Review Reports - Towards Quality Education for All: Integrating EdTech, Mentorship, and Community in Support of SDG 4

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a socially relevant topic by examining how EdTech, mentorship, and service learning can contribute to inclusive STEM education aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 4. The research objectives are clearly stated, and the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is appropriate for the exploration of lived experiences. However, the article, in its current form, requires substantial revisions to strengthen its focus and clarity.

Firstly, the writing is excessively extensive in several sections, especially the background and methodology, which affects readability and coherence. Several paragraphs reiterate similar ideas, leading to conceptual dispersion. A more concise and focused narrative would improve the overall structure, particularly by synthesizing the discussion around SDG 4 and service learning.

Secondly, the theoretical foundation concerning the STEM approach remains underdeveloped. The article mentions STEM repeatedly but does not offer a clear conceptual definition or connect it meaningfully to the project’s pedagogical framework. Expanding this section with relevant references would offer a more robust grounding for the study.

Regarding the presentation of results, the narrative format aligns well with the IPA framework; however, the inclusion of a single, overly detailed table poses challenges for comprehension. Moreover, it is unclear whether the themes emerged inductively or were derived from a prior analytical model. Clarifying the coding process and presenting a more accessible thematic synthesis would improve transparency.

Additionally, while participant quotations are rich and illustrative, the discussion section could benefit from deeper engagement with recent literature. Currently, it reads as a reiteration of findings rather than a critical dialogue with the field.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped to significantly improve the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly.

Added and change the manuscript with:

This project supports SDG 4.1 by enhancing the quality of primary and secondary education through the development of high-quality, accessible educational content—such as lesson plans, digital tools, and instructional videos—that empower teachers and promote effective, technology-integrated learning (Timotheou et al., 2023). By focusing on both access and learning outcomes, the project contributes to equitable and engaging education for all learners.

In alignment with SDG 4.7, the project also fosters lifelong learning by providing resources accessible beyond the classroom, aimed at improving digital literacy for both students and adults. Its emphasis on digital citizenship and online safety promotes responsible participation in the digital society, supporting global citizenship and sustainable development (Liu, 2025).

…………….

Aligned with SDG 4.5, the project promotes inclusive and equitable education by developing resources that consider varying literacy levels, technological access, and cultural contexts. By targeting marginalized groups—such as those with disabilities or limited digital access—the project helps eliminate educational disparities and ensures equal access to quality learning opportunities (Tripon, 2024).

…

Service learning aligns education with the SDGs by fostering active engagement with real-world challenges. It promotes critical thinking and community partnerships, enhancing both learning and social impact. From primary education to business schools, this approach has been effectively used to teach sustainability and support communities, such as assisting small businesses during the COVID-19 crisis (Screpnik et al., 2024; Bittencourt et al., 2024; Campos‐García et al., 2024; Diez-Ojeda et al., 2025).

Added and change the manuscript with:

STEM education—an interdisciplinary approach to learning that integrates Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics—prepares students to thrive in an increasingly complex, technological, and globalized world. Unlike traditional models that treat these disciplines separately, STEM education emphasizes interconnected learning, real-world applications, and inquiry-based problem solving. It encourages students to think critically, engage in experimentation, and collaborate across disciplines to develop innovative solutions to real-life challenges. STEM education is crucial in addressing the demands of the 21st-century economy, where many emerging careers require proficiency in these areas (Dare, Keratithamkul,Hiwatig, 2021). It also promotes essential skills such as analytical thinking, creativity, adaptability, teamwork, and communication—competencies that are highly valued in diverse professional fields beyond STEM itself.

Integrating STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education with service learning offers a powerful approach to advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By engaging students in real-world problem-solving within their communities, STEM-focused service- learning fosters practical application of knowledge while addressing global challenges. This methodology encourages interdisciplinary thinking, innovation, and social responsibility, helping students develop both technical skills ( Xu, Ouyang,2022) and a deeper understanding of sustainability. Through collaborative projects—such as designing renewable energy solutions or improving local infrastructure—students become active contributors to sustainable development, embodying the transformative potential of education outlined in SDG 4 (quality education). These hands-on, collaborative projects not only reinforce academic learning but also build civic responsibility, empathy, and global awareness (Sultan, Axell, Hallström, 2024). For students, this approach enhances engagement, improves digital and scientific literacy, and nurtures a sense of purpose by connecting classroom learning to meaningful community impact.

