Purpose : The study examined the relationship between creative self-efficacy, confidence in problem-solving, and STEM interest among students. It further explored the potential impact of participation in the tinkering activities (Atal Innovation Labs – ATL) on these factors, intending to understand how these constructs contribute to students’ academic and career pursuits.

Methodology : A self-reported structured questionnaire was used to measure the study constructs quantitatively. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to establish their relationships. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the impact of tinkering on future STEM interests.

Findings : The evidence indicated that creative self-efficacy and confidence in problem-solving are significant predictors of STEM interest. The level of creative self-efficacy, confidence in problem-solving, and STEM interest were significantly higher in the experimental group. These findings imply that learning through exposure to tinkering promotes desirable skills and interests among learners, based on constructivist learning theory, experiential teaching theory, and interest development theory.

Practical Implications : The study results have implications for educators, policymakers, and stakeholders. Incorporating tinkering initiatives will improve learners’ creative and problem-solving skills and spark STEM interest. The study calls for more provision of tinkering labs, integration of techniques in the traditional curriculum, and policies that foster such initiatives.

Originality and Value : This study uniquely contributes to the literature by exploring the interconnectedness of creative self-efficacy, problem-solving confidence, and STEM interest while assessing tinkering programs’ impact. The findings provide valuable insights for curriculum development and design of student engagement initiatives, particularly in promoting STEM education and related competencies.

