Abstract*

F1000Research

2046-1402

F1000 Research Limited

London, UK

10.12688/f1000research.178595.1

Software Tool Article

Articles

Improving educational quality through digital empowerment: a web platform for academic management in secondary education

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]

Soto Zenteno

Lorena

Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 1 Cayahuallpa

Carlos

Conceptualization Methodology Software Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5253-5638 a 1 Pacheco

Alex

Conceptualization Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-0730 1 1Professional School of Systems Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Cañete, San Vicente de Cañete, Lima, 15701, Peru

a 1971975680@undc.edu.pe

No competing interests were disclosed.

13 3 2026

2026

402

28 2 2026

2026

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract* Background

Grade management in Peruvian educational institutions faces significant challenges due to the widespread use of Excel spreadsheets, which often lead to delays, errors, and fragmented information during registration, consultation, and report card preparation processes. National studies indicate that implementing web-based systems can reduce procedural times by 50% to 80%, improving efficiency and collaboration among teachers and administrative staff. In this context, the present study aims to improve grade management at Colegio Nacional de Imperial through the development of a web-based application designed to enhance accuracy, speed, and reliability in academic management.

Methods

The system was developed using the Rational Unified Process (RUP), structured into four phases: inception, elaboration, construction, and transition. Requirements were analyzed, the system was designed and implemented using a relational database, and functionality was validated through testing. A quantitative pre-experimental design with pretest and posttest measurements was applied to evaluate performance improvements before full deployment.

Results

The implementation of the web system produced substantial improvements in key grade management processes. The Grade Registration Time (GRT) decreased by 70.14% (from 4,080 to 864 seconds). The Grade Search Time (GST) improved by 79.39%, increasing efficiency and precision in data retrieval. The Report Card Generation Time (RCGT) showed the most significant reduction, decreasing by 97.74% (from 434.5 to 9.83 seconds), considerably streamlining report generation and improving access to academic performance information.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates that a RUP-based web application significantly optimizes grade management in a rural secondary education context. The quantitative pre-experimental results confirm notable time reductions and improved information quality, highlighting the transformative potential of digital solutions in strengthening academic management processes in schools.

web application grade management RUP cross-curricular skills secondary education academic management.

II Concurso de Subvención de Proyectos de Tesis

009-2023

This work was funded by the Vice Presidency for Research of the Universidad Nacional de Cañete (UNDC) within the framework of the “II Concurso de Subvención de Proyectos de Tesis” [contract number 009-2023].

Introduction

Currently, Basic Regular Education (EBR) institutions carry out various academic management tasks such as schedule planning, student enrollment, attendance, grade recording, and the delivery of learning progress reports known as report cards or grade reports. Teachers in EBR institutions have as one of their main functions the evaluation of activities and the recording of students’ grades during each bimester of the school year ( Ministerio de Educación, 2023). These activities are carried out in digital documents or, in some cases, manually using printed sheets, which generates greater effort and time consumption, negatively affecting the quality of processes and the level of satisfaction of the people involved ( Carbajal, 2018).

The traditional grade recording process before system implementation is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Grade recording before implementation.

Source: Own elaboration.

Students’ grade records are delivered to the school administrators so that they can be entered into the Educational Institution Management Support Information System (SIAGIE), which allows EBR institutions to carry out academic management tasks ( SIAGIE, 2023). However, as it is a nationwide platform, it experiences considerable slowness and, in some cases, system crashes due to the overwhelming number of users and data being entered, which prevents school administrators from obtaining reports on time. This generates the need to have their own system that optimizes these processes and guarantees the timely delivery of academic reports, as well as the obtaining of statistical data that SIAGIE does not provide.

Given these situations, the use of information technologies becomes an essential and indispensable tool to optimize the various processes of different institutions, companies, and organizations ( Flores-Chacón et al., 2023). In this same context, Basic Regular Education (EBR) institutions have not been exempt from the changes generated by the use of technologies in various areas of society ( Granados et al., 2020).

Peruvian researchers, ( Esteban & Trujillo, 2021) indicated that at I.E.P Nuestro Salvador in Villa María de Triunfo, Lima, grade recording was carried out manually using paper sheets and Excel spreadsheets, which caused various problems such as errors in grade entry, duplication of information, and loss of academic records. Therefore, the educational institution sought to solve these problems through the implementation of a web system.

Meanwhile, ( Angulo, 2021), with the implementation of his Web System to optimize the academic management process of I.E.P Niño Jesús de Belén, observed a notable improvement in the productive efficiency of the enrollment process, with an increase of 69.71%, and the level of compliance in the delivery of report cards improved by 50.89%.

In Trujillo, the implementation of an Integrated Web System to improve the academic management of E.S.F.A.P Macedonio de la Torre, ( Abad, 2020) achieved a significant reduction in the average times of different processes: enrollment registration was reduced to 9.45 minutes (equivalent to 70.16%); grade entry was reduced to 5.94 minutes (70.14%); the generation of grade reports was reduced to 3.17 minutes (70.14%); and the search for enrollments was reduced by 5.58 minutes (79.05%).

These difficulties are not only present in Peru, as this obstacle is reflected in the research work carried out by ( Pozo, 2023) in Ecuador, which indicates that the Unidad Educativa Ancón performed grade recording manually or using digital documents because, although they had a system for these processes, it did not cover all needs and had many shortcomings. Therefore, the institution found it necessary to have a web application, where after its implementation the result was a reduction in grade entry time and report generation by 80%.

Finally, in Colombia, ( Ibañez, 2021) integrated the Automation of student grade recording into a web platform, for which 5 phases were carried out in the development of the project: (1) Understanding of the current process, (2) Form creation, (3) System coding, and (4) Automation and system quality testing. The final result was a reduction in grade recording time from 50 to 2 minutes; that is, there was a 96% improvement in performing this task.