When combined with service learning, STEM education becomes even more impactful. This pedagogical approach allows students to apply their skills in real-world contexts by addressing community needs—bridging the gap between theory and practice(Hallström, Norström, Schönborn, 2023). Projects might involve building assistive technologies for people with disabilities, developing apps for environmental monitoring, or engineering low-cost solutions for local infrastructure problems. These experiences not only reinforce academic learning but also cultivate civic engagement, empathy, and a sense of global responsibility.

Added and change the manuscript with:

Table 1. IPA steps-service-learning project

IPA Stage	Description
1. Data collection	Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a small group of students, teachers, and mentors who participated in the EdTech Mentor project. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their experiences with digital tools and mentoring within the service-learning context.
Participants & focus	- Students: Experiences using EdTech tools, challenges encountered, benefits, and impact on learning. - Teachers: Integration of tools in teaching, effects on engagement, and pedagogical implications. - Mentors: Support role, reflections on training, and barriers in fostering digital literacy.
2. Data analysis	A five-step IPA process was followed: 1. Transcription and immersion in the data through repeated readings. 2. Annotation of significant experiences and meanings. 3. Identification of emergent themes (e.g., “confidence with technology,” “motivation to learn”). 4. Exploration of relationships between themes across participants (e.g., links between low confidence and support needs). 5. Interpretation of themes within the context of the project's aims and alignment with SDG 4.
3. Reporting findings	A narrative synthesis was developed to present the findings, interweaving voices of students, teachers, and mentors. This approach provided depth and authenticity, highlighting how individual experiences reflected broader themes of inclusion, equity, and quality education aligned with SDG 4.

The analysis followed a structured, multi-phase plan:

Initial reading and immersion: Transcripts and video content were read and viewed multiple times to ensure deep familiarity with the material. The research team engaged in reflective note-taking, identifying initial impressions and emergent ideas.
Coding: A manual, line-by-line coding process was undertaken to identify key phrases, themes, and expressions of meaning. Both descriptive codes (e.g., “access challenges,” “positive student experience”) and interpretive codes (e.g., “feeling empowered,” “sense of belonging”) were applied. NVivo software was used to manage and organize the codes systematically.
Theme development: Codes were grouped into broader categories, leading to the development of preliminary themes. Thematic mapping was used to visualize relationships between codes and identify overarching patterns across participants’ responses.
Interpretative analysis: Each theme was interpreted through the IPA lens, with attention to how individuals made meaning of their experiences. The focus remained on both shared and divergent accounts, ensuring that analysis captured the diversity of participant voices and contexts.
Triangulation and validation: To enhance credibility, data from interviews were triangulated with participatory video content. The video method added contextual and emotional depth that reinforced and enriched findings from the interviews. A small subset of participants was invited to review preliminary interpretations (member checking), providing an opportunity to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the analysis.
Reporting: Final themes were supported with direct quotations and analytic commentary that illustrated how participants understood and experienced digital education, mentorship, and community engagement within the project.

Through a careful, iterative process of data immersion, coding, and thematic development, key insights emerged that reflect both the individual experiences and the shared meanings constructed across participant groups. The semi-structured interviews provided rich, first-person accounts of using educational technology, revealing not only practical challenges and benefits but also deeper reflections on identity, confidence, and agency within digital learning environments.The findings are presented as a narrative organized around the key themes that emerged during the analysis:

Added and change the manuscript with:

A key aspect of the project is the continuous evaluation of the impact of service-learning activities. This involves not only measuring immediate results, but also reflecting on how the learning experiences influence students' attitudes and behaviors. Through constant feedback, students can learn to adjust their approaches and continuously improve the impact of their work.

While participants expressed enthusiasm about the potential of digital tools to enhance learning and teaching, they also articulated significant challenges related to access and usability. These barriers frequently impacted the effectiveness of EdTech implementation and underscored persistent issues of digital equity and inclusion.

