Qualification Exam

Need Help?

Please contact us here:

Qualification Exam Requirements

Qualification exams can be carried out if doctoral program participants (PPD) have met the following requirements:

Have completed the mandatory lectures of at least 6 (six) credits with a minimum grade of B.
Has prepared a dissertation research proposal under the guidance of a team of supervisors.
Have received written approval from the supervisory team to take the qualifying exam.

Qualification Examination Procedure

The following is the process that students must go through to take the Qualification Exam.

Students register for the Qualifying Exam in the SIAMAT program
Students enter data on Dissertation Title, Field, Lab and Prospective Supervisor.
Students print the Qualification Exam identity form through the SIAMAT program
Students create dissertation proposals in myITS Thesis
Students register for the Qualification Exam in myITS Thesis and request approval from the supervisor.
Students submit the Qualification Exam files to the Head of the Postgraduate Study Program (KAPRODI)
The Doctoral Commission determines the eligibility of the Qualifying Examination. If the Doctoral Commission does not approve the implementation of the Qualifying Examination, then the student revises the Qualifying Examination files, including the Dissertation Proposal. If the Doctoral Commission approves the implementation of the Qualifying Examination, then the Doctoral Commission determines the PPUKD (Qualification and Dissertation Examination Assessment Committee). The PPUKD consists of the Promoter Team, 1 Examining Lecturer from ITS Mathematics, 1 Examining Lecturer from ITS and 1 Examining Lecturer from Outside ITS. Examining Lecturers from outside ITS are not involved in the Qualifying Examination and are only invited to the Dissertation Examination.
The Qualification Exam consists of a Written Exam and an Oral Exam. The written exam questions are made by the Promoter Team, Examining Lecturers from ITS Mathematics and Examining Lecturers from ITS. Students work on the Written Exam within 2×24 hours asynchronously and are open book.
Students take the Oral Exam. The Oral Exam is held for 2 hours, which begins with a 15-20 minute presentation, then continues with a question and answer session. The Main Promoter moderates the Oral Exam. The Promoter Team, Examiners from ITS Mathematics and Examiners from ITS carry out the assessment using a rubric.
The Head of the Programme announces the results of the Qualification Examination as well as notes or revisions from the examiners.
If the results of the Qualifying Exam are declared CAN BE CONTINUED then the student can continue the process of working on the Dissertation.
If the results of the Qualifying Exam are the opposite, then students can retake the Qualifying Exam by submitting a revised dissertation proposal (Return to point 6)

The following is the standard format for the Qualification Exam.

Qualification Exam Files

Photocopy of KTM
Final transcript
Latest TOEFL certificate
Draft of the dissertation proposal as many as 6 copies
Qualification Test Consent Form

The files are put in a blue mica folder and collected by the Head of the Study Program.

Qualification Exam Assessment Rubric

Written Exam Assessment Rubric

No	Assessment Components	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Updates and originality	The proposed research is almost the same as the reference	The proposed research has many similarities with the references	The proposed research has little resemblance to the references	The proposed research is original in terms of theory or application.	20%
2	Literature review	The literature reviewed is not relevant to the proposed research and there are almost no reputable international journals published in the last 5 years.	The literature reviewed was less relevant to the proposed research and a small portion were reputable international journals published in the last 5 years.	The literature reviewed is quite relevant to the proposed research and most of them are reputable international journals published in the last 5 years.	The literature reviewed is highly relevant to the proposed research and almost all of them are reputable international journals published in the last 5 years.	20%
3	The suitability between the proposed methodology and the problem to be researched	The proposed methodology does not match the problem to be researched	The proposed methodology is less appropriate to the problem to be researched	The proposed methodology is in accordance with the problems to be researched.	The proposed methodology is very suitable for the problem to be studied.	10%
4	Ability to systematize and formulate the results of thinking	The results of the thinking are arranged in a proposal in an unsystematic manner	The results of the thinking are arranged in a proposal in a fairly systematic manner.	The results of the thinking are arranged in a proposal in a very systematic manner.	The results of the thinking are arranged in a proposal systematically	20%
5	Ability to abstract	Students are unable to do abstraction	Students are less able to do abstraction	Students are able to do abstraction well	Students are able to do abstraction very well	30%

Oral Exam Assessment Rubric for Examining Lecturers

No	Criteria	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Visual Aids and Their Arrangement	Visual aids actually interfere with the presentation. The presentation goes back and forth, back and forth, confusing.	The visual aids are difficult to read in places, but do not interfere with the presentation. Some parts of the presentation are out of sequence.	Doesn’t follow the rule of nine, but still easy to read. Some use bullet points. Proper use of color, size, and position of letters, images, and tables. The presentation has a good systematic structure, only needs minor improvements in some parts.	Visual aids are easy to read, following the rule of nine (9 lines/slide, 9 words/line). Use bullet points to help your audience focus on keywords. Proper use of letters, images, and tables (color, size, and position). The presentation has a good systematic structure, following established standards (e.g., background, problem formulation, objectives, conceptual framework, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions).	25%
2	Explanation	The main idea is unclear. The audience learns nothing, or is even misled.	The main idea is not easy to identify. Does not add new insight into the topic.	Explanation is accurate but incomplete. Main ideas can be identified. The audience can learn the facts between the lines, but not gain new insight into the topic.	Accurate and complete explanation. The main ideas in the presentation are easy to follow and understand. Add new insight into the topic.	25%
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.	25%
4	Speech Ability, Body Movement and Eye Contact	Not audible/too loud. Monotonous. It is incorrect to pronounce most of the terms. Restless, pacing back and forth. No eye contact with audience, always looking at notes.	Often mumbling. It is not correct to pronounce most of the terms. Uneven posture, leaning on one side of the body, hands glued to the side or on the podium. Minimal eye contact with the audience, looking at notes a lot.	The sound is clear, but the volume drops in some parts. Correct pronunciation of most terms. Need to add or subtract body movements to emphasize important points. Eye contact with the audience, and occasionally look at notes.	The voice is clear. Pronounces the terms correctly. Using body language to describe or emphasize important points. Maintain direct eye contact with the audience.	25%

Oral Exam Assessment Rubric for Supervisors

No	Criteria	Less (56-63)	Enough (65-70)	Good (73-81)	Very Satisfying (83-95)	Weight
1	Creativity	Students do not have creativity	Students lack creativity	Students have good creativity	Students have excellent creativity	35%
2	Activity	Students are not active at all in conducting research	Students are less active in conducting research	Students are active in conducting research	Students are very active in conducting research	30%
3	Independence	Students are unable to conduct research independently	Students are less able to conduct research independently	Students are able to conduct research independently	Students are very capable of conducting research independently	35%

The qualification exam assessment uses the following composition:

Written Exam Score (40%)
Oral Exam Score from Supervisor (18 %)
Oral Exam Score from Examiner (42 %)