Methods

The web application was developed following the phases and disciplines defined in the Rational Unified Process (RUP) methodology. The activities performed throughout the development lifecycle and the corresponding deliverables are described in this section. The phases, disciplines, and deliverables involved in the development process are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Phases, disciplines, and deliverables for the development of the web application.

Phases	Disciplines	Deliverables
Inception	Business process modeling	Modeling of the grade control process
Inception	Business process modeling	Software development plan
Elaboration	Requirements	Requirements gathering
		Identification and description of functional and non-functional requirements
		Prioritization of functional requirements
	Análisis y diseño	Modeling of functional requirements (use cases and specification)
		Requirements acceptance document
		Software architecture design
		Database design
Construction	Transition	Coding of components
Transition	Deployment	Launch of the web application Web application delivery report

Source: Own elaboration.

• First phase: Inception

In this phase of the project, the goal was to describe the initial case of the educational institution through a flowchart to determine whether the grade control web application would represent significant value. Therefore, to begin this phase, a meeting was first held with the administrators of I.E.P “Imperial,” where the problem to be solved and the technological solution to be implemented were presented. Since benefits and improvements that the implementation would bring to the grade control process were identified, the project was accepted and, consequently, the software development began.

The modeling of the grade control process is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Modeling of the grade control process (flowchart).

Source: Own elaboration.

• Second phase: Elaboration

During this phase, the initial user requirements were detailed, and both the functional and non-functional requirements of the system were described and evaluated. The detailed user requirements identified during the analysis phase are summarized in Table 2. Subsequently, the functional requirements were modeled to support the architectural design of the system, and the database structure of the web application was developed. The logical database design is illustrated in Figure 3, while the physical database design is presented in Figure 4.

Table 2. User requirements gathering.

Techniques	Description of user requirements
Techniques	Teachers	Vice principal	Principal
Documentary Analysis	Teachers need to register the activities evaluated in each competency of a course and for each bimester.	The vice principal needs to register the courses.	The principal needs to view the students’ grade records for each section.
	Teachers need to enter the grades of evaluated activities for students according to the competency of a course and for each bimester. The grading scale is as follows: AD = outstanding achievement A = achieved B = in progress C = beginning SN = no grade NST = did not work on the competency	The vice principal needs to register the competencies of a course.	The principal needs to view the records of transversal competency grades of students in each section.
	Teachers need to enter the grades of transversal competencies of each student and for each bimester. The grading scale is as follows: AD = outstanding achievement A = achieved B = in progress C = beginning NT = no grade NST = did not work on the competency	The vice principal needs to register the grade levels.	The principal needs to view the students’ report cards for each section.
		The vice principal needs to register the sections of a grade level.	The principal needs to view the merit order of students in each section.
		The vice principal needs to assign teachers to a section of a grade level and to a course.
		The vice principal needs to assign teachers as tutors of a section of a grade level.
		The vice principal needs to register students according to their grade level and section.
		The vice principal needs to register transversal competencies.
		The vice principal needs to prepare the report card of each student and for each bimester. It must display the educational institution’s information, student data such as grades obtained in each course competency, justified and unjustified absences and tardiness; and the teacher’s descriptive conclusions. Additionally, the system must allow storing, modifying, deleting, and printing the reports.
		The vice principal needs to view the grades of students’ competencies.
		The vice principal needs to view the grades of students’ transversal competencies.
Interview	Teachers need to enter a descriptive conclusion for each course competency and for each bimester.	The vice principal needs to obtain the merit order report of students in each section of a grade level for each bimester.
Interview	Teachers need to enter a descriptive conclusion for each transversal competency evaluated for a student and for each bimester.

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 3. Logical design of the web application database.

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 4. Physical design of the web application database.

Source: Own elaboration.

This phase was essential as it ensured that the system was developed on a solid foundation, since what is detailed in this phase is what was implemented in the web application.

• Third phase: Construction

Development Technologies and Add-ons

The programming language used was PHP, selected for its ease of use, its wide adoption in web application development, and the large variety of available libraries that simplify programming tasks. This choice aligns with similar educational systems, such as the one developed by ( Oscco, 2022), which highlights its simplicity and scalability for educational environments.

Customization for Educational Institutions

The software was specifically adapted to the needs of Peruvian educational institutions, customizing data categorization, user roles, and report generation for more effective grade management. This practice is reflected in the research of ( De La Cruz et al., 2025), where academic monitoring modules were adjusted to tutor and student roles, improving efficiency in personalized processes. Likewise, ( Huaman-Yupanqui et al., 2024) implemented a web system with Scrum at the Universidad Nacional Amazónica de Madre de Dios, adapting user registration, enrollment, and certificate functions to the institution’s local regulations.

Technological details for indexing consideration ▪

Backend Framework: The system runs on PHP 8.1.

▪

Frontend Framework: The user interface is developed with Bootstrap, an open-source framework recognized for its responsive design adaptable to different devices.

▪

Add-ons and libraries: Resources such as TCPDF were strategically integrated for the generation of report cards in PDF format and ApexCharts to provide the system with statistical chart visualization capabilities, in addition to other libraries that contribute to improving the user experience.

• Fourth phase: Transition

In this phase, it was ensured that the software was ready for end users, and all aspects necessary for a successful implementation were managed.

Deployment

At this stage, the complete and functional version of the system is launched in the production environment, verifying that all functionalities are operational and that the application meets the requirements defined by the institution. In this way, the system is ready for real use by teachers and administrative staff.

Minimum system requirements: ▪

Server:

•

A server environment compatible with PHP 8.1.

•

Sufficient storage capacity to manage institutional information, using a MySQL database.

▪

Client:

•

A modern web browser with JavaScript enabled.

•

An Internet connection to allow access to the web-based system.

