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.
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)
Incomplete registration or documentation
Failure to meet team composition requirements
Withdrawal before intervention
Incomplete baseline data
Parallel
Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology
BehavioralThe 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.
Standard Learning Methodology
BehavioralA 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Participants' Publication
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.
Quality of Teaching
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.
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia
Lead sponsor
Oxford University Clinical Research Unit Indonesia
Collaborator
