that ICR analysis has shortcomings when applied to low-frequency codes, particularly within qualitative methods that are more interpretive (Burla et al., 2008). This is the case for this study, which considers teachers' interpretation of creative behaviors. In addition, only interviews were analyzed, and triangulation was not possible due to limited access to other data sources, such as artifacts and observations. We also possess limited information about the teachers' prior experiences that might have influenced their views on creativity.</p> <p>Furthermore, the interviews were not explicitly designed to focus on classroom creative behaviors, which further constrained the findings. Because the original project did not focus specifically on teachers' perceptions of creative behavior, the study was not designed with a comparison group, pre- or post-intervention assessments, or evaluation of students' creative outcomes. In addition, the coder's disagreement on one of the 11 quotes analyzed represents a 9% disagreement, which is significant but arguably understandable, given the small sample size and the nature of the qualitative study and open coding method. Future research should address these limitations by including a larger sample, conducting more interviews, and incorporating triangulation with relevant artifacts to enhance the validity of the results.</p> <p>Because there is an element of choice to teach <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> among the teachers participating in our study, there is a possible participant bias effect that influences the types of differences across personal interest and motivation that might exceed our control on participants' results. Hence, we recognize this as a potential limitation that restricts the generalizability of our study. Therefore, we caution against the over-generalizability of our conclusions in the face of promising results; instead, use this study to take into consideration the potential positive effects of using an engineering design-based approach to teach secondary schoolers to develop creativity through the experience of building chain reaction machines.</p> <p>The field of gifted education has long studied creativity, and teachers' perceptions of creativity have been a recent topic of interest in the field ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref145">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref146">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref147">51</reflink>]). However, using teachers' perceptions to assess students' creative behavior remains a limitation because it relies heavily on teachers' subjective views. Teachers' perceptions and experiences in the classroom might differ among participants, affecting this study's results. To confirm that these creative behaviors are the result of the <emph>STEAM Labs</emph> curriculum, it is necessary to use additional assessment tools, such as performance and product assessments, as well as teacher rating scales. These assessment tools also need to be applied in different stages of curriculum implementation to confirm whether the creative behaviors are a curriculum outcome or just a consequence of students' traits, regardless of the curriculum in place. This is also aligned with what [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref148">16</reflink>] have suggested, in which, without reliable creativity assessment tools, teaching for creativity will remain difficult as it is harder for teachers to demonstrate students' creative behaviors. Nevertheless, this study makes an important contribution to the field of creativity and adds to the literature on teaching for creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-26">Future Research</hd> <p>Creativity can be expressed in numerous ways, and all students have the potential to be creative ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref149">54</reflink>]). This fact challenges researchers and educators to design effective programs or curricula that nurture students' potential for creativity, even when this creativity is not yet evident or expressed. Future studies should focus efforts on creating and testing curricula to nurture creative behavior in different classroom settings or enrichment programs.</p> <p>Additionally, this study did not consider whether teachers were familiar with creative behaviors or how much they knew about this content. For example, a study by [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref150">9</reflink>] showed that teachers with a background in gifted education possess distinct skills for fostering creativity, as they often incorporate appropriate strategies from the initial stages of lesson planning, giving them an advantage in enhancing student creativity. Future studies could contribute to this discussion by comparing teachers who were trained to develop creative skills in their classroom settings with teachers who did not receive training to foster creative outcomes in STEM-related courses. Therefore, future studies should consider incorporating professional development with teachers about creative behaviors before the implementation of courses.</p> <p>While this study helps us understand how creativity is expressed through students' behaviors in classroom settings, this analysis should be extended in the future to include new data collected from other learning environments, such as university-based enrichment programs, to confirm if the same course in a different setting and different age groups can achieve similar outcomes related to teaching for creativity. Additionally, other types of engineering curricula could also be included in future studies that analyze the effectiveness of curricula for developing creative behaviors. However, future studies are necessary to evaluate this effect on a long-term basis in K-12 education. Future longitudinal studies could further define the benefits of engineering-based enrichment courses that focus on the development of creativity among students pursuing engineering careers. Considering the scarcity of studies analyzing occupational accomplishments related to creative behaviors, it is vital to incorporate longitudinal studies to understand how creativity skills impact career choices and performance.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study aimed to explore whether teachers perceive students' creative behaviors during participation in an engineering design course, particularly using chain reaction machines. Using the Assessing Creativity guide ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref151">55</reflink>]), our results show that teachers can observe students' creative behaviors during participation in this course, highlighting predominantly convergent thinking and personality traits related to creative behaviors (i.e., personal attitudes, self-confidence, and willingness to grow).