By ensuring compliance with these requirements, it is guaranteed that the software tool remains accessible and functional even in educational environments with limited resources, promoting its adoption and continuous use.

Use Cases

In this section, the results obtained regarding the grade management process and the user experience with the platform are presented.

Use Case 1: Grade Registration

To verify the functionality of the software, a use case based on the grade registration process within the software is presented. In this case, the teacher accesses the grades module and proceeds to record the evaluations of each student, previously selecting the course, grade level, section, and corresponding activity. The system facilitates the orderly entry of information, validates the data entered, and securely stores it in the database, optimizing teaching tasks and ensuring precise control of academic information, as shown in Figure 5. This flow coincides with the use case described by ( León-Velarde et al., 2024), where the teacher records grades by subject, partial term, and bimester in an ASP.NET web system, validating data and automatically generating a history for students.

Figure 5. Grade registration.

Source: Own elaboration.

Input:

N: Number in the list, ordered by surname

Fullname: Surname and Firstname, no editable

SCORE: AD, A, B, C or NT, editable

Use Case 2: Grade Search

To demonstrate the functionality of the software, a use case focused on searching for grades within the academic system of the educational institution is presented. In this scenario, the user performs a query by entering specific criteria such as the student’s name, course, and academic period. When executing the search, the software processes the request and displays a list of results that match the established parameters. This practical case demonstrates the system’s ability to facilitate the rapid and accurate retrieval of relevant academic information for teaching and administrative staff, optimizing grade management and consultation, as shown in Figure 6. This flow aligns with the search use case in the research by ( Ramos-Miller & Pacheco, 2023), where the user enters criteria such as asset name, category, or location in a web system, processing the query and displaying a list of matches with details such as description and status.

Figure 6. Grade search.

Source: Own elaboration.

Input:

Filters applied in the form:

Student: XXXX

Course: PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, CITIZENSHIP AND CIVICS

Bimonthly: FIRST BIMESTER

Output: List of coincidences: •

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, CITIZENSHIP AND CIVICS

○

Competence, Grade, Teacher

Use Case 3: Generation of Report Cards According to UGEL Guidelines

This scenario demonstrates the functionality of the software for the automatic generation of report cards in accordance with the guidelines established by the Local Educational Management Unit (UGEL). The user accesses the reports module, where options can be selected to generate report cards by student, by classroom, by grade level, or by academic period. Based on this selection, the system processes the recorded information, organizes the grade data, and presents it in a standardized format that complies with the official UGEL requirements. This functionality allows the educational institution to efficiently prepare and issue formal academic documents, ensuring regulatory compliance and facilitating administrative management, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Report cards generated by the software.

Source: Own elaboration.

Input: •

Access the “Progress Report” view

Output:

•

Progress Report per student

Discussion

The findings of the research show that the grade registration time before the implementation of the web application was 4080 seconds, whereas with the implementation of the web application the time was reduced to 864 seconds, achieving an improvement of 79.39% in the grade registration time indicator. This result is consistent with ( Ramadhani et al., 2025), who developed a web system that integrates the recording of daily, midterm, final grades, and attendance with automatic calculation of the final grade, eliminating manual entry errors and slow processes typical of manual school management. Likewise, ( Amfotis & Wati, 2025) optimized grade registration through a web system that automates the complete flow of master data and reports, improving overall efficiency in educational environments.

Regarding the second indicator, the results show that the grade search time before the implementation of the web application was 789 seconds, while with the implementation of the web application the time was 162.63 seconds, achieving a significant improvement of 79.39% in the grade search time indicator. This result is contrasted with ( Ugalingan & Antonio, 2025), who through quasi-experimental tests demonstrated greater speed and accuracy in searching academic records when comparing the manual system with the automated web version. Similarly, ( Patil et al., 2023) facilitated rapid searches of student records thanks to their web structure with access roles, reducing time compared to traditional methods.

Finally, regarding the third indicator, the research results show that the time required to prepare report cards before the implementation of the web application was 434.5 seconds, whereas with the implementation of the web application the time was reduced to 9.83 seconds, indicating a 97.74% improvement in the report card preparation time indicator. This progress is consistent with ( Nitron, 2024), who integrated the automatic generation of grade reports and report cards, streamlining administrative processes that were previously manual and prone to duplication. Likewise, ( Patiam, 2024) optimized the preparation of grade reports and class records through web automation, focusing on reducing teachers’ workload in repetitive activities.

Conclusions

It is determined that the web application significantly improves the grade control of students at Colegio Nacional de Imperial. This is supported by the results obtained in the indicators TRN, TBN, and TELN, which, after being subjected to testing, demonstrated a positive effect following the implementation of the web application.

A significant improvement of 70.14% was obtained in the grade registration time (TRN) of student grade control. This result determines the fulfillment of the first specific objective proposed, demonstrating the effectiveness of the implemented web application in optimizing and streamlining the grade registration process.

An improvement of 79.39% was obtained in the grade search time (TBN) of student grade control at Colegio Nacional de Imperial. This result determines the fulfillment of the second specific objective proposed, demonstrating the effectiveness of the implemented web application in accelerating grade consultation, facilitating faster and more efficient access to information.

A significant improvement of 97.74% was obtained in the report card preparation time (TELN) of student grade control at Colegio Nacional de Imperial, Cañete, 2023. This result determines the fulfillment of the third specific objective proposed, demonstrating the effectiveness of the implemented web application for generating grade reports, making the process faster and more accurate, which has allowed the timely preparation and delivery of reports.

Ethics and consent

Ethics and consent are not required for this article.

Software availability

DIGIEDU: A Web-Based Grade Management System •

Source code available from: https://github.com/pKroz/DIGIEDU

•

Archived software available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18494715 ( Soto Zenteno, 2026b)

•

License: MIT License.

