[{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h1>Stage 1: Foundation Analysis — Title, Abstract, and Keywords</h1><h2>Proposed Title</h2><p><strong>Accountable Extempore Speaking and Cognitive Development in Emerging Adults: A Mixed-Methods Trial Integrating ANCOVA and Thematic Joint Displays</strong></p><h2>Abstract</h2><p><strong>Background:</strong> Developing higher-order cognition in youth requires learning experiences that promote flexible reasoning, evidence accountability, and transfer. Accountable extempore speaking—structured, source-verified impromptu presentation with immediate feedback—may enhance critical thinking, cognitive flexibility, and applied problem-solving. </p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To evaluate whether accountable extempore speaking produces greater gains in cognitive outcomes than content-matched reading/writing activities, and to explain participants’ experiences, mechanisms, and transfer through qualitative inquiry.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> A randomized two-arm design will enroll 312 university students (18–20 years), with pre/post measures on the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), and a Bloom’s Taxonomy Scenario Test. Primary analyses include paired t-tests for within-group change and ANCOVA for between-group comparisons (post-test DV, pre-test covariate), with effect sizes and confidence intervals reported under APA 7. Assumptions, multiple comparisons control (Bonferroni), and robustness checks (e.g., Welch tests, non-parametric alternatives, imputation) are pre-specified. Qualitative data (n≈48 interviews, video-coded speaking segments, weekly reflections) will be thematically analyzed (Braun & Clarke) with inter-coder reliability targets (κ ≥ .80) and COREQ-guided rigor. Mixed-methods joint displays will integrate quantitative effects with experiential themes, examining convergence/divergence and meta-inferences.</p><p><strong>Expected Contribution:</strong> This study will clarify the magnitude and mechanisms of cognitive gains from accountable speaking, provide a validated implementation protocol with accountability safeguards, and deliver integration exemplars linking statistical gains to metacognitive, accountability, and transfer narratives. The reporting follows APA 7, CONSORT 2010, COREQ, and mixed-methods integration standards.</p><h2>Keywords (5–7)</h2><ul><li>Accountable extempore speaking</li><li>Critical thinking (WGCTA)</li><li>Cognitive flexibility (CFS)</li><li>Mixed-methods integration</li><li>ANCOVA and effect sizes</li><li>Thematic analysis (NVivo)</li><li>CONSORT and COREQ</li></ul>'}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Comprehensive Content Integration Summary</h2><ul><li><strong>Design:</strong> Randomized two-arm, pre/post, mixed-methods study; intervention = accountable extempore speaking; control = content-matched reading/writing.</li><li><strong>Sample:</strong> 312 participants (156 per group; 20% attrition buffer), plus ~48 interviews; stratified purposive sampling for qualitative depth and variation.</li><li><strong>Measures:</strong> WGCTA (critical thinking), CFS (cognitive flexibility), Bloom’s Scenario Test (analyze/evaluate/create). Interview protocol, video coding (30-second segments), weekly reflections.</li><li><strong>Primary Quantitative Analyses:</strong> Paired t-tests (within), ANCOVA (between, baseline as covariate), effect sizes with CIs, Bonferroni correction across three outcomes, assumption tests, robustness checks (Welch, non-parametric, MI).</li><li><strong>Qualitative Analyses:</strong> Braun & Clarke six-phase thematic analysis in NVivo; κ ≥ .80 target; reflexivity, audit trail, member checking (20%), saturation checks.</li><li><strong>Integration:</strong> Joint displays link d-values to experiential indicators (metacognition, accountability behaviors, transfer); meta-inferences on convergence/divergence; triangulation across tests, interviews, videos, journals.</li><li><strong>Reporting:</strong> APA 7 statistical standards; CONSORT flow; COREQ qualitative rigor; integration guidelines for joint displays; accessible figures (CI error bars, colorblind-safe palettes), CSV and script provisioning.</li><li><strong>Risk/Contingencies:</strong> Assumption violations → robust stats/bootstraps; attrition → ITT + MI; reliability < .80 → retraining/refinement; saturation gaps → theoretical sampling.</li></ul>'}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Key Themes and Findings Catalog (Pre-specified/Expected)</h2><h3>Quantitative Domains</h3><ul><li><strong>Critical Thinking (WGCTA):</strong> Expected medium-to-large gains in intervention vs. control when controlling baseline; exact p-values and partial η² reported.</li><li><strong>Cognitive Flexibility (CFS):</strong> Anticipated improvement linked to rapid re-organization and switching; reliability α &gt; .80 targeted.</li><li><strong>Bloom’s Scenario Test:</strong> Gains at analyze/evaluate/create levels; sensitivity analyses for differential item functioning.</li></ul><h3>Qualitative Domains</h3><ul><li><strong>Cognitive Processing Changes:</strong> Speed of retrieval, synthesis, flexible re-framing.</li><li><strong>Metacognitive Awareness:</strong> Self-monitoring, strategic planning, error detection.</li><li><strong>Accountability Effects:</strong> Evidence standards, verification behaviors, public correction.</li><li><strong>Transfer Experiences:</strong> Application to coursework, social/academic discussions, problem-solving beyond sessions.</li><li><strong>Confidence/Anxiety:</strong> Reduced apprehension, willingness to attempt complex tasks.</li></ul><h3>Integration Signals</h3><ul><li><strong>Convergent Profile:</strong> High d-values co-occur with rich metacognitive language and verified-transfer stories.