</p> <p>Understanding that teachers' perceptions have been an essential source of information in research related to classroom settings, this study highlights the invaluable perspectives of these stakeholders, giving voice to those who experience a great deal but rarely have opportunities to share their observations with others. Moreover, unanticipated outcomes ultimately led us to interesting findings that warrant attention to encourage future research. The talent development program, designed to nourish STEM competencies, revealed that gifted education and STEM education share a common goal in fostering creativity. Educators should capitalize on this shared ground to encourage creative behaviors in their classroom settings while developing twenty-first-century skills among their students. Moving forward, there is a pressing need for subsequent studies to explore other ways to understand students' creative behaviors, such as using rating scales or other assessment tools in specific engineering education contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0191011250-28">Appendix</hd> <p>Teachers' Interview Protocol</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In your opinion, has the curriculum helped improve students' motivation?</item> <p></p> <item> Follow-up: Tell me about those improvements.</item> <p></p> <item> Prompts: Has the curriculum helped improve any of the following: interest in STEM, self-perceptions, goal-setting, self-regulation, attitudes, or something similar?</item> <p></p> <item> In your opinion, has the curriculum helped improve students' interest in [insert relevant STEM topic] related topics/careers?</item> <p></p> <item> Follow-up: Tell me about those improvements.</item> <p></p> <item> Has this curriculum helped improve students' achievement?</item> <p></p> <item> Follow-up: What are some of those improvements?</item> <p></p> <item> What are some benefits and drawbacks/challenges of implementing affective support and STEM enrichment at the same time?</item> <p></p> <item> Describe the process of implementation.</item> <p></p> <item> How did you prepare for the sessions?</item> <p></p> <item> How carefully did you follow the guidelines for implementing the curriculum?</item> <p></p> <item> Prompt: If you made changes to the curriculum provided, tell me about them.</item> <p></p> <item> What suggestions do you have for improving the curricula or implementation?</item> <p></p> <item> What support do you think is important in successfully implementing these curricula?</item> <p></p> <item> Is there anything you would like to add regarding the implementation that we did not discuss today?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191011250-29">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors express their gratitude for the support and insights provided by Hernán Castillo-Hermosilla during the preparation of this manuscript.</p> <ref id="AN0191011250-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alabbasi A. M. A., Lamb K. N., Acar S., Plucker J. A., Alabbasi G. M., Aljasim F. A. (2025). Examining the effect of primary education thinking skills curriculum on the creative thinking abilities of gifted female students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 58(101908), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beghetto R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers' response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref141" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek M., Karstendiek M., Ceh S. M., Grabner R. H., Krammer G., Lebuda I., Silvia P. J., Cotter K. N., Li Y., Hu W., Martskvishvili K., Kaufman J. C. (2021). Creativity myths: Prevalence and correlates of misconceptions on creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 182(111068), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brandon L. E., Reis S. M., Renzulli J. S., Beghetto R. A. (2022). Examining teachers' perspectives of school-based opportunities and support for student creativity with the ICI index. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2110416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brophy S., Klein S., Portsmore M., Rogers C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 227–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref98" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burla L., Knierim B., Barth J., Liewald K., Duetz M., Abel T. (2008). From text to codings : Intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research, 57(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313482.33917.7d</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref36" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Burnard P., Colucci-Gray L., Cooke C. (2022). Transdisciplinarity: Re-visioning how sciences and arts together can enact democratizing creative educational experiences. Review of Research in Education, 46(1), 166–197. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X221084323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref150" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chan S., Yuen M. (2015). Teachers' beliefs and practices for nurturing creativity in students: Perspectives from teachers of gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 31(3), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413511884</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung K. K. C., Tai K. W. H. (2023). The use of intercoder reliability in qualitative interview data analysis in science education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(3), 1155–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1993179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chronopoulou E., Riga V. (2012). The contribution of music and movement activities to creative thinking in pre-school children. Creative Education, 3(2), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.32031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropley A. J. (1995). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In Runco M. (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 83–114). Hampton Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropley D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering. In Corazza G. E., Agnoli S. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly S. R., Mosyjowski E. A., Seifert C. M. (2014). Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 417–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> deMontigny D., Smithson H., Wright C. (2009, July 27-29). Teaching engineering design and communication in first year using Rube Goldberg projects. [Paper presentation]. In 2009 CDEN/C2E2 Conference, Hamilton, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denson C. D., Buelin J. K., Lammin M. D., D'Amico S. (2015). Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering design. Journal of Technology Education, 27(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v27i1.a.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deveci I. (2019). Reflections of Rube Goldberg machines on the prospective science teachers' STEM awareness. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(2), 195–217. https://citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-2-19/science/reflections-of-rube-goldberg-machines-on-the-prospective-science-teachers-stem-awareness</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> EbrahimiNejad H. (2017, June 24–28). A systematic literature review: Defining and developing engineering competencies [Conference session]. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-27526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng G. C. (2014). Intercoder reliability indices: Disuse, misuse, and abuse. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9956-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foster A. E., Ellis D. (2014). Serendipity and its study. Journal of Documentation, 70(6), 1015–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2014-0053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Carrillo C., Greca I. M., Fernández-Hawrylak M. (2021). Teacher perspectives on teaching the STEM approach to educational coding and robotics in primary education. Education Sciences, 11(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghahremani M., Pereira N., Desmet O. A., Gentry M. (2022). Students' experiences in summer enrichment engineering courses: An input–process–outcome model of collaborative creativity. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211040744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang X., Lee J. C. K., Dong X. (2019). Mapping the factors influencing creative teaching in mainland China: An exploratory study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivcevic Z., Lin S., Liu X., Brackett M. (2024). Creativity and affect: A person-centered analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 113(102481), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin H. Y., Su C. Y., Chen C. H. (2021). Perceptions of teachers regarding the perceived implementation of creative pedagogy in "making" activities. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan S., Adams R. S. (2008, June 22-25). "...A good imagination and a pile of junk" [Conference session]. In: 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–4151">http://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–4151</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan S., Pereira N. (2009, June 14-17). Rube Goldbergineering: Lessons in teaching engineering design to future engineers [Conference session]. In 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–5687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juanengsih N., Apriani W., Danial M. A. (2017). Assessing creativity of senior high school students in learning biology using online portfolio assessment on Facebook. International Conference on Education in Muslim Society (ICEMS 2017), 115, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.2991/icems-17.2018.17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kettler T., Lamb K. N., Willerson A., Mullet D. R. (2018). Teachers' perceptions of creativity in the classroom. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1446503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lage-Gómez C., Ros G. (2021). Transdisciplinary integration and its implementation in primary education through two STEAM projects (La integración transdisciplinar y su aplicación en educación Primaria a través de dos proyectos STEAM). Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 44(4), 801–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2021.1925474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lage-Gómez C., Ros G. (2023). How transdisciplinary integration, creativity and student motivation interact in three STEAM projects for gifted education? Gifted Education International, 39(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294231167744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lara-Prieto V., Arrambide-Leal E. J., Cruz-Hinojosa J. de la, Ruiz-Cantisani M. I., Rivas-Pimentel J. R., Membrillo-Hernández J. (2020). Building resilience in engineering students: Rube Goldberg machine massive challenge. In: 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 943–947). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li Y., Schoenfeld A. H., diSessa A. A., Graesser A. C., Benson L. C., English L. D., Duschl R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Q. (2025, September 29-October 3). From effective teaching practice to engineering education research: Where are the gaps, and how can the gaps be bridged? [Conference session]. In: Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES), Regional Conference in Engineering Education (RCEE) & Research in Higher Education (RHEd). Johor, Malaysia. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/149281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunevich L. (2022). Creativity in teaching and teaching for creativity – Engineering students. In Lunevich L., Wadaani M. (Eds.), Creativity in teaching and teaching for creativity: Modern practices in the digital era in engineering. (pp. 29-43). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003329145-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacPhail C., Khoza N., Abler L., Ranganathan M. (2016). Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makri S., Blandford A. (2012). Coming across information serendipitously – Part 1: A process model. Journal of Documentation, 68(5), 684–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211256030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills A. J., Durepos G., Wiebe E. (2010). Serendipity pattern. In Mills A. J., Durepos G., Wiebe E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 859–860). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullet D. R., Willerson A., Lamb K. N., Kettler T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muneer S., Santhosh M., Parangusan H., Bhadra J. (2025). A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education. International Journal of Technology and Design Educational. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ndiung S., Dantes N., Ardana I. M., Marhaeni A. A. I. N. (2019). Treffinger creative learning model with RME principles on creative thinking skill by considering numerical ability. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12344a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols J., Thomson S., Wolfe M., Merritt D. (2012). Primary education thinking skills curriculum-1 (Updated ed.). Pieces of Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patston T. J., Kaufman J. C., Cropley A. J., Marrone R. (2021). What is creativity in education? A qualitative study of international curricula. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20978356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plucker J. A., Beghetto R. A., Dow G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. The BMJ, 320(7227), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puryear J. S., Lamb K. N. (2024). Creativity knowledge of classroom teachers: Predictors and correlates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54(101666), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renzulli J. S. (2011). What makes giftedness?: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603">http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross W. (2025). Serendipity: The role of chance and accidents in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 37(2), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2313898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenstein L. D. V., McCoach D. B., Siegle D. (2013). Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers' perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tekmen-Araci Y. (2024). Teaching creativity in engineering schools: A review of the literature. International Journal of Engineering Education, 40(1), 126–143. https://<ulink href="http://www.ijee.ie/contents/c400124.html">www.ijee.ie/contents/c400124.