{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h1>Authorship Pattern Analysis and Mixed-Methods Protocol for Accountable Extempore Speaking</h1><h2>Abstract</h2><p><strong>Background:</strong> Research on structured speaking interventions suggests moderate-to-large gains in critical thinking and transfer, yet the cognitive mechanisms and reliability of effects across contexts remain under-specified. Rigorous, pre-registered mixed-methods designs can clarify how accountable extempore speaking—requiring verifiable evidence and peer feedback—impacts higher-order cognition in emerging adults.</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> Primary: Evaluate whether 12 weeks of accountable extempore speaking yields greater gains than a content-matched control on (a) Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), (b) Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), and (c) a Bloom’s scenario test. Secondary: Explain quantitative changes via interviews, journals, and video-coded discourse indicators; establish convergences/divergences via joint displays.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> Randomized controlled, pre–post design with ANCOVA and effect sizes; N=312 (156/group) with 20% attrition buffer; 48 semi-structured interviews; thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke) in NVivo; 30-second segment video coding; mixed-methods integration via joint displays. Reporting follows APA 7, CONSORT, COREQ. Assumptions and robustness checked (Levene, Shapiro–Wilk, imputation for MAR).</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> This manuscript presents the finalized analysis and reporting plan prior to data collection. Based on prior literature, medium-to-large effects (d≈0.6–0.8) are anticipated on targeted outcomes, with qualitative themes expected around cognitive processing, metacognition, accountability practices, transfer, and affective responses. Joint displays will test convergence between measured gains and experiential indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The protocol advances methodological rigor in educational interventions by unifying accountable speaking, standardized cognition measures, and observational discourse coding within a transparent integration framework. A complementary authorship-pattern classifier is proposed to map collaboration micro-signatures across related scholarship, supporting integrity checks and team formation.</p><h2>Keywords</h2><p>Accountable extempore speaking; Critical thinking; Cognitive flexibility; Mixed-methods; ANCOVA; Thematic analysis; CONSORT/COREQ</p>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['WGCTA', 'CFS', "Bloom's"], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Pre - Intervention', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(46, 134, 171, 0.4)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(46, 134, 171)', 'data': [56.48, 67.35, 14.82]}, {'label': 'Post - Intervention', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(46, 134, 171, 0.8)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(46, 134, 171)', 'data': [64.72, 75.14, 18.21]}, {'label': 'Pre - Control', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(162, 59, 114, 0.3)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(162, 59, 114)', 'data': [55.89, 66.89, 14.76]}, {'label': 'Post - Control', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(162, 59, 114, 0.7)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(162, 59, 114)', 'data': [57.11, 68.02, 15.18]}]}}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<p><em>Planned mockup:</em> Illustrative pre–post differences by group for three measures to be rendered as an error-bar figure in the final report. Actual results will be populated post-analysis.</p>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['WGCTA', 'CFS', "Bloom's"], 'datasets': [{'label': "Hypothesized Cohen's d", 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(0, 123, 255, 0.7)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(0, 123, 255)', 'data': [0.8, 0.6, 0.7]}]}}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<p><em>Planned mockup:</em> Hypothesized effect sizes based on prior literature (used to predefine visualization scales and power expectations). Final CIs and exact p-values will replace placeholders.</p>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'HorizontalBar', 'data': {'labels': ['Cognitive Processing Changes', 'Metacognitive Awareness', 'Accountability Effects', 'Transfer Experiences', 'Confidence & Anxiety'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Interview theme counts (n=48)', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(40, 167, 69, 0.7)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(40, 167, 69)', 'data': [38, 35, 32, 30, 34]}]}}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Comprehensive Content Analysis Summary</h2><ul><li><strong>Design:</strong> RCT with pre–post measures, N=312 (156/group), 12-week intervention; control group receives matched content via reading/writing.</li><li><strong>Primary Outcomes:</strong> WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s scenario test; quantitative analysis with paired t-tests, ANCOVA, effect sizes; Bonferroni correction (α=0.017 for 3 measures); robustness via Welch, non-parametrics, MI.</li><li><strong>Qualitative Strand:</strong> 48 interviews, weekly journals, video coding in 30-second segments; Braun & Clarke thematic analysis; inter-rater reliability κ ≥ .80; COREQ reporting.</li><li><strong>Integration:</strong> Joint displays for convergence/divergence; triangulation across tests, interviews, video, journals; meta-inferences documented.</li><li><strong>Software:</strong> SPSS 28; R (psych, effsize); NVivo 12; visualization via ggplot2/SPSS; accessibility standards applied (colorblind-safe palettes, alt text in final outputs).</li><li><strong>Standards:</strong> APA 7 reporting, CONSORT flow, COREQ rigor; assumption testing documented; exact p-values and CIs; effect sizes for all primary tests.</li><li><strong>Risk Mitigation:</strong> Attrition >20% → MI + sensitivity analyses; assumption violations → robust stats/transformations; saturation shortfall → theoretical sampling.</li><li><strong>Authorship Pattern Analysis (Innovation):</strong> ML classifier to profile writing style, methodological sequences (e.g., pre/post ANCOVA + joint displays), reporting standards (APA7/COREQ), and cognitive constructs; outputs collaboration clusters, expertise nodes, and integrity signals for related literature ecosystems.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'image', 'image_url': 'https://via.placeholder.com/640x480.png?text=CONSORT+Flow+Diagram+%28Placeholder%29'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<p>Planned CONSORT 2010 flow diagram placeholder. Final will document recruitment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis counts with reasons for attrition.</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Key Themes and Findings Catalog (Predefined)</h2><ul><li><strong>Cognitive Processing Changes:</strong> Speed of retrieval; synthesis; flexibility; language of “connecting ideas” and “seeing links.”</li><li><strong>Metacognitive Awareness:</strong> Self-monitoring, strategy adaptation; reflective statements like “noticing my thinking” and “adjusting on the fly.”</li><li><strong>Accountability Effects:</strong> Evidence standards, verification behaviors; explicit fact-checking and source citation improvements.</li><li><strong>Transfer Experiences:</strong> Applications to coursework, group discussions, and daily reasoning; cross-context evidence of skill generalization.</li><li><strong>Confidence & Anxiety:</strong> Shifts in speaking comfort, willingness to take intellectual risks, and performance anxiety management.</li><li><strong>Video-Coded Discourse Indicators:</strong> Logical structure (clear/developing/confused), evidence integration (high/medium/low), real-time synthesis (evident/partial/absent), self-correction (frequent/occasional/rare).</li><li><strong>Integration Expectations:</strong> High-gain profiles co-occurring with rich metacognitive language and observed synthesis; divergences flagged for barrier analysis (e.g., anxiety, topic difficulty).</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Reference Mapping for Consistent Citation</h2><ul><li><strong>APA7:</strong> American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).</li><li><strong>CONSORT 2010:</strong> Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & CONSORT Group. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.</li><li><strong>COREQ:</strong> Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.</li><li><strong>Braun & Clarke (2006):</strong> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.</li><li><strong>G*Power:</strong> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.</li><li><strong>Effect Size Foundations:</strong> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).</li><li><strong>Debate/Discussion Effects:</strong> Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 36, 161–175. Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2014). The Paideia Seminar: Active Thinking Through Dialogue (2nd ed.).</li><li><strong>Self-Explanation:</strong> Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.</li><li><strong>Transfer:</strong> Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.</li><li><strong>Mixed-Methods Joint Displays:</strong> Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. (For joint display guidance akin to “Good et al., 2021”.)</li></ul><p><em>Note:</em> Final manuscript will align all in-text citations with this mapping and include DOIs where available.</p>'}