Data availability Extended data

Zenodo: Pretest and posttest – Grade Management variable, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18492650 ( Soto Zenteno, 2026a).

This project contains the following data: •

DATA Record Sheets - DIGIEDU.xlsx

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

Special recognition to the Universidad Nacional de Cañete (UNDC), as well as to the professors and collaborators who, with their commitment and guidance, made possible the development of this scientific article within the framework of the academic training received.

References

Abad Vasquez

: Sistema web integrado para mejorar la gestión académica de la E.S.F.A.P. Macedonio de la Torre de la ciudad de Trujillo [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad César Vallejo]. Repositorio Institucional UCV;2020. Reference Source

Amfotis

Wati

: A web-based student grade management information system for SMP IP YAKIN West Jakarta. Jurnal Sistem Informasi dan Teknologi Informasi. 2025;3(1):242–254. 10.33197/justinfo.v3i1.3216

Angulo Luna

: Sistema web para la optimización del proceso de gestión académica de la I.E.P. Niño Jesús de Belén [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad César Vallejo]. Repositorio Institucional UCV;2021. Reference Source

Carbajal Huaman

: Desarrollo de una aplicación móvil para el control de notas de la institución educativa Mi Dulce Jesús. Repositorio Institucional UCV;2018. [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad César Vallejo]. Reference Source

De La Cruz

LEC

Portuguez Saravia

ÍJ

Angoma Astucuri

: Sistema web de tutoría SISEDE en el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes universitarios. Rev Cient COINTECI. 2025;1(1):16–30. Reference Source

Esteban Villegas

Trujillo Mamani

: Sistema web para mejorar el proceso de gestión académica de la IEP Nuestro Salvador de Villa María del Triunfo. Repositorio Institucional UCV;2021. [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad César Vallejo]. Reference Source

Flores-Chacón

Pacheco

Gonzales-Ortiz

: Educational innovation: The architecture of digital technologies as a catalyst for change in university teacher training. Sci. Rep. 2023;13(1):20991. 10.1038/s41598-023-48378-w

Granados Maguiño

Romero Vela

Rengifo Lozano

: Tecnología en el proceso educativo: Nuevos escenarios. Rev Venez Gerenc. 2020;25(92):1809–1823. 10.37960/rvg.v25i92.34297

Huaman-Yupanqui

Zapana-Halire

Ulloa-Gallardo

: Implementación de un sistema web para mejorar la gestión académica en universidades: Un estudio de caso. Rev. Amazon Digital. 2024;3(2):e289. 10.55873/rad.v3i2.289

Ibañez

: Automatización de registros de notas de estudiantes en una plataforma web. Repositorio Institucional USTA;2021. [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Santo Tomás]. Reference Source

León-Velarde

Solano Rosembertt

Lureña Silva

: Diseño de una aplicación web ASP.NET para la gestión de matrícula y registro de notas de estudiantes en una universidad nacional. Aula Virtual. 2024;5(12). 10.5281/zenodo.11302371

Ministerio de Educación: Resolución Ministerial N.° 587-2023-MINEDU. 2023. Reference Source

Nitron

: Optimizing student information management: A holistic examination of implementation strategies. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. 2024;4(5):106–110. 10.47760/cognizance.2024.v04i05.008

Oscco Cupe

: Desarrollo de una aplicación web para la mejora de la gestión académica en la Institución Educativa Pública Santa Ana de Chincha. 2022. [Undergraduate thesis]. Reference Source

Patiam

: Exploring academic operations: A focus on the implementation of class record optimization and automation system (CROAS). International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research. 2024;73(1):259–274. Reference Source

Patil

Satpute

: Student record management system using Django. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology. 2023;11(5):18–23. 10.22214/ijraset.2023.51366

Pozo Ramos

: Aplicación web con sistema adaptable al instructivo de evaluación estudiantil para el proceso del registro de notas de los alumnos de la unidad educativa Ancón. Repositorio UPSE;2023. [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena]. Reference Source

Ramadhani

Sahiruddin

Kasri

: Web-based student grade management information system. JTP – Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan. 2025;27(3):864–877. 10.21009/jtp.v27i3.60886

Ramos-Miller

Pacheco

: Towards inventory control excellence: An innovative approach based on a web-based platform. F1000Res. 2023;12. 10.12688/f1000research.140745.1

SIAGIE: Evaluación: Acta consolidada de evaluación. 2023. Reference Source

Soto Zenteno

: Pretest and posttest – Grade management variable.[Dataset]. Zenodo. 2026a. 10.5281/zenodo.18492650

Soto Zenteno

: DIGIEDU: A web-based grade management system [Software]. Zenodo. 2026b. 10.5281/zenodo.18494716

Ugalingan

Antonio

: SRSYS: A web-based solution for efficient school record management. Zenodo. 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15500889

10.5256/f1000research.197001.r480911

Reviewer response for version 1

Irwansyah

1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-1746 1Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

15 6 2026

2026

This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

recommendation

approve-with-reservations

Overall assessment

This article presents DIGIEDU, a web-based academic management system developed to improve grade registration, grade searching, and report-card generation at Colegio Nacional de Imperial in Peru. The topic is practically important, particularly for schools that continue to rely on spreadsheets, manually transferred records, or national systems that may be slow or unable to produce locally required reports. The manuscript provides a generally coherent account of the institutional problem, the Rational Unified Process used for software development, the principal user requirements, the database design, the technologies used, and several representative workflows.

The software appears useful and the reported reductions in task-completion times are substantial. The availability of the source code, archived software, and evaluation dataset is also a strength. However, the article does not yet provide sufficient methodological and technical information to permit independent replication of either the software deployment or the performance evaluation. There are also unresolved numerical inconsistencies, unsupported claims about significance, accuracy, information quality, and educational quality, and an insufficiently justified statement that ethics approval and consent were not required.

