{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Accountable Extempore Speaking and Cognitive Development in Youth (18–20): A Randomized Mixed-Methods Trial Integrating Thematic and Video Analyses</h2>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Abstract</h3><p><strong>Background:</strong> Accountable extempore speaking (AES) is theorized to cultivate higher-order cognition through time-pressured reasoning, evidence verification, and iterative feedback, yet rigorous mixed-methods evidence in late adolescents remains limited.</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To test whether AES produces greater gains in critical thinking, cognitive flexibility, and generative problem solving than content-matched reading/writing practice, and to explain observed changes via students’ experiences and in-session behaviors.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> A randomized, pre–post, mixed-methods trial will enroll 312 undergraduates (18–20 years). Quantitatively, participants complete standardized assessments at baseline and after 12 weeks: Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), and a Bloom’s Taxonomy Scenario Test. Primary inference uses ANCOVA controlling for baseline with effect sizes and 95% CIs; within-group gains use paired t-tests. Assumptions, multiplicity (Bonferroni), robustness, and missingness are addressed a priori. Qualitatively, 48 purposively sampled interviews, weekly reflection journals, and video-coded speaking sessions are analyzed via Braun and Clarke’s thematic approach and a structured video rubric with inter-rater κ ≥ .80. Integration occurs through joint displays linking statistical profiles to experiential and behavioral indicators.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> We anticipate medium-to-large effects (d ≈ 0.5–0.8) favoring AES on WGCTA, CFS, and creation-level performance, with precise estimates reported alongside assumption diagnostics. Qualitative themes are expected to cluster around cognitive processing changes, metacognitive awareness, accountability practices, transfer, and confidence/anxiety, with triangulation across interviews, journals, and video evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The study is designed to generate robust causal evidence on AES’s cognitive impact and to illuminate mechanisms of change through integrated qualitative inquiry. Findings will inform instructional design for evidence-grounded speaking, refine models of metacognitive regulation under performance constraints, and guide adoption in general education. The protocol adheres to APA, CONSORT, COREQ, and mixed-methods reporting standards; data security, ethics, and accessibility are embedded throughout. Analyses will be conducted in SPSS and R, with NVivo for qualitative coding; timeline spans 12 weeks plus integration; contingencies include imputation for attrition and bootstrap CIs for assumption violations. Pre-registration and sharing planned.</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Keywords</h3><ul><li>Accountable extempore speaking</li><li>Critical thinking</li><li>Cognitive flexibility</li><li>Mixed-methods</li><li>ANCOVA</li><li>Thematic analysis</li><li>Joint displays</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Comprehensive Content Analysis Summary</h3><ul><li><strong>Design:</strong> Randomized, pre–post, mixed-methods with 312 participants and 48 qualitative interviews; parallel quantitative and qualitative strands integrated through joint displays.</li><li><strong>Intervention vs. Control:</strong> AES (accountability via fact-checking, peer evaluation, public correction) versus content-matched reading/writing activities.</li><li><strong>Measures:</strong> WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s Scenario Test; qualitative interviews, weekly reflections, and video-coded sessions.</li><li><strong>Quantitative Analytic Plan:</strong> ANCOVA for post-tests controlling baseline; paired t-tests for within-group change; effect sizes with CIs; Bonferroni for 3 outcomes; assumption checks and robustness (Welch, transformations, non-parametrics, bootstrap CIs); MI for attrition.</li><li><strong>Qualitative Analytic Plan:</strong> Braun & Clarke thematic analysis; initial coding framework (cognitive processing, metacognition, accountability, transfer, confidence/anxiety); video rubric (structure, evidence, synthesis, self-correction); κ ≥ 0.80.</li><li><strong>Integration:</strong> Joint displays linking effect sizes to thematic indicators and video behaviors; meta-inferences on mechanisms.</li><li><strong>Standards & Software:</strong> APA 7, CONSORT 2010, COREQ; SPSS 28, R 4.1, NVivo 12; accessibility plan (alt text, high-contrast palettes, screen-reader friendly tables).</li><li><strong>Risk & Contingencies:</strong> High attrition → MI and ITT; assumption violations → robust/bootstrapped analyses; saturation shortfall → theoretical sampling; IRR issues → retraining.