This is the content layer — notes, PDFs and recorded lectures in one organised, batch-wise library, with a factual access report of who opened what. The place students learn from, not where they're tested; tests live in the assessment module.
For academic coordinators & faculty · batch-wise library + recordings · access data, not a verdict on the student · tests are a separate module.
The coaching LMS is TutorDesk's content-delivery layer — the organised, batch-wise library where an institute keeps its notes, PDFs and recorded lectures and shares them with the right batches, plus a factual access report of who opened what and how much of a video played. It owns content; it does not own tests — setting online tests, marks, grading and rank are the assessment feature and the test-and-exam solution. The lesson-planner auto-shares a topic's resources in on completion, and live-class recordings save in automatically. The access report is access data, not a verdict on the student.
Ms Ghosh shares a chapter's material to her NEET batch — a notes PDF, a recorded lecture, a reference sheet. A week later she opens the access report. Here's what it shows, and what it pointedly refuses to show.
| Material | Type | Access across batch | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thermodynamics — Notes | Opened by most | — opened / not opened | |
| Lecture: First Law | Recording | Played | % of video played, per student |
| Lecture: Entropy | Recording | Several not yet opened | flagged for a reminder |
| Worked examples | Opened by most | — opened / not opened | |
| Reference sheet | Low open rate | share again in class |
Notes in a WhatsApp group, recordings on a teacher's personal drive, PDFs forwarded twice and lost. A student who joins mid-term can never assemble the full set, and nobody owns the canonical copy.
A student misses a class and there's no clean way to catch up — the recording, if it exists, is somewhere in a chat thread. Without a library, one absence becomes a permanent gap.
Without batch-wise sharing, material meant for one batch leaks to others, or students wade through resources that aren't theirs to find the one sheet they need.
A teacher shares a key reference and has no idea if anyone opened it. Without a factual access view, the material that quietly goes unread is never noticed or re-shared.
Notes, PDFs and reference material are uploaded into the library, tagged to a batch and subject, so the institute has one organised place for its content rather than files scattered across WhatsApp groups and personal drives.
Live-class recordings save into the library on their own, and when the lesson-planner marks a topic complete it auto-shares that topic's resources in — so the library grows from the teaching that's already happening.
Each batch sees the material meant for it and not other batches'. A student opens the app and finds their notes, recorded lectures and reference material in one place, organised by subject and topic.
See which students opened which material and how much of a recording played. This is a factual access report — opened or not, percentage played — and is access data, not an engagement score or a verdict on the student.
When it's time to test what was studied, that happens in the assessment module and the test-and-exam solution, not here. The LMS holds the material; the test engine, marks and rank are owned by separate pages.
The report records access — opened or not, percentage of a video played. It is explicitly not an "engagement score," a completion verdict, or a behavioural judgement of the student. It points a coordinator at material that isn't landing; it does not rate the children.
Recordings use batch-scoping and a viewer-name watermark, which discourages casual resharing and ties a leaked copy to a viewer. We don't claim it makes screen-recording impossible — that would be a false promise; reasonable control, described accurately.
Student records and access data are handled under Section 6, kept for running content delivery, with access limited to faculty and coordinators. Because many students are minors, access data is never used to profile a child. Access-controlled, India-hosted, not sold.
Framework references: DPDP Act 2023 §6 (student data, factual access only). The access report is access data, not a verdict on the student; the platform does not score engagement or profile minors. Recording protection is access-control + viewer-name watermark + auto-revoke, explicitly not screen-capture prevention. Tests, marks and rank are owned by the assessment feature, not the LMS.
TutorDesk keeps content delivery, the test engine, and teacher staffing as separate pages on purpose — so the LMS ranks for "study material library" and never competes with the assessment or HR pages for the same query.
The library is the same; what fills it shifts with the programme.
A NEET institute builds a deep library of notes and recorded theory lectures over the year; absentees catch up from recordings, and the coordinator re-shares any reference sheet the access report shows isn't landing.
An institute running online and in-person batches lets live-class recordings save automatically into the library, so every batch has the lecture to revisit and a missed class is never a permanent gap.
A foundation programme keeps each subject's notes and worksheets organised batch-wise, so younger students and their parents always find the right material without hunting through chat threads.
"As academic coordinator I was forever the person hunting for a file — a notes PDF a teacher had shared in some WhatsApp group three weeks ago, a recording on someone's personal drive. Now it's one library, organised by batch and subject, and the recordings from our online classes just land in it on their own. The part I'm careful about is the access report. It tells me, factually, which students opened a resource and how much of a recording they watched — and I use it to spot material that isn't landing, like when half the batch hadn't opened the entropy lecture, so I re-shared it. But I'm clear with my teachers: it is not a score on the child. We don't rank students by who clicked what; that would be the wrong use of it. And the testing is its own separate thing — this library is purely where the students learn from, and the test module is where we assess them. Keeping those two apart actually made both clearer."
What every academic coordinator and faculty member asks before they move their material into one library.
We'll show you batch-wise material organising, auto-saved live-class recordings, controlled sharing, and the factual access report — honest access data, never a verdict on a student — in a demo on your institute's content.
See the LMS in Action →