My overall recommendation is approved with reservations, requiring major revisions focused on reproducibility, analytical transparency, data governance, and alignment between the evidence and the conclusions.

Summary of the article

The article addresses inefficiencies in academic management within a Peruvian secondary school. The existing process reportedly depended on Excel spreadsheets, printed records, manual transfers, and the national Educational Institution Management Support Information System, known as SIAGIE. The authors argue that this arrangement creates delays, fragmented information, data-entry risks, and difficulties in producing timely academic reports.

To address these problems, the authors developed DIGIEDU using the Rational Unified Process. The development process is organised into inception, elaboration, construction, and transition phases. Requirements were gathered through documentary analysis and interviews with users occupying teacher, vice-principal, and principal roles. The application supports grade entry, searches for academic records, generation of report cards, management of courses and competencies, student registration, and production of merit-order reports.

The reported technology stack includes PHP 8.1, Bootstrap, MySQL, TCPDF for PDF generation, and ApexCharts for visualisation. The article includes process diagrams, logical and physical database diagrams, user requirements, screenshots, and three principal use cases.

The authors evaluate performance through a pretest and posttest design. They report substantial reductions in the time needed to register grades, search for grades, and generate report cards. The source code is available through GitHub and an archived Zenodo record, while the pretest and posttest data are also deposited in Zenodo.

The tool has clear practical potential. Nevertheless, the current presentation does not allow readers to determine precisely how the performance measurements were obtained, how many observations or users were included, whether the reported differences were statistically tested, or whether the published code can reproduce the evaluated version.

Responses to the review questions

1. Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Yes.

The manuscript clearly identifies the practical problem. Existing grade-management activities depend on spreadsheets, printed documents, manual data transfer, and a national platform that is described as slow or insufficient for local reporting needs. The authors connect these limitations to delays, duplicated work, errors, fragmented information, and difficulties producing report cards and statistical summaries.

The manuscript also explains why an institution-specific web system may be useful. The proposed tool is intended to support locally required grade categories, role-based workflows, academic competencies, transversal competencies, merit-order reports, and report cards compliant with Local Educational Management Unit requirements.

The rationale could nevertheless be strengthened by explaining more explicitly:

Why adapting or extending SIAGIE was not feasible.

Whether DIGIEDU complements or replaces any SIAGIE functions.

What is technically or functionally novel compared with the many similar grade-management systems cited in the introduction.

Which requirements are specific to the Peruvian competency-based grading system.

Whether interoperability with national education systems is planned.

These additions would sharpen the contribution but are not essential to establishing the basic rationale.

2. Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Yes, at a general level.

The software description is coherent enough to understand its intended operation. The article identifies user roles, functional requirements, database entities, principal technologies, minimum server and client requirements, deployment context, and representative workflows. Logical and physical database diagrams are provided, and screenshots demonstrate grade registration, grade searching, and report-card generation.

Several technical points nevertheless require clarification.

First, PHP 8.1 is described as a backend framework. PHP is a programming language and runtime environment, not necessarily a framework. The authors should identify the actual framework, if one was used, or state that the software was developed in plain PHP.

Second, the manuscript does not provide a system architecture diagram showing the relationships among the browser interface, application layer, authentication layer, database, PDF-generation service, and visualisation components.

Third, important technical safeguards are not described. Because the tool processes the records of school students, including minors, the manuscript should explain:

authentication and password-storage procedures;

role-based authorisation;

session management;

protection against SQL injection, cross-site scripting, and cross-site request forgery;

server-side validation of grades and user input;

encrypted connections;

database backup and recovery;

audit logs;

data retention and deletion procedures;

access restrictions for sensitive student records.

The absence of these details does not demonstrate that the software is technically unsound, but it prevents a complete evaluation of its reliability, security, and suitability for real institutional deployment.

3. Are sufficient details of the code, methods, and analysis provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Partly.

The article provides useful high-level materials, including the software-development method, user requirements, database diagrams, technologies, use cases, source-code repository, archived software, and minimum system requirements. These materials provide a starting point for replication.

They are not sufficient for an independent researcher or school administrator to reproduce the evaluated system reliably. The following information is required.

Software version and repository linkage

The authors must:

Identify the exact release, commit hash, or version tag used in the study.

Confirm that the Zenodo archive corresponds exactly to the evaluated version.

Explain the relationship between the GitHub repository, Zenodo archive, and manuscript.

Provide a software citation containing the version and permanent identifier.

State whether later repository changes affect the reported results.

Installation and configuration

A reproducible installation guide should include:

Supported operating systems.

Web-server requirements, such as Apache or Nginx and their versions.

Exact PHP, MySQL, Bootstrap, TCPDF, ApexCharts, and other dependency versions.

Required PHP extensions.

Database creation and migration instructions.

Configuration-file and environment-variable requirements.

A safe example configuration without passwords or credentials.

Procedures for creating the first administrator account.

Instructions for importing demonstration or seed data.

Commands for running the application and automated tests.

A containerised deployment, such as Docker, would be helpful but is not mandatory if complete manual installation instructions are supplied.

Architecture and implementation logic

The authors should provide:

a system architecture diagram;

a module description;

a permissions matrix for each user role;

database schema tables listing fields, data types, keys, constraints, and relationships;

descriptions or pseudocode for grade validation, report-card generation, merit-order calculation, searching, and authentication;

explanations of how missing grades, repeated records, invalid grade symbols, and conflicting updates are handled;

details of functional, integration, security, and user-acceptance testing.

