Dissertation

Need Help?

Please contact us here:

Dissertation Examination Requirements

The dissertation examination can be carried out if the doctoral candidate has fulfilled the following requirements:

Have completed the required courses with a minimum grade of B.
Has met the publication requirements.
Have met English language proficiency requirements (TEFL).
Have received approval from the guidance team to proceed to the closed exam.
Has submitted a dissertation book that has been signed by the supervisor team

Progress Seminar Procedures

The following is the process that students must go through to take part in the Progress Seminar.

Students register for the Progress Seminar in the SIAMAT program
Students enter data on Dissertation Title, Field, Lab and Supervisor.
Students print the Progress Seminar identity form through the SIAMAT program.
Students make proposals for Progress Seminars in myITS Thesis
Students register for the Progress Seminar in myITS Thesis and request approval from the supervisor.
Students submit the Progress Seminar Form to the Head of the Postgraduate Study Program (KAPRODI), ( download here )
KAPRODI schedules Progress Seminar
Students carry out a Progress Seminar. The Progress Seminar is held for 1 hour, which begins with a 15-20 minute presentation, then continues with a question and answer session. The Main Promoter moderates the Progress Seminar. The Promoter Team and Examining Lecturers carry out the assessment using a rubric.
The Head of the Programme submits notes or revisions from the Promoter Team and Examining Lecturers

Progress Seminar Assessment Rubric

Examiner Lecturer

No	Assessment Components	Not enough (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very satisfactory (83-95)	Weight
1	Visual Aids and Their Arrangement	-Visual aids actually interfere with the presentation. -Presentation goes back and forth, confusing.	-Visual aids are hard to read in places, but do not interfere with the presentation. -Some parts of the presentation are out of sequence.	-Does not follow the rule of nine, but is still easy to read. -Some use bullet points. -Appropriate use of color, size, and placement of letters, images, and tables. -The presentation has a good systematics, only needs minor improvements in some parts.	-Visual aids are easy to read, following the rule of nine (9 lines/slide, 9 words/line). -Using bullet points to help the audience focus on keywords. -Appropriate use of fonts, images, and tables (color, size, and position). -The presentation has a good systematics, following established standards (e.g., background, problem formulation, objectives, conceptual framework, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions).	10%
2	Explanation	-The main idea is unclear. -The audience learns nothing, or is even misled.	-The main idea is not easily identified. -Does not add new insights to the topic.	-Accurate but incomplete explanation. Main ideas can be identified. -Audience may learn implied facts, but no new insights into the topic.	-Accurate and complete explanation. -Main ideas in the presentation are easy to follow and understand. -Add new insights on the topic.	10%
3	Understanding	Can’t answer all questions	Uncomfortable with questions and only able to answer simple questions.	Answers all questions as expected, without further elaboration.	Demonstrate full knowledge by answering all questions with explanations and elaborations.	10%
4	Speech Ability, Body Movement and Eye Contact	-Inaudible/too loud. -Monotonous. -Inaccurate pronunciation of most terms. -Fidgety, pacing back and forth. -No eye contact with the audience, always looking at notes.	-Often mumbling. -Inaccurate pronunciation of most terms. -Posture is not straight, leaning on one side of the body, hands fixed at the side of the body or on the podium. Minimal eye contact with the audience, looking at notes a lot.	-Voice is clear, but the volume decreases in some parts. -Pronounces most terms correctly. -Needs to increase or decrease body movements to emphasize important points. Eye contact with the audience, and occasionally looks at notes.	-Voice is clear. Pronounces terms correctly. -Uses gestures to describe or emphasize important points. -Maintains direct eye contact with the audience.	10%
5	Mastery of research methods	Students do not master research methods	Students do not have a good grasp of research methods	Students master research methods well	Students master research methods very well	20%
6	Achievement of research results against planned targets	Students do not have research results	Students have research results, but have not yet achieved the expected target.	Students have research results that almost reach the planned target.	Students have research results that are in accordance with the planned targets.	20%
7	Renewability of research results	Research shows little or no innovation	There are some innovative elements, but the contribution to the field is still limited.	The novelty is evident in the concepts and methodologies.	Demonstrate high innovation and significantly develop knowledge	20%

Supervisor

No	Assessment Components	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Research ethics: adherence to ethical principles in research, including integrity & honesty	Not complying with ethics	Adheres to ethics but often lacks caution	Adhere to ethics well	Strongly committed to research ethics	25%
2	Independence: The attitude of overcoming challenges and finding solutions independently.	Not trying to overcome challenges	Sometimes looking for solutions, but depending on others	Able to handle challenges well	Very independent and proactive in finding solutions	25%
3	Openness: Open attitude to criticism and suggestions from supervisors and colleagues.	Rejecting criticism and suggestions	Accepting criticism but not applying it	Open to criticism and suggestions	Very receptive and implements feedback	25%
4	Commitment: Dedication and consistency in conducting research and managing time well.	Lack of consistency and commitment	Sometimes consistent, but easily distracted	Quite consistent and committed	Very dedicated and consistent in research	25%

The progress seminar assessment uses the following composition:

Examiner score 70%
Supervisor value 30%

Publication of International Seminars/Conferences

The requirement for publication in international seminars is that the proceedings are indexed by Scopus or Web of Science . Students need to present their papers in front of the Supervisory Team. The assessment rubric is as follows

No	Assessment Components	Very Good (76-85)	Special (86-100)	Weight
1	Research Quality	Research demonstrates originality and relevance in the context of the field of study.	The research is not only original, but also opens up new directions in existing research, as well as making significant contributions.	25%
2	Clarity and Readability	The text structure is clear and logical, so it is easy for the reader to understand.	The presentation is very clear with a flowing flow, making the arguments and findings easy to digest and remember.	25%
3	Relevance and Impact	The topics discussed are relevant to important issues in the related fields.	Publications provide in-depth insights and have the potential for broad impact on the development of science or practical applications.	25%
4	Presentation and Writing Style	Appropriate academic writing style with proper use of references	The writing is very engaging, with the use of up-to-date references and innovative visualizations, reinforcing the argument in an effective way.	25%

International Journal Publication

The requirement for publication in an international journal is to be indexed by Scopus or Web of Science . Publication in a reputable international journal indexed by Scopus at least Q2 or Web of Science with an impact factor above 0.5 gets an A grade. If it does not meet these requirements, it gets an AB grade.

