Ta strona została przetłumaczona automatycznie i dokładność tłumaczenia nie jest gwarantowana. Proszę odnieść się do angielska wersja za tekst źródłowy.

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)

14 września 2026 zaktualizowane przez: 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.

Przegląd badań

Szczegółowy opis

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.

Typ studiów

Interwencyjne

Zapisy (Szacowany)

96

Faza

  • Nie dotyczy

Kontakty i lokalizacje

Ta sekcja zawiera dane kontaktowe osób prowadzących badanie oraz informacje o tym, gdzie badanie jest przeprowadzane.

Lokalizacje studiów

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

Kryteria uczestnictwa

Badacze szukają osób, które pasują do określonego opisu, zwanego kryteriami kwalifikacyjnymi. Niektóre przykłady tych kryteriów to ogólny stan zdrowia danej osoby lub wcześniejsze leczenie.

Kryteria kwalifikacji

Wiek uprawniający do nauki

  • Dziecko
  • Dorosły
  • Starszy dorosły

Akceptuje zdrowych ochotników

Tak

Opis

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

Plan studiów

Ta sekcja zawiera szczegółowe informacje na temat planu badania, w tym sposób zaprojektowania badania i jego pomiary.

Jak projektuje się badanie?

Szczegóły projektu

  • Główny cel: Inny
  • Przydział: Randomizowane
  • Model interwencyjny: Przydział równoległy
  • Maskowanie: Podwójnie

Broń i interwencje

Grupa uczestników / Arm
Interwencja / Leczenie
Aktywny komparator: 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.

Eksperymentalny: 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.

Co mierzy badanie?

Podstawowe miary wyniku

Miara wyniku
Opis środka
Ramy czasowe
Personal Empowerment
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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

Miary wyników drugorzędnych

Miara wyniku
Opis środka
Ramy czasowe
Participants' Publication
Ramy czasowe: 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
Ramy czasowe: 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

Współpracownicy i badacze

Tutaj znajdziesz osoby i organizacje zaangażowane w to badanie.

Publikacje i pomocne linki

Osoba odpowiedzialna za wprowadzenie informacji o badaniu dobrowolnie udostępnia te publikacje. Mogą one dotyczyć wszystkiego, co jest związane z badaniem.

Daty zapisu na studia

Daty te śledzą postęp w przesyłaniu rekordów badań i podsumowań wyników do ClinicalTrials.gov. Zapisy badań i zgłoszone wyniki są przeglądane przez National Library of Medicine (NLM), aby upewnić się, że spełniają określone standardy kontroli jakości, zanim zostaną opublikowane na publicznej stronie internetowej.

Główne daty studiów

Rozpoczęcie studiów (Rzeczywisty)

4 czerwca 2026

Zakończenie podstawowe (Rzeczywisty)

24 lipca 2026

Ukończenie studiów (Szacowany)

1 marca 2027

Daty rejestracji na studia

Pierwszy przesłany

18 maja 2026

Pierwszy przesłany, który spełnia kryteria kontroli jakości

18 maja 2026

Pierwszy wysłany (Rzeczywisty)

26 maja 2026

Aktualizacje rekordów badań

Ostatnia wysłana aktualizacja (Rzeczywisty)

17 września 2026

Ostatnia przesłana aktualizacja, która spełniała kryteria kontroli jakości

14 września 2026

Ostatnia weryfikacja

1 września 2026

Więcej informacji

Terminy związane z tym badaniem

Dodatkowe istotne warunki MeSH

Inne numery identyfikacyjne badania

  • 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026 (Inny numer grantu/finansowania: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, British Embassy Jakarta)

Plan dla danych uczestnika indywidualnego (IPD)

Planujesz udostępniać dane poszczególnych uczestników (IPD)?

NIE

Opis planu IPD

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

Informacje o lekach i urządzeniach, dokumenty badawcze

Bada produkt leczniczy regulowany przez amerykańską FDA

Nie

Bada produkt urządzenia regulowany przez amerykańską FDA

Nie

Te informacje zostały pobrane bezpośrednio ze strony internetowej clinicaltrials.gov bez żadnych zmian. Jeśli chcesz zmienić, usunąć lub zaktualizować dane swojego badania, skontaktuj się z register@clinicaltrials.gov. Gdy tylko zmiana zostanie wprowadzona na stronie clinicaltrials.gov, zostanie ona automatycznie zaktualizowana również na naszej stronie internetowej .

Subskrybuj