</li><li><strong>Divergent Profile:</strong> Low/variable gains with process barriers (e.g., anxiety, insufficient rehearsal, topic mismatch).</li></ul>'}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>D. Authorship Pattern Analysis — Multi-layered Cognitive Signature Profiling</h2><p><strong>Objective:</strong> Classify and map author micro-patterns across multi-authored scholarly works to detect collaboration roles and innovation pathways.</p><ul><li><strong>Feature Layers:</strong> Stylistic markers (syntax, discourse moves), methodological choices (e.g., pre/post ANCOVA + joint displays), reporting standards (APA 7/CONSORT/COREQ), cognitive constructs (metacognition/transfer).</li><li><strong>Training Corpus:</strong> Mixed-methods education studies with known authorship; metadata on roles (statistical validator, video coder, qualitative lead).</li><li><strong>Modeling:</strong> Ensemble classifier (e.g., feature-weighted gradient boosting + transformer embeddings) with interpretability (SHAP) to reveal expertise nodes and latent clusters.</li><li><strong>Use Cases:</strong> Integrity checks, collaborator matching by skill signature, innovation archaeology (trend detection in integration strategies).</li><li><strong>Ethics:</strong> Opt-in datasets, de-identification where feasible, transparent model reports, bias audits.</li></ul>'}, {'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Tables', 'Figures', 'Integration Displays', 'CONSORT Flow Diagram'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Planned Reporting Elements', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(46, 134, 171, 0.6)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(46, 134, 171)', 'borderWidth': 1, 'data': [5, 4, 1, 1]}]}}, {'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Intervention Group', 'Control Group', 'Qualitative Interviews'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Planned Sample Sizes', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(162, 59, 114, 0.6)', 'borderColor': 'rgb(162, 59, 114)', 'borderWidth': 1, 'data': [156, 156, 48]}]}}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Reference Mapping for Consistent Citation</h2><ul><li><strong>Braun &amp; Clarke (2006):</strong> Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. <em>Qualitative Research in Psychology</em>, 3(2), 77–101.</li><li><strong>CONSORT 2010:</strong> Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., &amp; Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement. <em>BMJ</em>, 340, c332.</li><li><strong>COREQ:</strong> Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., &amp; Craig, J. (2007). COREQ: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research. <em>International Journal for Quality in Health Care</em>, 19(6), 349–357.</li><li><strong>Chi et al. (1994):</strong> Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., &amp; LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. <em>Cognitive Science</em>, 18(3), 439–477.</li><li><strong>Perkins &amp; Salomon (1988):</strong> Perkins, D. N., &amp; Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. <em>Educational Leadership</em>, 46(1), 22–32.</li><li><strong>Bellon (2000):</strong> Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. <em>Argumentation and Advocacy</em>, 36, 161–175. [verify pagination]</li><li><strong>Billings &amp; Roberts (2014):</strong> Billings, L., &amp; Roberts, T. (2014). <em>Socratic Seminars in the Classroom</em>. ASCD. [or related empirical article; verify]</li><li><strong>G*Power:</strong> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., &amp; Buchner, A. (2007/2009). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program. <em>Behavior Research Methods</em>, 39, 175–191; 41, 1149–1160.</li><li><strong>Mixed-Methods Integration (Good et al., 2021):</strong> Good, M., et al. (2021). Mixed-methods reporting/integration guidelines. [journal and details to be verified; placeholder for internal consistency]</li></ul><p><em>Note:</em> Bracketed items should be verified against final bibliography prior to manuscript submission.</p>'}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Ready-to-Use Script Snippet — Figure 2 (Pre–Post by Group with 95% CIs)</h2><pre><code># R 4.1+ ggplot2 script template (colorblind-safe palette)\nlibrary(ggplot2)\nlibrary(dplyr)\n\nresults_data &lt;- data.frame(\n  Group = rep(c("Intervention", "Control"), each = 6),\n  Measure = rep(rep(c("WGCTA", "CFS", "Blooms"), each = 2), 2),\n  Time = rep(c("Pre", "Post"), 6),\n  Mean = c(56.48, 64.72, 67.35, 75.14, 14.82, 18.21, 55.89, 57.11, 66.89, 68.02, 14.76, 15.18),\n  SE   = c(0.66, 0.64, 0.72, 0.71, 0.28, 0.27, 0.68, 0.67, 0.73, 0.72, 0.29, 0.28)\n)\n\ncb_colors &lt;- c("#0072B2", "#D55E00")  # colorblind-friendly\n\np &lt;- ggplot(results_data, aes(x = Time, y = Mean, color = Group, group = Group)) +\n  geom_line(size = 1.2) +\n  geom_point(size = 3) +\n  geom_errorbar(aes(ymin = Mean - 1.96 * SE, ymax = Mean + 1.96 * SE), width = 0.1, size = 0.8) +\n  facet_wrap(~Measure, scales = "free_y") +\n  scale_color_manual(values = cb_colors) +\n  theme_classic(base_size = 12) +\n  labs(title = "Pre–Post Cognitive Assessment Scores by Group",\n       x = "Time Point", y = "Mean Score", color = "Group") +\n  theme(strip.text = element_text(size = 12, face = "bold"))\n\nprint(p)\n</code></pre><p><em>Accessibility:</em> Uses colorblind-safe palette and includes error bars for precision. Add alt text and provide CSV of <code>results_data</code> with the figure.</p>'}, {'type': 'image', 'image_url': 'https://picsum.photos/640/480'}, {'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Display Notes</h2><p>The image above is a placeholder for the planned CONSORT-style participant flow diagram. Replace with the finalized flow chart adhering to CONSORT 2010, ensuring clear counts at each stage and reasons for attrition.</p>'}]