انجام اصلاحات پژوهش آماری

---

شرح پروژه

سلام یه پژوهش اماری دارم

فایل داده ها و ازمون های اماریشو از دست دادم

یسری نتایج نوشتم که متاسفانه مشکل منطق علمی داره و الان دسترسی به فایل داده ها ندارم

به یک نفر اشنا به مباحث اماری نیاز دارم ک برام داده سازی کنه و اصلاحات پژهش رو انجام بده طوریکه نتایج معقول و منطقی بشن

کامنت ها رو زیر اوردم

کار میخام درست انجام بشه با اینکه داده سازی هست . از چت جی پی تی وغیره نباشه

من میخام تایید داورهارو بگیرم بعد تایید ازادسازی وجه رو انجام میدم

 
نظرات داوران:
داور 1:
فایل ارسالی داور:

توضیحات داور برای نویسنده:
This manuscript addresses a timely and important topic and has the potential to contribute to the growing literature on AI-assisted language learning. However, several important methodological, statistical, and reporting issues should be addressed before the findings can be considered sufficiently robust. In particular, the literature review should be strengthened with more recent studies, the research design and mixed-methods approach should be more clearly justified, the statistical analyses and reported effect sizes should be verified,  Please refer to the attached appendix for detailed comments and suggestions regarding the revision of the manuscript.

(فایل داخل لینکو برات اپلود کردم)

داور 2:
توضیحات داور برای نویسنده:

The abstract uses language that implies causal attribution (e.g., improvements due to InstaText). Because there is no intact control group and no randomization, the design cannot support causal claims. 2. I think that the loss of the control arm is a fundamental methodological limitation that must be stated in the abstract, not deferred to the Methods section. Readers evaluating the study from the abstract alone need to know the design is single-group. A single sentence acknowledging this is sufficient. 3.The abstract states six analytical criteria; the Methods and Results sections report seven. This must be resolved and a single, consistent count used throughout. 4.The abstract mentions statistically significant improvements but does not include any effect size information. Given that Cohen's d values are reported in the results and are central to the study's claims of practical significance, at least a summary indication (eg, with large effect sizes across most criteria) should appear in the abstract. 5.The abstract states a 12-month duration without explanation. While the full justification belongs in the Methods section, the abstract should at least not leave this unexplained; a brief phrase (eg, "over a full academic year") helps orient the reader. 6. . 8.
The research questions use terms that do not precisely map onto the rubric criteria reported in the results. For example, constructs referenced in the RQs do not consistently appear under the same labels in Table 1. This mismatch creates confusion and weakens the internal coherence of the paper. Please align the terminology used in the RQs with the exact criterion labels used throughout the Methods and Results sections. 9.At least one paragraph in the introduction presents what appears to be findings or anticipated results rather than study aims. Aims should be framed prospectively and without pre-empting results.11.The Methods section acknowledges the loss of the control group but does not provide sufficient methodological detail about why the data were unusable. "Incomplete tasks or drafts misaligned with the rubric" raises many questions. Was the rubric applied differently to the control group? Were the tasks structurally different? Please provide a more transparent account so readers can assess whether the discontinuation was justified and whether it introduces selection bias into the remaining sample. 12.The manuscript states that purposive sampling was used and notes variation in age, gender, and educational background, but does not specify the criteria used to define "intermediate" proficiency or how participants were screened. Please describe the proficiency measure used (eg, a placement test, an institutional level designation) and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. 13.The procedure describes a 15-minute guided revision period but does not explain how this was monitored or standardized across participants. Were all students supervised simultaneously? Was the revision period identical in length for all five tasks? Please clarify how fidelity to the procedure was ensured. 14.The rubric is described as "adapted from Hyland's (2003) analytical rubric," but the nature of the adaptation is not described. Which original criteria were retained, modified, or added? What was the rationale for arriving at the seven criteria used? Since the rubric is central to the study's measurement validity, this should be explained clearly. 15. Across all five essays, collocation is listed as non-significant in some rows yet is assigned an effect size of d = 0.91 (large) in every instance. A large effect size is inconsistent with a non-significant result in a sample of n = 75, and identical effect sizes across five essays with varying mean differences are statistically implausible. This appears to be a data entry or reporting error. Please review and correct the collocation statistics throughout Table 1. 16.Table 2 reports that 64 of 75 students cited lack of grammatical knowledge, yet the narrative discussion attributes the lexical knowledge theme to only 15 students and the writing style theme to 11. These numbers are inconsistent with the table header claims and with the interview sample size. Please verify all frequency counts against the raw data and ensure consistency between the tables and the narrative. 17.Table 1 uses an asterisk (*) to denote significance but does not provide the actual t- values, degrees of freedom, or exact p- values. While the manuscript notes that full statistics are available on request, journal norms generally require that t and p values appear in the table or in the text. Please add these or explain the departure from convention. 18. The Discussion continues to frame improvements as caused by InstaText (eg, "using InstaText led to...") and makes implicit comparisons to a control condition that was not analyzed. Please revise all such passages to reflect the single-group design.
Language such as "following use of InstaText," "in the InstaText phase," or "compared to the pre-tool phase" is more defensible. 19.One of the stated benefits of a mixed-methods design is the ability to triangulate or explain quantitative patterns with qualitative data. The Discussion handles the two strands largely in parallel rather than integrating them. For example, the large quantitative gains in lexical knowledge align with qualitative reports of vocabulary acceptance. this connection is briefly noted but could be developed more explicitly to demonstrate what the qualitative data adds to the quantitative story, not merely that both strands point in the same direction. 20.The Discussion does not adequately address the non-significant or inconsistent collocation findings. Why might InstaText be less effective for collocation? Is this consistent with the tool's known design features? What do students' qualitative accounts say, or not say, about collocation? Engaging with unexpected results strengthens the credibility of the analysis. 21.The reference to Roehr-Brackin (2024) in the context of implicit knowledge transformation is interesting but underdeveloped. If implicit-to-procedural knowledge transfer is offered as an explanatory mechanism, it should be elaborated briefly and connected more directly to the specific criteria that improved without the tool. 22.The limitations are noted but handled briefly. The absence of a control group is the most significant methodological limitation of the study and deserves more than a passing mention. Please discuss more specifically what claims cannot be made as a result, and what alternative explanations for the observed gains cannot be ruled out (eg, repeated practice effects, familiarity with the rubric, motivational novelty effects from using a new tool). 23. The implications section is well intended but remains at a level of generality that limits practical utility. For instance, the recommendation to use AI feedback for punctuation and lexical choice is useful; pairing it with a specific classroom procedure (eg, a pre-revision checklist, teacher-led discussion of rejected suggestions) would make it more actionable for readers who are practitioners. 

این پروژه شامل 2 فایل مهم است، لطفا قبل از ارسال پیشنهاد حتما نسبت به بررسی این فایل اقدام فرمایید.

مهارت ها و تخصص های مورد نیاز

---

---