1. Aaradhi, V., & Chakraborty, D. (2024). Educational technology adoption in India: Theory of consumption values perspective. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 17(3), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2024/v17i3/173365
2. Aguilera, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., Vílchez-González, J. M., & Perales-Palacios, F. J. (2021). In search of a long-awaited consensus on disciplinary integration in STEM education. Mathematics, 9(6), 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060597
3. Ahmad, S. (2020). Digital initiatives for access and quality in higher education: An overview. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 13(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2020/v13i1/149944
4. Alfonso-Benlliure, V., Meléndez, J. C., & García-Ballesteros, M. (2013). Evaluation of a creativity intervention program for preschoolers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.005
5. Alvi, I. (2024). Gamification in education management: Fulfilling students' intrinsic needs and learning outcomes. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 17(11), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2024/v17i11/174022
6. Arora, A. K., & Srinivasan, R. (2020). Impact of pandemic COVID-19 on the teaching–learning process: A study of higher education teachers. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 13(4), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2020/v13i4/151825
7. Askell-Williams, H., & Orrell, J. (2019). Problem solving for teaching and learning: A festschrift for Emeritus Professor Mike Lawson (1st ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429400902
8. Aslam, S., Alghamdi, A. A., Abid, N., & Kumar, T. (2023). Challenges in implementing STEM education: Insights from novice STEM teachers in developing countries. Sustainability, 15(19), 14455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914455
9. Atal Innovation Mission. (2024, January 3). Overview. Government of India. https://aim.gov.in/overview.php
10. Avena, J. S., McIntosh, B. B., Whitney, O. N., Wiens, A., & Knight, J. K. (2021). Successful problem solving in genetics varies based on question content. CBE––Life Sciences Education, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/CBE.21-01-0016
11. Bagga, T., Sawhney, D., & Gilani, P. (2025). How will India's One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) policy shape the future of small Indian journal publishers? A perspective on challenges. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 18(2), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2025/v18i2/174162
12. Beghetto, R. A. (2020). Personality: Creative self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of creativity (3rd ed., pp. 322–327). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.23789-9
13. Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Smith, C. P., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.836655
14. Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380
15. Brailas, A., Avani, S.-M., Gkini, C., Deilogkou, M.-A., Koskinas, K., & Alexias, G. (2017). Experiential learning in action: A collaborative inquiry. The Qualitative Report, 22(1), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2551
16. Chen, T., Kim, T.-Y., Gong, Y., & Liang, Y. (2025). Competence drives interest or vice versa? Untangling the bidirectional relationships between creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation for creativity in shaping employee creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 62(2), 775–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13072
17. Dash, G., & Chakraborty, D. (2021). Transition to e-learning: By choice or by force – a cross-cultural and trans-national assessment. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 14(3), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2021/v14i3/158151
18. Denson, C., & Buelin-Biesecker, J. (2015). Investigating the relationship between students' creative self-efficacy and their creative outcomes. In Proceedings of 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24379
19. Digennaro, S. (2020). Educational praximorphisms: On the irrational nature of educational practice. Encyclopaideia, 24(57), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-8670/11327
20. Docktor, J. L., Dornfeld, J., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., Jackson, K. A., Mason, A., Ryan, Q. X., & Yang, J. (2016). Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), Article ID 010130. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010130
21. Farmer, S. M., & Tierney, P. (2017). Chapter 2 - Considering creative self-efficacy: Its current state and ideas for future inquiry. In The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 23–47). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809790-8.00002-9
22. Fleischmann, K. (2020). Hands-on versus virtual: Reshaping the design classroom with blended learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 20(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022220906393
23. Furlong, C., & Léger, M. (2022). Tinkering at the heart of the problem-solving process in the context of digital manufacturing in schools. Revue Hybride De L'Éducation, 5(2), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1522/rhe.v5i2.1227
24. Ghose, M. (2024). The National Education Policy-2020: Role of vocational education in skill development. In Role of industry-academia interface in skill development: Internalising education policies (1st ed., pp. 147–155). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032613444-13/national-education-policy-2020-manas-ghose
25. Gill, S., Sharma, A., & Jain, D. M. (2023). Digital disruptions in education: Students' perspective. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 16(9), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2023/v16i9/173167
26. Gough, A., & Gough, N. (2018). Beyond tinkering and tailoring: Re-de/signing methodologies in STEM education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 18, 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0023-2
27. Greiff, S., Kretzschmar, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Problem-solving in educational psychology. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000140
28. Gupta, A. (2019). The changing nature of science classrooms in Indian schools: A technology perspective. In R. Koul, G. Verma, & V. Nargund-Joshi (eds.), Science education in India (pp. 227–248). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9593-2_12
29. Haakonsen, P., & Fauske, L. B. (2021). Learning to create images with computer code. FormAkademisk, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.7577/FORMAKADEMISK.4633
30. Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the problem solving inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1997.12068907
31. Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human adjustment: A review of 20 years of research using the problem-solving inventory. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 344–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003262793
32. Jelovica, L., & Alajbeg, A. (2023). An overview of the characteristics of a modern school. Croatian Journal of Education, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v25i3.4902
33. Jindal, P., Singh, A., & Aggarwal, R. (2023). STEM: A multi-disciplinary approach to integrate pedagogies, inculcate innovations and connections. Nova Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.52305/UXLT2425
34. Kanematsu, H., & Barry, D. M. (2016). The importance of STEM for modern education. In STEM and ICT education in intelligent environments. Intelligent systems reference library (Vol. 91, pp. 25–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19234-5_4
35. Kanojia, M., Shukla, B., & Wali, A. (2022). Critical factors to technology development in Indian academia: An ISM-MICMAC approach. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 15(5), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2022/v15i5/169578
36. Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513
37. Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034898
38. Kaur, S., Yadav, B., Goel, D., Devi, S., Ramachandaran, S. D., & Kumar, A. (2024). Exploring Indian students' perception, behavioral intentions, and motivation for learning with ChatGPT. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 17(12), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2024/v17i12/174055
39. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
40. Kourmousi, N., Xythali, V., Theologitou, M., & Koutras, V. (2016). Validity and reliability of the problem solving inventory (PSI) in a nationwide sample of Greek educators. Social Sciences, 5(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5020025
41. Li, S.-T., Abramson, E., Hilgenberg, S., Lichtenstein, C., & Lockspeiser, T. (2023). Enhancing learner engagement through experiential learning with learner-generated data. Academic Pediatrics, 23(4), P846–P848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2022.11.002
42. Mader, A. H., & Dertien, E. C. (2016). Tinkering as method in academic teaching. In E. Bohemia, A. Kovacevic, L. Buck, C. Tollestrup, K. Eriksen, & N. Ovesen (eds.), DS 83: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 240–245). The Design Society. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/39073/tinkering_as_method_in_academic_teaching
43. Mian, S. H., Salah, B., Ameen, W., Moiduddin, K., & Alkhalefah, H. (2020). Adapting universities for sustainability education in Industry 4.0: Channel of challenges and opportunities. Sustainability, 12(15), 6100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156100
44. Nhung, V. T., & Hanh, P. T. (2021). Develop cooperative capacity for students in STEM modelation model. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1835, Article ID 012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1835/1/012054
45. Nickolson, D. D., Hilson, W. J., Weiss, H. A., & Hundley, S. P. (2023). Advancing STEM education through quality, equity, and evidence. In Trends in assessment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
46. Parekh, P., & Gee, E. R. (2019). Tinkering alone and together: Tracking the emergence of children's projects in a library workshop. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, Article ID 100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.04.009
47. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget's theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (eds.), Piaget and his school. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2
48. Poce, A., Amenduni, F., & De Medio, C. (2019). From tinkering to thinkering: Tinkering as a critical and creative thinking enhancer. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1639
49. Reich, J. (2021). Ed tech's failure during the pandemic, and what comes after. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721721998149
50. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2022). Interest development, self-related information processing, and practice. Theory Into Practice, 61(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1932159
51. Saat, R. M., & Fadzil, H. M. (2021). STEM education research in Malaysia. In STEM education from Asia (1st ed.). Routledge.
52. Shaw, A., Kapnek, M., & Morelli, N. A. (2021). Measuring creative self-efficacy: An item response theory analysis of the creative self-efficacy scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678033
53. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, Article no. 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
54. Shokeen, A., Kumar, A., & Khanna, S. (2023). Understanding students' behavioral intention to adopt blended learning: Modified UTAUT model. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 16(11), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2023/v16i11/170915
55. Sikes, P. J. (2014). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In Teacher development and educational change (1st ed.). Routledge.
56. Singh, A., Parandhaman, B., & Saini, D. (2021). The leadership gender gap in HEI spaces: A conceptual framework. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 14(8), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2021/v14i8/165677
57. Smith, D. P. (2016). Bringing experiential learning into the lecture theatre using 3D printed objects. F1000Research, 5, Article no. 61. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7632.1
58. Soomro, T. R. (2019). STEM education: United Arab Emirates perspective. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology (pp. 157–160). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3318396.3318414
59. Steele, L. M., Johnson, G., & Medeiros, K. E. (2018). Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.028
60. Stemrobo. (2024). The role of Atal Tinkering Labs in shaping tomorrow's innovators. https://www.stemrobo.com/the-role-of-atal-tinkering-labs-in-shaping-tomorrows-innovators
61. Thompson, N. (2023). “Some angles are gonna be weird”: Tinkering with math and weaving. Sustainability, 15(9), 7363. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097363
62. Valquaresma, A., Coimbra, J. L., & Costa, P. (2022). Creative self-efficacy scale for children and adolescents (CASES): A development and validation study. International Journal of Psychological Research, 15(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.5410
63. Vieira, M., Kennedy, J., Leonard, S. N., & Cropley, D. (2024). Creative self-efficacy: Why it matters for the future of STEM education. Creativity Research Journal, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2309038
64. Wardanis, I., Ervina, I., & Linsiya, R. W. (2024). The influence of self-efficacy on the problem solving ability of final year students of the Faculty of Psychology at Muhammadiyah University of Jember in completing final assignments. Jurnal Psikologi, 1(3), Article no. 8. https://doi.org/10.47134/pjp.v1i3.2008