Dissertation Examination Procedures

The following is the process that students must go through to take the Dissertation Examination.

Students register for the Dissertation Examination in the SIAMAT program
Students enter data on Dissertation Title, Field, Lab and Supervisor.
Students print the Dissertation Examination identity form through the SIAMAT program
Students create dissertation proposals in myITS Thesis
Students register for the Dissertation Examination on myITS Thesis and request approval from the supervisor.
Students submit Dissertation Examination files to the Head of the Postgraduate Study Program (KAPRODI)
The Doctoral Commission determines the eligibility of the Dissertation Examination. If the Doctoral Commission does not approve the implementation of the Dissertation Examination, then the student revises the Dissertation Examination files, including the Dissertation Proposal. If the Doctoral Commission approves the implementation of the Dissertation Examination, then the Head of the Study Program schedules the Dissertation Examination.
Students take the Dissertation Examination. The Dissertation Examination is carried out for 2 hours, which begins with a 15-20 minute presentation, then continues with questions and answers. The Main Promoter moderates the Dissertation Examination. The Promoter Team and Examining Lecturers carry out the assessment using a rubric.
The Head of the Dissertation Program announces the results of the Dissertation Examination as well as notes or revisions from the examiners.
If the results of the Dissertation Examination are declared PASSED, the student can revise the Dissertation based on input from the Promoter Team and Examining Lecturers.
If the results of the Qualification Examination are otherwise, the student can retake the Dissertation Examination by submitting a revised dissertation proposal.

Dissertation Examination Files

Course transcripts
Dissertation Draft (according to the number of promoters and examiners)
Dissertation Examination Approval Sheet ( click here )
SK Candidate Doctor
Latest Progress Report
Evidence of International Seminar Publication (2 Papers presented in seminars)
International Seminar Publication Certificate (2 Certificates)
Evidence of International Journal Publication (1 Accepted Paper)
Proof of International Journal Publication ( accepted proof )
Proof of passing a Foreign Language (TEFL/course score conversion)

Dissertation Test Evaluation Rubric

Examiner Lecturer Assessment Rubric

No	Assessment Components	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Mastery of science	Students do not master the field of science	Students have less mastery of the field of science	Students have a good command of their field of study	Students have mastered the field of science very well	20%
2	Mastery of research methods relevant to dissertation research	Students do not master research methods relevant to dissertation research	Students do not have sufficient mastery of research methods relevant to dissertation research.	Students have a good command of research methods that are relevant to their dissertation research.	Students have a very good command of research methods relevant to their dissertation research.	20%
3	The ability to abstract and systematically organize scientific thought patterns	Students are unable to abstract and systematically organize their scientific thinking patterns.	Students are less able to abstract and systematically organize their scientific thinking patterns.	Students are able to abstract and systematically organize their scientific thinking patterns well.	Students are able to abstract and systematically organize their scientific thinking patterns very well.	20%
4	The ability to convey scientific arguments to answer questions relevant to the dissertation research.	Students are unable to convey scientific arguments to answer questions relevant to their dissertation research.	Students are less able to convey scientific arguments to answer questions relevant to their dissertation research.	Students are able to convey scientific arguments to answer questions relevant to their dissertation research well.	Students are able to convey scientific arguments to answer questions relevant to their dissertation research very well.	20%
5	Ability to propose strategies to develop research	Students are unable to propose strategies to develop their research.	Students are less able to propose strategies to develop their research.	Students are able to propose strategies to develop their research well.	Students are able to propose strategies to develop their research very well.	20%

Supervisor Lecturer Assessment Rubric

No	Assessment Components	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Attitudes: independence, initiative, problem solving skills, organizational skills, leadership, collaborative work, oral communication, and manners	Students have bad attitudes and lack manners	Students have bad attitudes and lack manners	Students have good attitudes and good manners	The students have very good attitudes and have very good manners.	40%
2	Research log book	· The writing is not systematic, concise and clear · Images and graphs are presented unclearly and in incorrect format. · Writing mathematical formulas and formulas does not comply with the correct rules and format.	· The writing is less systematic, less concise and less clear · Images and graphs are presented unclearly and in incorrect format. · Writing mathematical formulas and formulas does not comply with the correct rules and format.	· Systematic, concise and clear writing · Images and graphs are presented clearly and in the correct format. · Writing mathematical formulas and formulas according to the correct rules and format	· The writing is very systematic, very concise and very clear. · Images and graphs are presented very clearly and in the correct format. · Writing mathematical formulas and formulas is in accordance with the correct rules and format.	20%
3	Journal articles or proceedings related to the dissertation	Journal articles or proceedings are of poor quality	Journal articles or proceedings are of poor quality	Journal articles or proceedings are of good quality	Journal articles or proceedings are of excellent quality.	20%

The dissertation exam assessment uses the following composition:

Examiner’s Score (70%)
Mentor Value (30%)