Replication of the performance evaluation

The manuscript must explain how another researcher can reproduce the reported timing results. The current article does not clearly specify:

the number of participating users;

the number of observations or repeated trials;

whether the same users completed pretest and posttest tasks;

the number of students, classes, courses, and records processed;

whether test data or real institutional data were used;

the hardware, operating system, server, browser, and network conditions;

when timing began and ended;

whether loading time, data entry, verification, and printing were all included;

whether users received training before the posttest;

who recorded the times and with what instrument;

how failed attempts, interruptions, outliers, and missing values were treated;

whether task order was standardised;

whether the pretest and posttest used tasks of equivalent complexity.

Without these details, the reported evaluation cannot be independently replicated.

4. Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and results generated using the tool?

Partly.

The article makes the main functional outputs understandable. Readers can identify outputs such as recorded grades, filtered search results, competency reports, report cards, and merit-order reports. Screenshots and use cases also illustrate what users are expected to enter and receive.

The quantitative evaluation dataset is less adequately documented. The authors should add a data dictionary explaining:

the meaning of every variable and abbreviation;

the unit of observation;

whether each row represents a user, task, trial, class, or aggregated result;

the meaning of pretest and posttest;

units of measurement;

permitted values and coding rules;

missing-value codes;

anonymised participant identifiers;

task categories;

hardware or network conditions;

success and error indicators;

formulas used to calculate percentage reductions.

A table in the manuscript should link each reported indicator directly to the relevant dataset columns. The authors should also provide a short worked example showing how one reported percentage was calculated from the underlying observations.

The grade categories are described, but abbreviations such as SN, NT, and NST appear to be used inconsistently. These codes should be standardised and defined once. The English abbreviations used in the abstract and the Spanish-derived abbreviations used in the conclusions should also be harmonised.

5. Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings?

Partly.

The descriptive results support the limited conclusion that the web application was associated with faster completion of three administrative tasks in the evaluated setting. The reductions reported for grade searching and report-card generation are substantial.

The broader conclusions are not fully supported for five reasons.

Numerical inconsistency

The grade-registration result is reported inconsistently:

the abstract and conclusion state a reduction of 70.14%;

the discussion states a reduction of 79.39%;

the reported times are 4,080 seconds before implementation and 864 seconds after implementation.

Using those two reported times, the calculated reduction is approximately 78.82%, not 70.14% or 79.39%. The authors must return to the raw data, identify the correct values, explain the discrepancy, and correct the abstract, results, discussion, conclusion, tables, and dataset as necessary.

Unsupported claims of statistical significance

The manuscript repeatedly uses terms such as “significant improvement,” but it does not clearly report a statistical test, sample size, variability, confidence interval, or effect size. A percentage reduction alone does not establish statistical significance.

If repeated paired observations are available, the authors should report appropriate paired analyses. Depending on the data distribution, this may involve a paired-samples test or a non-parametric alternative. The revised manuscript should include:

sample size;

descriptive statistics;

standard deviations or interquartile ranges;

confidence intervals;

statistical test and assumptions;

exact p-values;

effect sizes.

If only one aggregated pretest and posttest value exists for each task, inferential claims must be removed. The findings should then be described as descriptive case-study results rather than statistically significant effects.

Unsupported claims about accuracy and information quality

The study measures time, but the conclusions also claim improved accuracy, precision, reliability, and information quality. No error rates, record-validation results, data-completeness measures, reliability tests, or comparisons with verified reference records are presented.

The authors should either add evidence for these outcomes or remove the claims. Appropriate measures could include:

frequency of data-entry errors;

percentage of complete records;

agreement with manually verified records;

number of duplicate or invalid entries;

report-generation failures;

search precision or retrieval accuracy;

system uptime and error logs.

Overstatement of educational impact

The title and conclusion refer to improving educational quality and the transformative potential of digital solutions. The study measures administrative task-completion time, not learning outcomes, teaching quality, student achievement, user satisfaction, or institutional decision quality.

The authors should either:

narrow the title and conclusions to academic-management efficiency; or

add valid measures of educational or organisational quality.

The existing evidence supports improved administrative efficiency, not a general improvement in educational quality.

Design limitations

The evaluation uses a single-group pretest and posttest design at one institution. It does not include a control group, randomisation, multiple sites, long-term follow-up, or evidence that the changes were caused exclusively by the software.

A limitations section should discuss:

the single-institution setting;

the absence of a control or comparison group;

learning and practice effects;

differences in hardware or network conditions;

possible observer effects;

limited generalisability;

the short evaluation period;

the absence of long-term maintenance and adoption data.

Points that must be addressed for scientific soundness

The following revisions are essential.

1. Reconstruct and fully report the evaluation method

The authors must report the participants or testing agents, sample size, unit of analysis, number of observations, task definitions, timing protocol, equipment, network conditions, training, data-collection dates, and treatment of missing or anomalous observations.

2. Correct all numerical inconsistencies

The grade-registration figures must be recalculated from the raw data. All percentages, times, acronyms, tables, dataset entries, and narrative statements must agree.

3. Provide defensible statistical analysis or remove inferential language

Claims of significance require sample sizes, appropriate tests, uncertainty estimates, and effect sizes. If such analysis is impossible, “significant” must be replaced with accurate descriptive wording.

4. Align the conclusions with the measured outcomes

Claims about educational quality, accuracy, precision, reliability, information quality, and transformation must either be supported by corresponding evidence or removed. The conclusion should primarily concern administrative task efficiency unless additional outcomes are evaluated.

5. Provide reproducible technical documentation

The exact software version, architecture, dependencies, database setup, configuration, installation steps, role permissions, core logic, testing procedures, and instructions for reproducing the reported workflows must be supplied.

6. Document the evaluation dataset

The authors must provide a data dictionary, unit of observation, coding rules, formulas, missing-data procedures, and a direct correspondence between the deposited data and each reported result.

7. Address security and privacy

The revised article must explain how student records are protected, including authentication, authorisation, validation, secure storage, backups, auditability, and protection against common web vulnerabilities.

