How do you justify using student satisfaction scores as the primary criterion for selecting high-quality courses when decades of educational research show they are systematically biased against rigor and do not measure the cognitive or humanistic outcomes your study claims to evaluate?
What evidence do you have that the 20 courses analyzed actually improved critical thinking, innovation, or social awareness in STEM students, rather than simply being well-liked, easy, or taught by charismatic instructors?
Since your entire theoretical framework centers on student-centered learning, yet your sampling method excludes courses with low ratings (regardless of their pedagogical quality or intellectual depth), how do you address the possibility that you’ve systematically selected for entertainment value over substantive interdisciplinary learning?
