The present paper’s reliance on authors also serving as implementers of the curriculum redesign raises concerns about potential bias and the objectivity of the findings. This dual role may have influenced the evaluation process, limiting the robustness of the conclusions. Could the authors clarify how they mitigated this risk, please?
Furthermore, while the claims of “redistributing power” and “centering student identities” are conceptually significant, the absence of empirical data or measurable outcomes leaves these assertions unsubstantiated. Authors’ reflections on addressing these gaps would be appreciated.