8. Clarify ethics and consent

The statement that ethics and consent were not required is insufficiently justified. The manuscript refers to interviews, institutional users, pretest and posttest activities, and student academic records.

The authors must clarify whether:

teachers, administrators, or other individuals participated in interviews or performance testing;

real student records were used;

data were identifiable;

informed consent was obtained;

an institutional ethics committee reviewed the work;

a formal exemption or waiver was granted.

If the evaluation used only synthetic data and developer-operated tests, this should be stated explicitly. If human participants or identifiable student records were involved, the appropriate approval, exemption, consent, and data-protection information must be reported.

Additional recommended revisions

The authors should also consider the following improvements:

Add a concise limitations section.

Distinguish clearly between software-development results and evaluation results.

Standardise the school’s name throughout the article.

Standardise all indicator names and abbreviations.

Clarify whether the setting meets a formal definition of rural education.

Improve the legibility of the database diagrams.

Replace comparisons with loosely related software systems with comparisons based on equivalent tasks and evaluation measures.

Explain how DIGIEDU interacts with SIAGIE and UGEL requirements.

Report usability or user-acceptance evidence if claims about user experience are retained.

Verify that the repository contains no credentials or identifiable student data.

Final recommendation

The article addresses a real educational-administration problem and presents a potentially valuable open-source tool. Its rationale and high-level technical design are sufficiently clear, and the reported efficiency gains justify continued consideration. However, the current manuscript does not yet meet full standards of scientific reproducibility and analytical transparency.

I recommend approved with reservations, subject to major revision. The authors must correct the numerical results, fully describe the evaluation method, justify or remove claims of statistical significance, align the conclusions with the measured evidence, document the dataset and software sufficiently for replication, and resolve the ethics, security, and privacy issues.

Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Partly

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Yes

Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Partly

Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Educational technology; information systems; digital transformation in education; web-based academic management systems; software tools for school administration; quantitative evaluation of digital platforms.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

10.5256/f1000research.197001.r480917

Reviewer response for version 1

Baena-Navarro

Rubén

1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5055-6515 1Universidad de Córdoba, Montería, Colombia

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

15 6 2026

2026

recommendation

approve-with-reservations

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Improving educational quality through digital empowerment: a web platform for academic management in secondary education”. The article addresses a relevant applied problem in secondary school academic administration: the continued reliance on spreadsheets, manual records, and fragmented procedures for grade registration, grade consultation, and student progress report generation. The main contribution of the work is the development and presentation of a web-based application, DIGIEDU, intended to optimize these processes at Colegio Nacional de Imperial through a RUP-based software development lifecycle and a pretest–posttest assessment of operational time reductions.

Regarding the specific questions in the review form, I consider that the rationale for developing the software tool is clearly explained. The manuscript identifies a concrete institutional problem —delays, duplication of information, extensive use of Excel, and poorly integrated procedures— and proposes a technological solution aligned with that need. However, I answered “Partly” to the remaining questions because the technical description, reproducibility of the development process, interpretation of the results, and support for the conclusions require substantive clarification and correction.

The manuscript has several real strengths. First, the problem addressed is verifiable and connected to a concrete operational need within the educational institution. Second, the use of the Rational Unified Process provides an understandable structure for the development lifecycle, organized into inception, elaboration, construction, and transition. Third, the inclusion of the previous grade-recording process, user requirements by role, logical and physical database designs, use cases, source code, archived software, and associated dataset are valuable elements for a Software Tool article. Fourth, the selected indicators —grade registration time, grade search time, and report card generation time— are relevant for assessing administrative efficiency in the context of the developed system.

Nevertheless, several points must be addressed for the article to reach a sufficiently robust level of scientific soundness.

The first essential correction concerns the numerical consistency of the reported results. The manuscript states that grade registration time decreased from 4,080 to 864 seconds. However, the reported percentage improvement is inconsistent: in some sections it is presented as 70.14%, whereas in another section it is reported as 79.39%. Using the standard percentage reduction formula, these values do not yield 70.14%. This inconsistency directly affects one of the central findings of the article. The authors should explicitly state the formula used to calculate each percentage improvement, verify the source data, and correct the abstract, discussion, conclusions, and any related table or dataset where the indicator appears.

A second essential revision concerns the pretest–posttest measurement methodology. The article indicates that a quantitative pre-experimental design was applied, but it does not describe with sufficient precision how the reported times were obtained. The manuscript should specify the sample size, the number of users or participants, the number of records processed, the number of repetitions per task, the profile of the operators, the technical conditions of the environment, the timing instrument, the start and end rules for each measurement, and whether the reported values are means, medians, or single observations. At minimum, the authors should include a methodological table indicating, for each indicator, the unit of analysis, measurement procedure, number of observations, summary statistic, dispersion where applicable, improvement formula, and any exclusion or data-cleaning criteria.

A third critical issue is the technical reproducibility of the software. The manuscript mentions PHP 8.1, Bootstrap, MySQL, TCPDF, and ApexCharts, and it presents logical and physical database designs. However, this information does not allow other researchers or institutions to independently reproduce the installation, configuration, deployment, and use of the system. The authors should add minimal technical documentation including the general system architecture, the exact repository version or commit used in the study, dependencies, installation steps, server configuration, database creation, SQL script or schema, environment variables, anonymized seed or test data, execution flow for the main use cases, and steps to reproduce the reported outputs. This request does not require turning the article into an extensive technical manual; it requires providing the minimum information needed for the tool to be auditable and reusable.

A fourth critical point concerns the proportionality between results, discussion, and conclusions. The evidence presented supports a bounded claim: the tool reduced the time required for selected academic management processes in one specific institution. However, expressions such as “educational quality”, “digital empowerment”, and “transformative potential” suggest a broader impact that was not directly measured. The study does not assess learning outcomes, user satisfaction, error reduction, sustained adoption, pedagogical quality, or longitudinal institutional impact. Therefore, the authors should moderate the title, abstract, and conclusions, or explicitly define “educational quality” in this article as administrative academic management efficiency. Without additional evidence, it is not methodologically safe to claim broad educational improvement.

