Editorial: The Agency of Educational Artifacts: Reimagining the Role of Robots in Cognitive Development

Maria Impedovo^*

• Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France

The study by Acosta-Amaya, Peña-Palacio & Jiménez-Builes (2025) reports on a large-scale intervention (≈ 2,500 out-of-school or at-risk youths and 250 teachers across rural mining regions) that used low-cost, university-designed robotic kits to re-engage youth with schooling and foster social inclusion. The authors argue that robotics served as a "mediating artifact," enabling hands-on, collaborative, contextually meaningful learning that resonated with local realities. From a pedagogical perspective, this initiative demonstrates how educational robotics can transcend the typical STEMclassroom paradigm: the robots were built from inexpensive, recycled, or locally-sourced materials, ensuring affordability and sustainability -vital when working in resource-constrained, marginalized settings. Importantly, the results suggest improvements not only in student motivation and engagement, but in actual re-enrollment, collaborative learning and teacher confidence in using technological tools. However, challenges remain. The authors note concerns about long-term sustainability, scaling to other contexts, and ensuring lasting impact beyond the immediate novelty of robotics intervention. For educational equity and inclusion, this model is extremely promising: it offers a concrete pathway to reintegrate marginalized youth into formal education, while deploying resources that respect local constraints. For my own field -international teacher education -this suggests that robotics interventions should always be context-aware, and co-designed with local communities to foster ownership, sustainability, and relevance.The Role of Play-Robots in Competence Development Panelli, Guerrieri & Bonarini (2025) argue that play -a foundational mode of learning -can be enriched by robots, whose autonomy and expressive capacities allow for more interactive, adaptive, and socially meaningful play than traditional static toys. This reconceptualization of "play" is significant. Rather than treating robots purely as tools for instruction, the authors elevate them as playful agents that can engage learners in novel ways, fostering socio-emotional competencies, curiosity, and perhaps even peer collaboration. Such a shift aligns well with emerging paradigms in STEAM education that value creativity, agency, and learner-centered pedagogy. Nevertheless, the paper -while visionary -appears more theoretical or conceptual (the abstract speaks broadly of "opportunities for learning, development, and social connection") than strongly empirical. This means that while the potential of play-robots is compelling, actual evidence of learning gains, transfer effects, or long-term impact remains to be robustly demonstrated. For educators and designers, this article invites us to think beyond robotics as mere STEM-instruction tools: robots could become companions in playful, socially rich learning environments. For teacher education, it suggests preparing future teachers not only to "use" robots but to choreograph meaningful play -attending to emotional, social, and developmental dimensions, not just technical skills.Active Learning in Mechatronics: From Software to Robotic Hand Construction Zavala-Yoé, Urriza-Arellano, López-Caudana & Ramírez-Mendoza (2025) introduces a carefully designed active-learning (AL) scheme -"SciTSA-AL" -combining project-based learning, software simulation, and tangible robotics: students model, design, simulate, and ultimately build a robotic hand over a 10-week curriculum. Their statistical analysis comparing project grades vs exam grades shows that project-based components significantly improved learning outcomes in most learner cohorts (7 out of 9 groups), suggesting that SciTSA-AL fosters deeper understanding of complex mechatronics and control-system concepts. From an epistemological viewpoint, this approach helps bridge the enduring gap between theory and practice: abstract system modeling and control design are not taught in isolation but immediately tied to building a functioning mechanical artifact. Such embodied, hands-on learning aligns well with constructivist and experiential learning theories. Potential criticism: although the results are promising, the study does not compare SciTSA-AL directly to a control group undergoing traditional lecture-based instruction; rather, improvements are measured within cohort projects vs exam results. This limits the strength of claims about superiority over traditional teaching. For higher-education teacher training -including STEAM teacher education -this article offers a replicable model for integrating robotics-based AL. It underscores the value of combining simulation software and tangible robotics to deepen conceptual understanding, and hints at scalable curricular designs that align with real-world engineering practice. Anik and Romero (2025) explore how engagement with modular robotics (CreaCube tasks) influences divergent thinking (fluidity, flexibility, originality) and problem-solving speed across different age groups -from infants/children to seniors. Their findings are intriguing: in the first session, younger participants (infants and children) displayed greater originality though solved problems quickly but perhaps more superficially; in subsequent tasks, teenagers, young adults, and seniors showed enhanced originality, suggesting the role of experience and cognitive maturation in creative problem solving. This suggests that modular robotics can be an inclusive, lifespan-spanning medium for fostering creativity and problem-solving -not just for children or STEM students, but adults and older individuals too. It expands the field of educational robotics beyond early education or engineering to lifelong learning and adult education. Yet, limitations abound: the study may not control for prior exposure to technology, familiarity with robotics, or socio-cultural factors that influence creative performance. Additionally, modular robotics tasks may attract certain types of learners -possibly biasing the sample. The authors acknowledge the need for customized instruction depending on age and prior experience. For teacher education and curriculum designers, this paper opens possibilities for designing robotics-based creative problem-solving activities tailored to different age groups. In adult education or continuing education contexts, modular robotics may offer a novel avenue for promoting lifelong creative thinking, agency, and cognitive flexibility. Taken together, these four articles chart a compelling trajectory for educational robotics: from inclusion and equity (marginalized youth), to active-learning in higher education (Mechatronics), to creativity and lifelong learning (across ages), and to reconceptualizing play with robots as meaningful, social, and developmental. For a researcher and educator in teacher education -especially one concerned with identity, culture, and adaptation -several broader reflections emerge:The success of robotics-based interventions depends heavily on how well they are adapted to the socio-economic, cultural, and material realities of learners. The mining-community study shows that low-cost, locally appropriate design matters for equity.Robotics and active-learning offer opportunities for agency -both for students and teachers. Teachers become facilitators of creative, embodied, collaborative processes; learners become cocreators.Robotics is not confined to early STEM education or elite engineering programs. As shown by the modular robotics study across ages, it can become a tool for lifelong creativity, inclusion, and cognitive engagement.Traditional curricula might need rethinking; robotics invites multimodal, interdisciplinary, projectbased, and learner-centered pedagogy that goes beyond textbooks.While promising, robotics-based pedagogies require long-term planning, community engagement, resource mobilization, and reflection on equity, access, and durability -especially in marginalized or resource-poor contexts. The four papers in this Research Topic together paint a compelling picture: educational robotics is no longer a novelty reserved for after-school clubs or tech-savvy early adopters. Rather, roboticsespecially embodied, modular, non-anthropomorphic systems -has the potential to become a core component of future educational ecosystems: tools that act, respond, scaffold, and grow with learners. By situating robots as cognitive and social agents -not just programmable machines -we open the door to richer, more inclusive, more flexible educational practices. Such a shift not only broadens what we understand by "educational artifact," but also reimagines what education itself can be: a collaborative dance between humans, materials, and machines; a space where creativity, inclusion, and mastery all find room to flourish. It is our hope -as a Topic Editor -that this collection will inspire future research along these lines, and that the educational robotics community will continue to explore, critically and creatively, the agency of artifacts in human development.