**3. Paradigms of coding**

Creativity and coding do not always stand together. It depends how teachers perceive them. To reflect on coding from the perspective of creativity's conceptual framework presented, it is necessary to introduce four possible paradigms of coding [16]: postmodernist, functionalist, interpretivist, and emancipatory.

The first understands coding as a creative activity oriented to the think-makeimprove process; it finds its natural application in informal settings, within spaces such as FabLabs or communities such as CoderDojo. In addition to being oriented by what the media returns on the topic, it focuses attention on coding as a tool that—in line with digital media—calls for the revision of teaching practices, the return of the laboratory, the flipped lesson, and interrelationships between informal and formal learning.

In contrast, the functionalist paradigm approaches coding as a language useful for better understanding school subjects, on which programming activities can be grafted. Strongly recalling an idea of school as a space of instruction for profit [17], it approaches coding from a disciplinary perspective [18–20].

The third, interpretive, uses coding to develop critical analysis; coding is a device to develop critical thinking. The actions of disassembling to understand and reassembling to create [21] are the basis of the creative approach based on problems and solutions [22] that well activates the use-modify-create transition [23].

Finally, the emancipatory paradigm resorts to coding to overcome the dictatorship of the script [24]. In a political-social context, it starts from self-awareness and empowerment and goes beyond the digital into the outside world, trying to unhinge its logic.

In order to better understand the implications of these four paradigms for constructing implementation paths, it is possible to think of an organization that works on a dual axis.

On the one hand, the first axis is what we might call functional enrollment: from this perspective, coding can play a facilitating function with respect to the adaptation of subjects to a society like ours marked by the cultural and productive prominence of information technology, or a critical function of soliciting suspicion with respect to the risk of homogenization and the renunciation of thought.

On the other hand, the second axis is what we might refer to as the axis of educational enrollment: from this perspective, coding can be thought of both as a pedagogical logic through which to build the citizen of tomorrow and as a social logic aimed at releasing energies and activating resources. In the former case, we move within formal contexts (such as school), while in the latter, we occupy nonformal contexts. In the first case, coding is an education; in the second, it is a form of expression, a way of being, even an experience of media-activism.

Constructing the two axes in the form of a Cartesian plane, four quadrants are identified to examine as many ways of thinking about coding (**Figure 2**).

The hypothesis emerging from discussing with teachers and working in the classroom is that the adaptation perspective prevails in the teachers' representations. Either coding is an activity that serves primarily to prepare future professionals in school by getting them accustomed to interacting with the languages of computer science (functionalist paradigm), or to unleash the creative possibilities of children who are finally allowed to express themselves in their most natural ways (postmodernist paradigm).

*Coding and Creativity: Reflections and Design Proposals DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109971*

#### **Figure 2.** *Matrix of the four paradigms with respect to coding education.*

Education's interest is on the lower end of the quadrant. The protagonist here is critical thinking, the call for deconstructive reflection, the systematic teaching of suspicion as a means of gaining meaning at a deeper level. From this perspective, coding ceases to be thought of as a gymnasium of future computing and is seen in its more specific pedagogical valence, namely that of being a media education activity, moving beyond the dictatorship of the script. This expression refers to the inherent ambiguity of the 2.0 logic; in fact, while merely filling in the format presents itself as a winning aspect of these applications, by virtue of the ease and navigability this entails, it also results in standardization. The script encourages the dissemination and polarity of computer applications but robs the user of the ability to modify formats. Owning the code, in this perspective, means knowing what is "behind the script" and being able to modify it if one wants to.

Therefore, the problem is not the new technology itself but how it is used; one can opt for games and activities that make one passive in this interaction or one can devise tools and programs that open up a thousand possibilities and engage children in the process of creative learning and playing.

To understand how teachers see coding, it is important to collect their representations of it.

Representations are cognitive systems, processes adopted by subjects to control the natural fear of the unknown, "to understand and act upon society, serve them as a reference frame for their thoughts and decisions, and color their imagination" ([25], p. 952). Moscovici had studied anchoring and objectification as systems that allow making familiar what is unfamiliar or novel. In particular, Moscovici had emphasized the role of social representations as a guide of behavior.

To investigate what is the most popular representation of coding, we recalled a set of 12 images (three images for each model) (**Figure 3**) employed in a previous study designed by Center for Research in Media, Innovation and Technology Education (CREMIT) and completed by 989 subjects [26].

The images metaphorically represent the various characteristics of the four models: the functionalist model and the postmodernist model are visualized through think-make-improve activity and more logical-mathematical research, while the

**Figure 3.** *Four coding paradigms and images.*

interpretive model is visualized as critical analysis and the emancipatory model as overcoming the script.

Images provide an alternative to word-based surveys and are growing interest in social research methods [27]. The two surveys in this study involved 24 kindergarten educators and 23 primary school teachers in 2021 and 2022.

Educators and teachers were asked to choose the image that, in their opinion, represented the vision of coding and how it works in education. They were not told either that these images depicted approaches to coding on a symbolic level or what paradigm each image was associated with. In **Figures 4** and **5**, you can see the results. It is evident that postmodernist representation is the most common one.

Merging the data from the individual images, it can be seen that in kindergarten educators' representations of coding, the postmodernist model emerges overwhelmingly (76%), followed by the functionalist (18%) and the emancipatory models (6%).

Furthermore, in primary school teachers, the representations are even dichotomous: 74% of them represent themselves in the postmodernist model and 26% in the functionalist model (**Figures 6** and **7**). These data bring with them a reflection: it is precisely educators and teachers who need to change their perspective, leading students to be able to develop divergent thinking and meaningful learning.

**Figure 4.** *Images of coding for preschool educators.*

**Figure 5.** *Images of coding for primary teachers.*

Theoretical framework on creativity and on coding with these initial data was discussed with educators and teachers to reflect about teaching and learning. This phase has been the starting point to change the design of coding, moving it from a framework related to the simple application of code to one open to creativity and to monitor and to evaluate the outcomes of learning.

#### **Figure 6.**

*Distribution of paradigms for preschool educators.*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Distribution of paradigms for primary teachers.*