A fifth essential revision concerns the ethics statement. The manuscript states that ethics and consent are not required; however, the study involves institutional processes, academic records, teachers, administrators, and potentially student data. Although the screenshots appear to anonymize names, the authors should clarify whether the data used were real, anonymized, or synthetic; whether institutional authorization was obtained; whether teachers or administrative staff participated in the tests; whether human performance times were measured; and whether an ethics body or institutional authority granted approval, exemption, or a determination of non-applicability. This clarification is necessary because the system manages educational information associated with students.

In addition to these critical points, I recommend strengthening the traceability between requirements, functionalities, and tests. Table 2 identifies the needs of teachers, the vice principal, and the principal, but it does not connect them through requirement codes to modules, use cases, validation rules, or acceptance criteria. A concise traceability matrix would show which requirement was implemented in which module, how it was validated, and what evidence demonstrates its functionality. It would also be advisable to standardize the grading scale, since the manuscript refers to codes such as AD, A, B, C, SN, NT, and NST without a sufficiently uniform explanation of their differences and conditions of use.

The technical figures are relevant, but some of them are not sufficiently legible for auditing relationships, entities, or flows. In particular, the database diagrams should be complemented with a schema table listing the main entities, fields, data types, primary keys, foreign keys, and relationships. The use-case screenshots help visualize the interface, but the manuscript should also explain validation rules, role-based permissions, error messages, and exception conditions.

The discussion could be strengthened if, beyond comparing results with previous studies, it explained the mechanisms through which the tool produced the reported time reductions: data centralization, automated report generation, elimination of manual transcription, reuse of information by academic period, and reduction of administrative steps. The manuscript should also include an explicit limitations section addressing the single-institution design, absence of a control group, possible user learning effects, dependence on connectivity, and lack of direct measurement of errors, satisfaction, or sustained adoption.

Regarding minor issues, the authors should standardize language, acronyms, and terminology. For instance, Table 1 includes “Análisis y diseño” in Spanish within an English manuscript. The indicators are also named inconsistently: GRT, GST, and RCGT are used in some parts, whereas TRN, TBN, and TELN appear in the conclusions. This variation makes it more difficult to connect objectives, indicators, results, and conclusions. Expressions such as “List of coincidences”, “no editable”, and “bimonthly” should also be revised to improve the precision of the technical English.

The manuscript presents a valuable, applied contribution and a potentially useful tool for improving the efficiency of school administrative processes. I do not consider that the article should be rejected, since the problem is well justified, the tool exists, the code and data are declared available, and the results are plausible. However, to make the article scientifically sound, the authors must correct the numerical inconsistency, document the measurement procedure more transparently, strengthen the technical reproducibility of the software, justify the ethical handling of educational data, and moderate the conclusions according to the actual scope of the evidence. My editorial recommendation is Approved with reservations.

Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Partly

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Yes

Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Partly

Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

My areas of expertise are educational technology, software engineering applied to education, web-based information systems, academic management platforms, educational data management, research methodology, and quantitative evaluation of educational software tools. I am particularly able to assess the methodological coherence, technical reproducibility, data interpretation, and proportionality of the conclusions of this article.

10.5256/f1000research.197001.r480914

Reviewer response for version 1

Yeasmin

Minara

1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7958-7291 1Education, Aliah University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (Ringgold ID: 308965), Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

11 5 2026

2026

recommendation

approve

The study is quite significant to the secondary schools. It will enhance the quality of management process at secondary education. The software developed is very significantly optimizes the grade management in rural the settings of secondary education. The quantitative pre-experimental results confirm significant time reductions and upgraded information quality, pointing out the transformative potential of digital solutions in strengthening academic management processes in schools.

Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Yes

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Yes

Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Yes

Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Mathematics Education, Science Education, School Education, Higher Education, Gender Studies,

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

10.5256/f1000research.197001.r469460

Reviewer response for version 1

ADEOYE

Moses Adeleke

1 Referee 1Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Nigeria

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

30 3 2026

2026

recommendation

approve-with-reservations

Required Improvements

To make the article scientifically sound and reproducible, the authors should:

Provide detailed technical documentation

Include system architecture diagrams

Provide database schema tables (fields, types, relationships)

Describe key algorithms and validation logic

Improve reproducibility of analysis

Clearly describe:

sample size

data collection procedure

timing measurement methodology

Specify whether statistical tests were applied

Add deployment and usage instructions

Step-by-step installation guide

Configuration details (server, database, dependencies)

Example workflows for users

Clarify the relationship between paper and GitHub code

Indicate version used in the study

Provide instructions to reproduce reported results using the code

Clarity of Output Data and Results Interpretation

The main limitation is insufficient reproducibility within the article itself, specifically:

Lack of low-level technical details

Incomplete description of analytical methodology

Missing deployment and replication instructions

These issues do not invalidate the findings, but they reduce:

scientific transparency

reproducibility

utility for other researchers and practitioners

Must Address (Critical for Scientific Soundness)

Provide detailed methodology for data collection and analysis

Include full technical specifications (architecture, database, logic)

Add reproducible deployment and usage instructions

Should Address (Enhancement)

Include code excerpts or pseudocode for key components

Provide clearer linkage between results and dataset

Add discussion of limitations (e.g., single-institution study, lack of control group)

The article is methodologically sound and practically relevant, with well-supported conclusions. However, due to partial reproducibility, revisions are required to meet full scientific standards. Overall assessment: Accept with major revisions (focused on reproducibility and technical transparency).

Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Yes

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Yes

Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Partly

Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Educational Leadership, Research Method