이 페이지는 자동 번역되었으며 번역의 정확성을 보장하지 않습니다. 참조하십시오 영문판 원본 텍스트의 경우.

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

2026년 9월 14일 업데이트: Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia

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

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.

연구 개요

상세 설명

Detailed Description

This study is using a randomised controlled trial method conducted in Jakarta, Indonesia, designed 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 methods.

This study consists of a cluster randomized trial with two intervention arms, to evaluate the effectiveness of the genomics and science DOJO 3.0 learning method, specifically comparing between standard learning method and DOJO learning method. The DOJO learning method will be delivered through structured components, including modularized minicamps, structured mentoring, expanded Shinjitsu tournaments, and the introduction of the Shinjitsu Ninja component, providing a platform for scientific capacity building, collaboration, and innovation.

To support implementation across both study components, several structured operational procedures will be applied. To minimize contamination between groups,activities for the control and intervention arms will be conducted in separate locations. However, to ensure consistency in content delivery, both groups will receive the same core instructional materials and be taught by the same instructors (Sensei). The primary distinction between groups will lie in the learning approach and environment, with the intervention group receiving the DOJO learning method and the control group receiving a standard (non-DOJO) learning method.

  • Sample Size and Statistical Considerations The sample size calculation is based on the expected effect size of the intervention on primary outcomes (critical thinking, knowledge improvement, data analysis, personal empowerment, manuscript quality and quality of teaching), anticipated attrition among participants, and statistical power considerations to ensure meaningful results. Taking these factors into account, it is estimated that approximately 48 teams or 96 individuals will be recruited and participating in this study.
  • Quality Assurance and Data Management A comprehensive quality assurance framework will be implemented to ensure data integrity, accuracy, and consistency across all study sites. Electronic data capture systems will incorporate built-in validation rules, including range checks, consistency checks, and logical constraints across related variables.

Routine centralized data monitoring will be conducted to assess data completeness, timeliness, and internal consistency. Key indicators will include baseline/endline test results, activity logs, pre- and post-test results, and other study-related outputs, which will be systematically reviewed and used as primary inputs for analysis.

A standardized data management system will be implemented, including a comprehensive data dictionary that defines all study variables, formats, permissible values, coding structures, and data sources. Where applicable, standardized coding approaches will be applied to ensure consistency.

All study procedures will be guided by Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a detailed manual to ensure standardized implementation across sites.

  • Handling of Missing Data Data quality checks during data collection will aim to minimize missingness. During analysis, appropriate statistical techniques, such as multiple imputation will be applied as specified in the statistical analysis plan. In cases where key supporting variables, such as participants' educational background and research stage, are missing, efforts will be made to retrieve this information from participants or relevant records.
  • Statistical Analysis Plan All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Primary analyses will assess effectiveness of the DOJO learning method across intervention arms using quantitative methods to account for cluster randomization and potential confounders.

Primary analysis will examine differences in participants' critical thinking, improvement of knowledge, data analysis skills, personal empowerment, manuscript quality, publication, and quality of teaching. These outcomes will be assessed using structured assessment scoring and appropriate statistical models, by comparing endline results with baseline measurement.

Secondary analysis will assess differences in activity effectiveness, such as lecture and activity (i.e Ninja obstacles), or lectures only. These outcomes will be assessed using a structured assessment scoring and appropriate statistical models, by comparing post-test results with pre-test results that are administered each day of the minicamp offline session.

Depending on the nature of the outcome variables, appropriate statistical models will be applied. Continuous outcome variables like daily pre and post test scores, knowledge improvements, critical thinking scores, journal scores, tournament or mini tournament scores, and days distance to submission, will be primarily analyzed with repeated ANCOVA which is implemented to assess the changes over the time for each observation within the teams. Binary outcomes, such as paper finished or workshop completion, will be analyzed with chi-square test or logistic regression. Beside being analyzed as a variable, days distance to publication that act as a time-related outcomes, may be explored using survival analysis.

All analysis will include baseline characteristics of the participants, including the stratification of the research stage when joining the program and educational background, to improve comparability and reduce confounding.

연구 유형

중재적

등록 (추정된)

96

단계

  • 해당 없음

연락처 및 위치

이 섹션에서는 연구를 수행하는 사람들의 연락처 정보와 이 연구가 수행되는 장소에 대한 정보를 제공합니다.

연구 장소

    • DKI Jakarta
      • Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, 인도네시아, 12870
        • Summit Institute for Development

참여기준

연구원은 적격성 기준이라는 특정 설명에 맞는 사람을 찾습니다. 이러한 기준의 몇 가지 예는 개인의 일반적인 건강 상태 또는 이전 치료입니다.

