Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Genomics & Science DOJO 3.0 Learning Method in Improving Research Skills and Scientific Writing Among Researchers in Indonesia

NCT07607301 | Recruiting DMC

• 1 other identifier: 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 96
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The goal of this study is to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of the DOJO 3.0 learning methodology in enhancing research skills and scientific writing among researchers in Indonesia compared to non-DOJO learning method. The main questions it aims to answer are: How effective is the Dojo 3.0 methodology in improving participants' research skills and scientific writing, including critical thinking, data analysis ability, knowledge acquisition, and scientific manuscript quality and publication progress? How do participants' experiences, perceptions of the learning process and teaching quality, as well as their engagement, performance, and learning behaviors, differ between the intervention (DOJO) and control groups throughout the program? Researchers will compare two groups, control group and intervention group to see if there is a significant difference between these two groups. Standard learning method Non-DOJO (Control) DOJO learning method (Intervention) For the intervention group, participants will participate in Shinjitsu class, an interactive dynamic lecture with real time engagement, an offline minicamp session with lecture that is more intense, intentionally more provocative and dynamic, wounded healer, shinjitsu ninja obstacles, shinjitsu ninja run, sparring and Tournament.

Conditions

Workshop; Critical Thinking Skill; Data Analysis Skill; Personal Empowerment; Manuscript Quality; Genomics; Science; Research Publication; Learning Methodology; Quality of Teaching

Keywords

Learning Method; Research Skill; Scientific Writing; Critical Thinking; Randomized Controlled Trial; Genomics and Science

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Critical Thinking

  Critical thinking abilities will be measured using open-ended questions. measured quantitatively using the Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR). The primary metric is the mean change score between intervention and control groups, estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline MCQ scores as covariate. Critical thinking is assessed using a 5-item questionnaire, which will be scored by trained reviewers on a 1-4 rubric (1: Significantly weak, 2: Unacceptable, 3: Acceptable, 4: Strong), with 0 indicating no responses or no demonstration of critical thinking. Total score ranges from 0 to 20. Higher scores indicate better critical thinking performance.

  Baseline and one month

• Knowledge Improvement

  Improvement of knowledge will be measured using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) through three sessions from each different program contents: Day 1(30 items, score range 0-30), Day 2 (40 items, score range 0-40), and Day 3 (30 items, score range 0-30). One point is awarded for each session per correct answer. A higher score means better knowledge. Scores will be calculated as the percentage of correct answers (%) for each team participant. The primary metric is the adjusted mean difference in endline MCQ scores between intervention and control groups, estimated using ANCOVA with baseline MCQ scores as covariate.

  Baseline and one month

• Data Analysis

  Data analysis skills are assessed at the individual participant level through case-based written assessments administered before and after the intervention. The pre-test (Ninja Obstacles) is completed individually by each participant before program content is delivered, and the post-test (Ninja Run) is completed individually on the final day of the program. In both assessments, participants independently analyze a real-world health dataset and submit a written response covering data interpretation, calculation, and application. The rubric assesses the responses in four criteria: data interpretation, application of basic quantitative analysis, evidence-based conclusions, and communication of key findings. Each criterion is scored on a 5-point scale (1= lowest performance, 5= highest performance), with 0 indicating performance of data analysis. Criterion scores are summed to a total individual score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores illustrating better data analysis performance

  Baseline and one month

• Personal Empowerment

  Personal empowerment will be assessed based on participants' confidence and sense of agency in engaging with and completing program-related tasks. Raw scores from the Dojo-specific validated questionnaire will be calculated separately at pre- and post-assessment. Pre-to-post changes will be standardized (z-scores) to enable comparability across instruments with different scoring scales. Standardized scores from both measures will then be equally weighted and combined to generate a composite Personal Empowerment Index. Changes in the Personal Empowerment Index are compared between control and intervention groups to assess program impact.

  Baseline and one month

• Manuscript Quality

  The improvement in manuscript quality submitted by the team participants, comparing before and after to DOJO activity. This variable will be measured using previous DOJO's evaluator scoring, specifically adapted from high-impact journal reviewer guidelines (BMJ, Nature, Elsevier, JAMA) and reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA). The rubric covers four domains: Scientific Content and Rigor (35 points), Reporting Quality (20 points), Scientific Writing Quality (25 points), and Journal Readiness and Impact (20 points). Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better manuscript quality. Each manuscript is scored by at least two blinded evaluators.

