Shaping the Discourse around Quality EdTech in India: Including Contextualized and Evidence-Based Solutions in the Ecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The me Justice-as-content and Justice-as-process approaches, as well as the criteria chosen, look very interesting and appropriate.

In addition to what has been analysed, I just wonder whether EdTech products would allow also learning that assure anonymity. In a world, in which knowledge contributors might risk to compromise their careers because of the nature of their argumentations, the possibility to contribute by anonymous EdTech products could be a solution to improve critical thinking.

Author Response

Comment 1: The me Justice-as-content and Justice-as-process approaches, as well as the criteria chosen, look very interesting and appropriate.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the comment.

Comment 2: In addition to what has been analysed, I just wonder whether EdTech products would allow also learning that assure anonymity. In a world, in which knowledge contributors might risk to compromise their careers because of the nature of their argumentations, the possibility to contribute by anonymous EdTech products could be a solution to improve critical thinking.

Authors’ response: This is an important issue and thank you for raising this. EdTech products are increasingly paying more attention to data privacy of learners. However that is not the focus of the current study and hence we did not include it in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Pay more attention to your Research Questions, and please present in the  Findings section the answers to RQs in a clear and understandable manner.

2. Tulna index itself could be presented in more detailed way. The reader must familarize with the given website to have a wider perspective of the created index. The main elements & parameters for evaulation should be presented in the paper.

3. Concerning the design of the Tulna index: please provide details about designing process (details about interviews, numbers/ amount of participants etc., implemented method(s)). Maybe you can add some details to the text or/and in Figure 1, just a possible suggestion.

4. In Section 5 please refer to Research Questions.

5. Not sufficient data about the participants given in 5.1. Please reformulate the description to present the data collection and analysis in a clear way, step by step, with sufficient detailed descriptions.

6. Again, more details about the teacher training (5.2.2)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your improvements. I appreciate your making the effort to refer to all my comments. The improvements are comprehensive and fill in the "gaps" of the previous version of your manuscript. I hope that my comments and suggestions helped you to make your work better. In my opinion, your manuscript includes very interesting information based on your experience.

In its current form, your manuscript is much more valuable - congratulations!