자격 기준

공부할 수 있는 나이

  • 어린이
  • 성인
  • 고령자

건강한 자원 봉사자를 받아들입니다

예

설명

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 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

Exclusion Criteria:

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

공부 계획

이 섹션에서는 연구 설계 방법과 연구가 측정하는 내용을 포함하여 연구 계획에 대한 세부 정보를 제공합니다.

연구는 어떻게 설계됩니까?

디자인 세부사항

  • 주 목적: 다른
  • 할당: 무작위
  • 중재 모델: 병렬 할당
  • 마스킹: 더블

무기와 개입

참가자 그룹 / 팔
개입 / 치료
활성 비교기: Standard Learning Method

Participants receive:

Standard learning method Regular teaching style and digital material

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.

실험적: Genomics & Science Learning Methodology

Participants receive:

DOJO 3.0 Learning Method Regular teaching style and digital material

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.

연구는 무엇을 측정합니까?

주요 결과 측정

결과 측정
측정값 설명
기간
Personal Empowerment
기간: Baseline and one month
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
Critical Thinking
기간: Baseline and one month
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
기간: Baseline and one month
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
기간: Baseline and one month

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
Manuscript Quality
기간: Baseline and one month
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

2차 결과 측정

결과 측정
측정값 설명
기간
Participants' Publication
기간: Baseline and nine months
This variable will be assessed based on efficiency and quality of participants' manuscript publications, including submission timelines, publication speed, and journal impact. Impact on publication outcomes will be measured using a composite scoring approach. The Submission-to-Publication Interval Score will be calculated based on the number of months between manuscript submission and publication, with shorter intervals receiving higher scores (≤3 months = 4; ≤5 months = 3; ≤7 months = 2; ≤9 months = 1; not published = 0). Journal quality will be assessed using quartile rankings, with scores assigned as follows: Q1 = 3, Q2 = 2, Q3 = 1, and Q4 or unindexed journals = 0.
Baseline and nine months
Quality of Teaching
기간: Baseline and one month
This variable measures participants' perceptions of how effective the teaching was, both overall and at the Sensei level (clarity, structure, engagement, and learning support). Average scores (1-5 scales) are calculated for overall teaching quality and per Sensei (1: Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Agree, 5: Strongly Agree). Then, it was aggregated for comparison between the intervention and control groups. Higher scores indicate better quality of teaching.
Baseline and one month

공동 작업자 및 조사자

여기에서 이 연구와 관련된 사람과 조직을 찾을 수 있습니다.

간행물 및 유용한 링크

연구에 대한 정보 입력을 담당하는 사람이 자발적으로 이러한 간행물을 제공합니다. 이것은 연구와 관련된 모든 것에 관한 것일 수 있습니다.

연구 기록 날짜

이 날짜는 ClinicalTrials.gov에 대한 연구 기록 및 요약 결과 제출의 진행 상황을 추적합니다. 연구 기록 및 보고된 결과는 공개 웹사이트에 게시되기 전에 특정 품질 관리 기준을 충족하는지 확인하기 위해 국립 의학 도서관(NLM)에서 검토합니다.

연구 주요 날짜

연구 시작 (실제)

2026년 6월 4일

기본 완료 (실제)

2026년 7월 24일

연구 완료 (추정된)

2027년 3월 1일

연구 등록 날짜

최초 제출

2026년 5월 18일

QC 기준을 충족하는 최초 제출

2026년 5월 18일

처음 게시됨 (실제)

2026년 5월 26일

연구 기록 업데이트

마지막 업데이트 게시됨 (실제)

2026년 9월 17일

QC 기준을 충족하는 마지막 업데이트 제출

2026년 9월 14일

마지막으로 확인됨

2026년 9월 1일

추가 정보

이 연구와 관련된 용어

추가 관련 MeSH 약관

기타 연구 ID 번호

  • 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026 (기타 보조금/기금 번호: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, British Embassy Jakarta)

개별 참가자 데이터(IPD) 계획

개별 참가자 데이터(IPD)를 공유할 계획입니까?

아니요

IPD 계획 설명

IPD will not be shared due to confidentiality obligations and restrictions under the participant consent agreement

약물 및 장치 정보, 연구 문서

미국 FDA 규제 의약품 연구

아니

미국 FDA 규제 기기 제품 연구

아니

이 정보는 변경 없이 clinicaltrials.gov 웹사이트에서 직접 가져온 것입니다. 귀하의 연구 세부 정보를 변경, 제거 또는 업데이트하도록 요청하는 경우 register@clinicaltrials.gov. 문의하십시오. 변경 사항이 clinicaltrials.gov에 구현되는 즉시 저희 웹사이트에도 자동으로 업데이트됩니다. .

구독하다