WorkshopDOJONCT07607301
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 study testing Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology and Standard Learning Methodology in people with Workshop and Critical Thinking Skill, run by Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia at 1 site in Indonesia.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Workshop, Critical Thinking Skill, Data Analysis Skill
- What is being tested?
- Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology and Standard Learning Methodology
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 96 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIndonesia
- Study dates
- 4 Jun 2026to Mar 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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
Who cannot join
- Incomplete registration or documentation
- Failure to meet team composition requirements
- Withdrawal before intervention
- Incomplete baseline data
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Indonesia1 site
Summit Institute for Development
Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, 12870
About this study
Official title: 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?
Read more
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Workshop, Critical Thinking Skill, Data Analysis Skill, Personal Empowerment, Manuscript Quality, Genomics
- Being tested
- Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology, Standard Learning Methodology
- Keywords
- Learning Method, Research Skill, Scientific Writing, Critical Thinking, Randomized Controlled Trial, Genomics and Science
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Genomics & Science Dojo Learning MethodologyBehavioural
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.
Standard Learning MethodologyBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Learning Method | Active comparator | Participants receive:
Standard learning method Regular teaching style and digital material Receives: Behavioral: Standard Learning Methodology |
| Genomics & Science Learning Methodology | Experimental | Participants receive:
DOJO 3.0 Learning Method Regular teaching style and digital material Receives: Behavioral: Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Baseline and one month
Secondary outcomes (2)
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.
Measured: Baseline and nine months
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.
Measured: Baseline and one month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 May 2026
- Study start4 Jun 2026
- Primary completion24 Jul 2026
- Study completionMar 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for WorkshopStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- 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.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 96 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit Indonesia
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07607301
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026
- Other IDs
- 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026
- Acronym
- DOJO
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 18 May 2026
- Last updated
- 17 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: IPD will not be shared due to confidentiality obligations and restrictions under the participant consent agreement
Publications
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.
PubMed 40835959Braga 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.
PubMed 39701869Akobeng AK. Assessing the validity of clinical trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008 Sep;47(3):277-82. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31816c749f.
PubMed 18728521Widyahening 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.
PubMed 25156942
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- 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
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07607301
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DOJO / 096/UN18.F8/ETIK/2026
- Conditions
- Workshop, Critical Thinking Skill, Data Analysis Skill, Personal Empowerment, Manuscript Quality, Genomics
- Keywords
- Learning Method, Research Skill, Scientific Writing, Critical Thinking, Randomized Controlled Trial, Genomics and Science
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 96 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Summit Institute for Development, IndonesiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Oxford University Clinical Research Unit Indonesia
- Study start
- 4 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 26 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 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.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Learning Method | Active comparator | Behavioral: Standard Learning MethodologyParticipants receive: Standard learning method Regular teaching style and digital material |
| Genomics & Science Learning Methodology | Experimental | Behavioral: Genomics & Science Dojo Learning MethodologyParticipants receive: DOJO 3.0 Learning Method Regular teaching style and digital material |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (8 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Incomplete registration or documentation
- Failure to meet team composition requirements
- Withdrawal before intervention
- Incomplete baseline data
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Genomics & Science Dojo Learning MethodologyThe 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. | Behavioural | Genomics & Science Learning Methodology |
| Standard Learning MethodologyA 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. | Behavioural | Standard Learning Method |
Primary outcome
Critical Thinking
Time frame: 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.
Knowledge Improvement
Time frame: 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.
Data Analysis
Time frame: 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
Personal Empowerment
Time frame: 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.
Manuscript Quality
Time frame: 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.
2 secondary outcomes
Participants' Publication
Time frame: Baseline and nine months
Quality of Teaching
Time frame: Baseline and one month
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 40835959Chicco 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.
- Background: PubMed 39701869Braga 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.
- Background: PubMed 18728521Akobeng AK. Assessing the validity of clinical trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008 Sep;47(3):277-82. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31816c749f.
- Background: PubMed 25156942Widyahening 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. IPD will not be shared due to confidentiality obligations and restrictions under the participant consent agreement
Related trials for Workshop
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Happiness Workshops on Nursing Students' Levels of Psychological Resilience
Psychological Resilience, Nursing Students
RecruitingPhase 3
Influence of Art Workshops and Cognitive Support for Families of Children With Cancer.
Psychologic Resilience
Recruiting
Professional Readiness Through Emotional Preparedness (PREP)
Burnout
Not yet recruiting
A Pilot Study of a DBT-Informed Caregiver Risk Management Workshop
Caregivers, Suicide
Not yet recruiting
Cervical Cancer Awareness Education to Aid Confidence and Screening upTake (ACT): A Pilot Randomised Control Trial
Anxiety, Cervical Cancer Screening
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Genomics & Science Dojo Learning Methodology and Standard Learning Methodology in people with Workshop and Critical Thinking Skill, run by Summit Institute for Development, Indonesia at 1 site in Indonesia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 8 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Indonesia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Critical Thinking (time frame: Baseline and one month). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07607301, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Sep 2026.