Assessment
The Outcome-Based Education (OBE) assessment rubrics of the Doctoral Program in Legal Science, UNISSULA are designed to measure the achievement of the programme learning outcomes at doctoral level (Level 9 of the Indonesian Qualifications Framework), with an emphasis on originality, scholarly contribution, and depth of analysis.
I. Dissertation Proposal Seminar Rubric
| Assessment component | Weight | Score 4 (excellent) | Score 3 (good) | Score 2 (fair) | Score 1 (poor) |
|---|
| Novelty | 25% | Shows clear novelty with the potential to produce a new theory or concept | Some novelty, but not yet strong | Novelty limited to a minor extension | Shows no novelty |
|---|
| Research question | 15% | Specific, sharp, and grounded in a research gap | Reasonably clear but not fully sharp | Still general and lacking focus | Unsystematic |
|---|
| Theoretical framework | 20% | Comprehensive, current, and relevant | Relevant but lacking depth | Limited and dated | Inadequate |
|---|
| Research methodology | 20% | Appropriate, innovative, and consistent with the problem | Appropriate but not innovative | Poorly matched to the research question | Unclear |
|---|
| Scholarly argument | 20% | Logical, critical, and systematic | Reasonably logical but not sharp | Weak and unsystematic | Unscholarly |
|---|
Final mark = Σ (score × weight)
II. Scholarly Article Rubric (for Publication)
| Component | Weight | Score 4 | Score 3 | Score 2 | Score 1 |
|---|
| Theoretical contribution | 25% | Makes a significant contribution to the development of legal science | Moderate contribution | Limited contribution | No contribution |
|---|
| Depth of analysis | 20% | Critical, comprehensive, and reflective analysis | Reasonably good analysis | Shallow analysis | Descriptive |
|---|
| Methodology | 15% | Consistent and meets scholarly standards | Reasonably consistent | Inconsistent | Unclear |
|---|
| Structure and organisation | 15% | Highly systematic and follows the journal template | Reasonably systematic | Untidy | Unsystematic |
|---|
| References and citations | 15% | Current, relevant, and reputable | Reasonably relevant | Limited | Inadequate |
|---|
| Originality | 10% | Free of plagiarism with highly original ideas | Original with further development | Minimal innovation | Indications of plagiarism |
|---|
III. Doctoral Qualifying Examination Rubric
| Aspect | Weight | Score 4 | Score 3 | Score 2 | Score 1 |
|---|
| Command of legal theory | 30% | Deep command of classical and contemporary theory | Good command | Limited | Weak |
|---|
| Analytical ability | 25% | Analytical, critical, and reflective | Reasonably analytical | Insufficiently critical | Descriptive |
|---|
| Integration of concepts | 20% | Able to integrate theory and practice | Reasonably good integration | Weak integration | No integration |
|---|
| Oral argument | 15% | Systematic, logical, and convincing | Reasonably clear | Unsystematic | Incoherent |
|---|
| Academic ethics | 10% | Demonstrates integrity and scholarly honesty | Reasonably good | Inconsistent | Inadequate |
|---|
IV. Dissertation Rubric (Closed/Open Defence)
| Component | Weight | Score 4 (highly satisfactory) | Score 3 | Score 2 | Score 1 |
|---|
| Originality and novelty | 25% | Produces a new legal theory or idea | Extends an existing theory | Repeats established concepts | Not original |
|---|
| Scholarly contribution | 20% | Makes a significant contribution to legal science | Adequate contribution | Limited contribution | Unclear |
|---|
| Depth of analysis | 20% | Comprehensive and critical analysis | Adequate analysis | Shallow | Weak |
|---|
| Consistency of methodology | 15% | Appropriate and consistent methodology | Reasonably appropriate | Inconsistent | Unsuitable |
|---|
| Supporting publications | 10% | Published in a reputable international journal | Published in an accredited national journal | Conference proceedings | No publication yet |
|---|
| Defence of the dissertation | 10% | Well argued and convincing | Reasonably convincing | Unsystematic | Unable to respond |
|---|
V. Doctoral Academic Portfolio Rubric
| Portfolio component | Assessment indicator |
|---|
| Dissertation proposal | Approved with minimal revision |
|---|
| Published articles | At least one nationally or internationally indexed article |
|---|
| Scholarly seminars | Active participation as a presenter |
|---|
| Supervision logbook | Consistency and measurable progress |
|---|
| Other academic work | Policy brief, intellectual property, book, or research collaboration |
|---|
Grade Conversion Scale
| Mark range | Predicate |
|---|
| 85–100 (A) | Cum laude |
|---|
| 75–84 (AB) | Highly satisfactory |
|---|
| 65–74 (B) | Satisfactory |
|---|
| < 65 (C) | Fail |
|---|
These rubrics are designed to ensure that assessment in the Doctoral Program in Legal Science, UNISSULA is:
- based on learning outcomes (OBE);
- objective and measurable;
- transparent and accountable;
- able to guarantee doctoral quality standards at national and international level.
Source: Outcome-Based Education (OBE) Curriculum Document of the Doctoral Program in Legal Science, UNISSULA, 16 February 2026.