  Baseline and one month

Secondary Outcomes (2)

• Participants' Publication

  Baseline and nine months

• Quality of Teaching

  Baseline and one month

Study Arms (2)

Standard Learning Method

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Participants receive: Standard learning method Regular teaching style and digital material

Behavioral: Standard Learning Methodology

Genomics & Science Learning Methodology

EXPERIMENTAL

Participants receive: DOJO 3.0 Learning Method Regular teaching style and digital material

Behavioral: Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology

Interventions

Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology BEHAVIORAL

The key characteristic of the DOJO approach lies in the Shinjitsu methodology, which integrates structured debate, confrontational argumentation, and real-time intellectual challenge as core mechanisms to stimulate critical thinking. The program will be implemented through structured components by continuing several activities such as Wounded Healer, Ninja Run, and Shinjitsu Tournament. Wounded Healer is based on the principles of active psychology and leverages direct and interactive experiences. In this session, participants actively share challenges encountered in a supportive environment, thereby fostering confidence and psychological safety. This is followed by Ninja Run, where participants train their critical thinking and decision-making skills under constrained conditions. Participants engage in a structured Shinjitsu Tournament, in which they not only present their arguments but also defend and critically challenge them in a confrontational yet structured setting.

Genomics & Science Learning Methodology

Standard Learning Methodology BEHAVIORAL

A structured standard learning approach that is conceptually adapted from the teaching and learning methods used in the MSc in Health Service Improvement and Evaluation (HSIE) at the University of Oxford. In the Shinjitsu class, the material will be delivered in a fully didactic, one-way format, limiting participant interaction to brief, moderator-led question-and-answer sessions. The Wounded Healer session will be conducted as a seminar focused on individual reflection rather than interactive sharing, resulting in a more passive reflective experience without the experiential and positive psychology components present in the DOJO intervention. For Ninja Run, participants will not be placed in a competitive environment but will instead be given time to complete tasks at their own pace without time pressure, thereby not experiencing the same level of cognitive demand as working under constraints.

Standard Learning Method

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Registered participants of Genomics \& Science DOJO 3.0
• Teams consisting of two members
• Submission of research concept note
• Completion of screening and assessment stages (administratively and substantially through blind concept note screening and team's curriculum vitae)
• Willingness and commitment to participate in the full program will be ensured through a structured confirmation process.
• In addition, participants will be required to review, sign, and submit a commitment letter outlining the full schedule, expectations for attendance, and participation requirements.
• Information regarding program schedule and participation expectations will be communicated at multiple stages, including during registration, program launch, and post-selection, to ensure participants are fully informed prior to confirming their participation.
• Involvement/ attendance of the first author

You may not qualify if:

• Incomplete registration or documentation
• Failure to meet team composition requirements
• Withdrawal before intervention
• Incomplete baseline data

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia: lead
• Oxford University Clinical Research Unit Indonesia: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Summit Institute for Development

Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, 12870, Indonesia

RECRUITING

Related Publications (4)

• Chicco D, Sichenze A, Jurman G. A simple guide to the use of Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, and Kruskal-Wallis test in biostatistics. BioData Min. 2025 Aug 20;18(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s13040-025-00465-6.

  PMID: 40835959 BACKGROUND

• Braga LH, Farrokhyar F, Donmez MI, Nelson CP, Haid B, Herbst K, Garriboli M, Cascio S, Nieuwhof-Leppink A, Kaefer M, Bagli DJ, Kalfa N, Ching C, Fossum M, Harper L. Randomized controlled trials - The what, when, how and why. J Pediatr Urol. 2025 Apr;21(2):397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.11.021. Epub 2024 Dec 3.

  PMID: 39701869 BACKGROUND

• Akobeng AK. Assessing the validity of clinical trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008 Sep;47(3):277-82. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31816c749f.

  PMID: 18728521 BACKGROUND

• Widyahening IS, Wangge G, Saldi SR, Lestari BW, Apriani L, Sastroasmoro S, Glasziou P, van der Graaf Y, van der Heijden GJ. Quality and reporting of publications by Indonesian researchers: a literature survey. J Evid Based Med. 2014 Aug;7(3):163-71. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12112.

  PMID: 25156942 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Genome

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Genetic Structures; Genetic Phenomena

Central Study Contacts

Lia Rosida

CONTACT

+6287765680206; lia.rosida@sid-indonesia.org

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: Participants will be divided into two groups where both will experience different intervention (learning methodology; Dojo vs Non-Dojo) at different venue, but will be conducted at the same time.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: May 18, 2026
• First Posted: May 26, 2026
• Study Start: June 4, 2026
• Primary Completion: July 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): March 1, 2027
• Last Updated: June 15, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-06

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

ID (1)