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treffinger D. J. (1993). Stimulating creativity: Issues and future directions. In Isaksen S. G., Murdock M. C., Firestein R. L., Treffinger D. J. (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 8–27). Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treffinger D. J. (2009). Myth 5: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 245–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treffinger D. J., Young G., Shelby E., Shepardson C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators (ED505548). National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urdang L. (1968). The Random House dictionary of the English language: The unabridged edition. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wadaani M. (2023). The influence of preservice education and professional development in mathematics teachers' attitudes toward nurturing creativity and supporting the gifted. Journal of Creativity, 33(1), 100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wai J., Lubinski D., Benbow C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wick N. R. (2019). A quantitative study of the relationships among teacher creativity, constructivist beliefs, and creativity fostering behaviors (Publication No. 27662976) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoon J., Lee K. (2025). Development of self-observation assessment rubrics to improve teacher competency in creative gifted education. Gifted Education International. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294251379176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou C. (2012). Teaching engineering students creativity: A review of applied strategies. Journal of Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 5(2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2012.050205</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191011250-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Brenda C. Matos https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9581-5218 Shahnaz Safitri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-6136 Brendha Christie Tanujaya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-2776 Sarah Bright https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-8788 Nielsen Pereira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5399-4622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This study was reviewed and approved by the IRB at Purdue University (IRB-2020-140 and IRB-2019-874). All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the research. Informed consent for publication was provided by the participants or a legally authorized representative.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the United States Department of Education, The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (Award No. S206A190020).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The data that supports the findings of this study is not publicly available because it contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kim G. Stephenson, Special-issue-editor; Karen L. Brown, Special-issue-editor; Katie D. Lewis, Special-issue-editor; Brenda C. Matos; Shahnaz Safitri; Brendha Christie Tanujaya; Sarah Bright and Nielsen Pereira</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref147"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496580
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Creativity in STEM Education: Exploring Students' Creative Behaviors in an Engineering Design Course
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brenda+C%2E+Matos%22">Brenda C. Matos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9581-5218">0000-0001-9581-5218</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shahnaz+Safitri%22">Shahnaz Safitri</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3632-6136">0000-0003-3632-6136</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brendha+Christie+Tanujaya%22">Brendha Christie Tanujaya</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-2776">0000-0001-9451-2776</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+Bright%22">Sarah Bright</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-8788">0000-0002-6349-8788</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nielsen+Pereira%22">Nielsen Pereira</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5399-4622">0000-0002-5399-4622</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Advanced+Academics%22"><i>Journal of Advanced Academics</i></searchLink>. 2026 37(1):41-73.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 33
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) (ED), Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: S206A190020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Synthesis%22">Synthesis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persistence%22">Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Planning%22">Planning</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/1932202X251394692
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1932-202X<br />2162-9536
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research on creativity in engineering has expanded, yet empirical evidence remains limited on how creativity develops through secondary school engineering curricula. This qualitative study examined teachers' perceptions of middle and high school students' creativity while designing and building chain reaction machines. Using the "Assessing Creativity" framework, deductive analysis of eleven teachers' interviews revealed students' creative behaviors across all four categories: (a) generating ideas (e.g., fluency, originality, flexibility), (b) digging deeper into ideas (e.g., synthesizing, resolving ambiguity), (c) openness and courage to explore ideas (e.g., curiosity, imagination, tenacity), and (d) listening to one's "inner voice" (e.g., persistence, self-direction, awareness of creativity). Teachers most frequently reported convergent thinking and traits such as curiosity, openness to experience, and risk-taking. Findings provide preliminary insights into the understanding of creativity in education, suggesting that engineering-design curricula foster creative thinking while preparing students with essential skills required in STEM pathways.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496580
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496580
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/1932202X251394692
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 33
        StartPage: 41
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Synthesis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Planning
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Creativity in STEM Education: Exploring Students' Creative Behaviors in an Engineering Design Course
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brenda C. Matos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shahnaz Safitri
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brendha Christie Tanujaya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah Bright
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nielsen Pereira
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1932-202X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-9536
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Advanced Academics
              Type: main
ResultId 1