The introduction is weak. In the Introduction, the authors must present the background to your study, introduce your topic and aims, and give an overview of the paper. The introduction must provide a solid foundation and encourage readers to continue on to the main parts of your paper—the methods, results, and discussion.

The LR is not deep enough. It does not search for relevant literature. It does not evaluate sources and not identify themes, debates, and gaps. In LR, you must survey and critically read the existing literature: this step is commonly referred to as experimental literature review. Moreover, you must summarize and actually pen down the gist of your review in an organized manner: this is known as theoretical review.

The method is academically weak. Why did the author/s use the random sampling method? The research methodology is too basic. The authors would have benefited from including some qualitative data collection that complemented the quantitative data, for instance including an initial and final survey, and/or some interviews of focus groups, and then triangulating the results.

The results are ok.

In discussion, interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice.

Limitations of the study and suggestions for future researches must be mentioned.

References must be carefully checked based on APA.