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Key Themes and Findings Catalog (Planned)</h3><ul><li><strong>Cognitive Processing Changes:</strong> speed of retrieval, synthesis, flexibility; expected increase in cross-linking and structured reasoning.</li><li><strong>Metacognitive Awareness:</strong> self-monitoring, strategy selection; anticipated growth in planning and error detection language.</li><li><strong>Accountability Practices:</strong> evidence standards, verification routines; more precise sourcing and corrective behaviors.</li><li><strong>Transfer Experiences:</strong> application to coursework and social discourse; examples of use in seminars, projects, and peer collaboration.</li><li><strong>Confidence & Anxiety:</strong> speaking comfort and risk-taking; reduction in anxiety with improved regulation and feedback loops.</li><li><strong>Video-Observed Behaviors:</strong> improved logical structure, higher evidence integration, visible real-time synthesis, and increased self-corrections over time.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Reference Mapping for Consistent Citation</h3><ul><li><strong>CONSORT (participant flow, trial reporting):</strong> Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., &amp; Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement.</li><li><strong>APA 7 statistical reporting:</strong> American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the APA (7th ed.).</li><li><strong>COREQ (qualitative standards):</strong> Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., &amp; Craig, J. (2007). COREQ.</li><li><strong>Thematic analysis framework:</strong> Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.</li><li><strong>Power analysis tool:</strong> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., &amp; Lang, A.-G. (2009). G*Power 3.1.</li><li><strong>Mixed-methods joint displays guidance:</strong> Good, A. J., et&nbsp;al. (2021). Mixed-methods reporting guidelines for joint displays.</li><li><strong>Cognitive intervention effect sizes (justification):</strong> Bellon (2000); Billings &amp; Roberts (2014); Chi et&nbsp;al. (1994); Perkins &amp; Salomon (1988).</li><li><strong>Software:</strong> IBM SPSS Statistics 28; R Foundation for Statistical Computing (R 4.1); QSR NVivo 12.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Male', 'Female', 'STEM', 'Humanities', 'Social Sciences', 'English L1', 'English L2'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Target N', 'data': [156, 156, 125, 125, 62, 156, 156], 'backgroundColor': ['#1b9e77', '#1b9e77', '#7570b3', '#7570b3', '#7570b3', '#d95f02', '#d95f02'], 'borderColor': '#333333'}]}}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Required per group', 'Planned per group'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Sample Size Plan', 'data': [45, 156], 'backgroundColor': ['#66c2a5', '#fc8d62'], 'borderColor': '#333333'}]}}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Doughnut', 'data': {'labels': ['WGCTA', 'CFS', "Bloom's Scenario Test"], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Primary Outcomes', 'data': [1, 1, 1], 'backgroundColor': ['#4daf4a', '#377eb8', '#e41a1c'], 'borderColor': '#ffffff'}]}}
{'type': 'image', 'image_url': 'https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1556157382-97eda2d62296?ixlib=rb-4.0.3&auto=format&fit=crop&w=640&h=480&q=80'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<p><em>Illustrative analytics dashboard concept; final study figures will follow APA, CONSORT, and COREQ standards with accessible color palettes and alt text.</em></p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Innovative Module: Authorship Pattern Analysis via Multi-layered Cognitive Signature Profiling</h3><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Identify micro-patterns in multi-authored scholarship to infer roles (e.g., statistical validator, video coder) and latent collaboration clusters.</p><p><strong>Features:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Stylometric layer:</strong> lexical/syntactic signatures, citation verbs, hedging intensity.</li><li><strong>Methodological layer:</strong> analysis sequences (e.g., pre/post ANCOVA + Bonferroni), reporting standards (APA vs. COREQ), assumption-testing habits.</li><li><strong>Thematic layer:</strong> recurrent constructs (metacognition, transfer, accountability) detected via topic models.</li><li><strong>Graph layer:</strong> co-authorship networks and diffusion of expertise across projects.</li></ul><p><strong>Training corpus:</strong> Prior multi-authored mixed-methods studies with author order/roles, methods sections, appendices, and supplementary materials.</p><p><strong>Outputs:</strong> role likelihoods per author, recurring co-author themes, cluster suggestions for complementary expertise, and integrity flags for anomalous authorship signals.</p><p><strong>Ethics &amp; Governance:</strong> use published/open data; opt-out for authors; transparent model cards; bias audits; limit to team-development and discovery support, not punitive decisions.</p>'}