Students and teachers repeatedly highlighted the difficulties posed by insufficient access to devices and stable internet connections. For many, the digital learning environment was disrupted by the practical realities of shared devices, low bandwidth, and lack of private study space. One high school student shared, “I have to share one laptop with my two siblings, so I miss out on live sessions when it’s not my turn,” illustrating how household dynamics can limit participation. Similarly, a teacher noted, “Access isn’t just about having internet—it’s about having stable, fast, and reliable internet,” pointing to deeper structural inequalities that affected student engagement and outcomes.

Many students reported being overwhelmed by the variety of tools and the steep learning curves associated with each. A first-year university student commented, “Every class uses a different platform… it’s too much to figure out when you’re just trying to learn,” indicating that inconsistency in tools added cognitive strain and reduced learning efficiency. Educators also observed how interface complexity could alienate learners: “The tools are there, but they’re not always intuitive,” explained a mentor-teacher, describing how poor usability contributed to missed deadlines and disengagement.

From the educator perspective, integrating technology into lesson plans brought its own set of difficulties. Several teachers expressed feeling underprepared and unsupported. One described the shift as overwhelming: “We were expected to ‘go digital’ overnight. No one asked if we actually knew how to design a lesson using these platforms.” This comment reflects a broader theme of inadequate professional development and time constraints, both of which limited the pedagogical potential of EdTech tools.

Overall, the theme of access and usability challenges reveals that the digital divide is not solely about having or lacking technology—it includes how that technology is introduced, supported, and sustained. Without addressing these barriers, the transformative potential of educational technology remains uneven and inaccessible to many learners and educators.

Mentors and educators highlighted the transformative impact of consistent, personalized support in navigating digital tools. Rather than relying on one-off workshops or static instructional resources, participants emphasized the value of ongoing, hands-on guidance. Students in particular felt more motivated and capable when they had access to mentors who could explain platforms and provide troubleshooting help in real time. As one student noted, “I felt like I could actually try new tools without being afraid of messing up.”

Teachers echoed this need for structured and continuous professional development, pointing out that the fast pace of technological change demands ongoing learning opportunities. The presence of mentors also helped reduce feelings of isolation and overwhelm. One mentor-teacher stated, “We shouldn’t feel like we have to figure this out alone,” underscoring how mentorship fosters both technical competence and emotional resilience. This theme reinforces the notion that technology integration in education is not merely a technical challenge, but a social and pedagogical one that requires long-term investment in mentorship, community, and professional learning ecosystems.

Mentorship and continuous training emerged as essential enablers in participants’ successful engagement with digital tools. Both students and educators emphasized that having access to consistent guidance fostered a sense of confidence, encouraged risk-taking, and enabled more meaningful integration of technology into learning and teaching practices.

Participants often described the emotional toll of teaching and learning in isolation, with many situated in rural or underserved regions where physical collaboration is limited. For these individuals, the project served as a vital lifeline. One rural teacher explained, “Before this, I felt like I was teaching on an island,” expressing a sense of professional loneliness that was alleviated through participation in the program. Similarly, students in remote areas reflected on how the initiative made them feel “part of something bigger,” despite the distance separating them.

These narratives highlight that the virtual nature of the project did not hinder connection—it facilitated it, offering spaces for peer interaction, shared learning, and the exchange of ideas.

The presence of mentors helped bridge the physical divide and created emotionally supportive environments. Mentors were described not only as facilitators of digital skills but as empathetic figures who offered encouragement, check-ins, and consistent feedback. Students reported feeling “seen” and “heard,” even through a screen—emphasizing the relational quality of mentorship. As one student put it, “It wasn’t just about tech—it was about having someone who checked in, who cared how things were going.”

Teachers, too, valued the opportunity to receive support from mentors and peers. One participant described mentors as helping them “build a team atmosphere,” reinforcing the idea that professional development is most effective when rooted in community, not compliance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores an important and timely topic: how inclusive STEM education intersects with EdTech implementation. That said, to meet the expectations of a Q1 journal, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth analysis, particularly in the discussion section. Given the qualitative approach, the interpretation of participants’ experiences could be further developed to offer richer insights.

