The paper suffers from critical methodological flaws, including a small sample size that undermines the statistical power and generalizability of the findings. Selection bias is evident as the experimental group disproportionately includes students with lower initial grades, potentially inflating the intervention’s effectiveness. The reliance on self-reported data introduces significant response bias, and the lack of control for confounding variables weakens the study’s validity. Additionally, the absence of long-term impact assessment raises questions about the sustainability of the reported improvements. I strongly encourage the authors to thoroughly address these issues to strengthen the study’s rigor and improve the reliability and impact of its findings.