The study’s originality also needs to be more clearly emphasized. What sets this research apart from previous work? For instance, its focus on how mentorship supports digital inclusion through participatory video in underserved contexts is compelling and should be brought to the forefront.

In terms of writing, the overall clarity and flow can be improved by tightening up repetitive wording and refining sentence structure. It would also help to specify the geographical or demographic context of the study to better ground the findings. Finally, drawing clearer links between the results and broader educational policy or practice would strengthen the practical relevance of the research.

Author Response

Added and change the manuscript with:

These narratives highlight that the virtual nature of the project did not hinder connection—it facilitated it, offering spaces for peer interaction, shared learning, and the exchange of ideas.

Added and change the manuscript with:

This study offers a distinctive contribution by exploring how mentorship fosters digital inclusion through the use of participatory video in underserved educational contexts. While previous research has examined digital inclusion and mentorship separately, this project uniquely integrates them within a creative, learner-centered methodology. By engaging participants not only as learners but also as content creators, the study positions mentorship as both a relational and pedagogical tool that supports empowerment, agency, and access to technology. This focus on participatory video as a medium for expression and inclusion in low-resource settings brings new insight into how digital education can be made more equitable and meaningful, particularly for marginalized learners.

Together, these methodological approaches created a robust, participant-centered framework for examining the impact of the EdTech Mentor Project. Despite the limitations inherent to qualitative research, the integration of interviews, participatory video, and IPA enabled a nuanced exploration of educational experiences, offering valuable insights into the intersection of technology, teaching, and inclusive practice in engaged communities.

The findings of this study have significant implications for educational policy and practice, particularly in advancing digital inclusion and equitable learning opportunities. By demonstrating how mentorship combined with participatory video can enhance engagement, empowerment, and access to technology in underserved contexts, the research offers a scalable model for integrating technology into curricula. Policymakers and practitioners can draw on these insights to design programs that not only provide technological resources but also foster supportive relationships and active learner participation. This approach aligns with global educational priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals, by promoting inclusive, quality education that addresses both access and meaningful learning outcomes.

Added and change the manuscript with:

…………….

…

…..

Table 1. IPA steps-service-learning project

IPA Stage	Description
1. Data collection	Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a small group of students, teachers, and mentors who participated in the EdTech Mentor project. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their experiences with digital tools and mentoring within the service-learning context.
Participants & focus	- Students: Experiences using EdTech tools, challenges encountered, benefits, and impact on learning. - Teachers: Integration of tools in teaching, effects on engagement, and pedagogical implications. - Mentors: Support role, reflections on training, and barriers in fostering digital literacy.
2. Data analysis	A five-step IPA process was followed: 1. Transcription and immersion in the data through repeated readings. 2. Annotation of significant experiences and meanings. 3. Identification of emergent themes (e.g., “confidence with technology,” “motivation to learn”). 4. Exploration of relationships between themes across participants (e.g., links between low confidence and support needs). 5. Interpretation of themes within the context of the project's aims and alignment with SDG 4.
3. Reporting findings	A narrative synthesis was developed to present the findings, interweaving voices of students, teachers, and mentors. This approach provided depth and authenticity, highlighting how individual experiences reflected broader themes of inclusion, equity, and quality education aligned with SDG 4.

…………………………….

The participants reflected a broad spectrum of geographic, technological, and educational contexts, enabling the research to capture diverse perspectives on the use of digital tools in education. Purposeful sampling was used to ensure representation across different stakeholder groups and to explore how each experienced and interpreted their involvement in the project.

…..

These narratives highlight that the virtual nature of the project did not hinder connection—it facilitated it, offering spaces for peer interaction, shared learning, and the exchange of ideas.

……

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive revisions. The manuscript now presents a clearer and more focused narrative, particularly in the theoretical framework and methodological description. The conceptual foundation of STEM education has been meaningfully strengthened, and the improvements in the presentation of the IPA process enhance the transparency and coherence of the analysis.

The discussion section is more balanced and connects the findings with broader debates around inclusion, digital equity, and mentorship in STEM education. While some sections—particularly in the results—could still be further condensed for readability, the overall contribution of the study is now much clearer.

I appreciate your responsiveness to the feedback provided. In its revised form, the manuscript offers valuable insights and is suitable for publication.