Developing CPL, CPMK, and RPS at the Master’s (S2) Level in Indonesia
CPL, CPMK, and RPS are key elements of curriculum design in Indonesian universities.
Capaian Pembelajaran Lulusan (CPL) refers to Program Learning Outcomes – the abilities a graduate (program level) is expected to have. Capaian Pembelajaran Mata Kuliah (CPMK) are Course Learning Outcomes derived from those program outcomes for each course. Rencana Pembelajaran Semester (RPS) is the course syllabus/lesson plan document that outlines how a course will achieve its CPMK. Below is a comprehensive overview of how these are developed at the S2 (Master’s) level, including systems used, processes, inputs, outputs, and roles, followed by a specific Informatics example.
Systems or Platforms: Manual vs. Digital Approaches
In practice, many universities still develop CPL, CPMK, and RPS using manual processes – e.g. workshops and spreadsheet templates – but some have adopted digital platforms. There is no single nationwide software mandated for this; however, internal quality assurance systems or academic information systems often support outcome mapping. For example, some institutions use curriculum management modules (often as part of their Academic Information System) to map program outcomes to courses and monitor alignment. These systems allow admins to input CPL, map them to courses, and then map each course’s CPMK to the corresponding CPL
In such Outcome-Based Education (OBE) platforms, once CPMK are entered and linked to CPL, the RPS can be managed and checked for completeness. This helps ensure that all course outcomes collectively fulfill the program outcomes.
Illustration: A conceptual workflow for mapping and weighting CPMK (course outcomes) to ensure all sub-outcomes (sub-CPMK) are covered in the course RPS and materials. In a digital system, each course (Mata Kuliah) is linked to its RPS and a set of CPMK, which in turn consist of sub-CPMK for each learning stage. The system can flag if any sub-CPMK are not addressed by the RPS content (ensuring no learning outcome is left unmet).
Where a dedicated system is not available, universities typically rely on manual documentation. Curriculum mapping matrices are created in documents or spreadsheets, showing which courses contribute to each CPL. RPS documents are usually prepared in word processing templates and reviewed manually. Nonetheless, even in manual cases, the process follows structured guidelines from national standards and accreditation requirements, as described next.
Process of Developing CPL, CPMK, and RPS (Step-by-Step)
Developing a curriculum at the S2 level is an iterative process involving design, mapping, and validation steps. The national curriculum guide outlines a cycle from analysis to design to implementation. A typical step-by-step process is:
Formulate Program Learning Outcomes (CPL): The faculty (curriculum team) defines the CPL for the program. These must align with the Indonesian National Qualifications Framework (KKNI) level for master’s (Level 8) and the Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi (SN-Dikti) requirements. KKNI level descriptors (advanced knowledge, specialized skills, professionalism, etc.) are used as a basis for formulating outcomes, along with the standard attitude and general skills outcomes mandated by SN-Dikti For example, a master’s program outcome might require the ability to conduct research and generate new knowledge in the field, reflecting KKNI Level 8 expectations. In formulating CPL, the team also considers the university’s vision, the graduate profile (career/role that graduates will pursue), and input from stakeholders. Existing curriculum evaluations, tracer studies of alumni, industry feedback, professional associations’ recommendations, and scientific trends are analyzed to ensure the outcomes are relevant The result of this stage is a set of clear CPL statements for the program (usually covering aspects of attitude, general skills, specialized skills, and knowledge domains). Design the Curriculum Structure and Courses: With the CPL defined, the curriculum team designs the set of courses (mata kuliah) that make up the program and allocates credit weights (SKS) to each. They determine the body of knowledge or key content areas needed to achieve the CPL Each course is designed to address a subset of the program outcomes. The team creates a curriculum map (often called peta kurikulum) showing how each course relates to the CPL In this mapping, the CPL are “distributed” or assigned to courses – i.e. the team decides which CPL will be achieved in which courses. According to accreditation standards, the mapping should ensure every CPL is covered by one or more courses’ outcomes, and every course outcome contributes to at least one CPL The courses are organized by semester in a logical sequence (basic to advanced), considering prerequisites and integration. This stage yields the curriculum structure (list of courses per semester with their CPL linkages and SKS credits) – essentially the curriculum design document or matrix. Derive Course Learning Outcomes (CPMK) from CPL: For each course, specific Capaian Pembelajaran Mata Kuliah (CPMK) are formulated. CPMK are essentially a more specific, course-tailored articulation of the program outcomes (CPL) that were assigned to that course. The curriculum guide notes that each course is responsible for certain program outcomes, and those program outcomes can be re-formulated in the context of the course to become its learning outcomes In practice, the lecturer or course designer takes the CPL assigned to their course and breaks them down into more concrete abilities that students should gain by the end of the course. For example, if a CPL is “able to conduct research in the field,” the Research Methodology course might have CPMK like “students are able to formulate research problems and hypotheses” and “able to design and present a research proposal,” which are specific to that course content but collectively fulfill the broader CPL. A single course may address multiple CPL (commonly 1–4 CPL per course). Conversely, a single CPL might be supported by multiple courses. The CPMK should be measurable and observable abilities, and often each is coded (e.g., CPMK-1, CPMK-2, etc.). Each CPMK is typically tagged with the CPL code(s) it supports to make the mapping explicit This ensures traceability – one can see exactly which program outcomes each course outcome addresses. In some cases, Sub-CPMK are also defined: these are even more granular outcomes per topic or per learning unit within the course (sometimes aligned to each week or module) The use of sub-CPMK helps in sequencing learning stages and is reflected in the RPS. Develop the Rencana Pembelajaran Semester (RPS) for each course: Once CPMK are set, the course lecturer (or a group of lecturers for team-taught courses) develops the RPS, which is the semester-long teaching plan. The RPS is a detailed document that at minimum (as required by SN-Dikti Pasal 12) must include: course identity (course name/code, program, semester, credits, instructor), the program learning outcomes (CPL) assigned to this course, the course learning outcomes (CPMK), the sub-CPMK or planned final abilities for each learning unit/week, the course content/topics (bahan kajian), learning methods used, time allocation for each topic, student learning experiences or tasks, assessment criteria and indicators, and references In essence, the RPS lays out how the course will be taught and evaluated to achieve the CPMK (and thereby contribute to CPL). The process to develop an RPS is typically as follows: The lecturer drafts the RPS (using the CPMK and a template aligning with the university’s standards), then it is reviewed and approved. For example, at Untag Surabaya the RPS is drafted by the course instructor (or team), then checked by a curriculum coordinator or head of subject area for alignment and format, then approved by the Study Program Chair, and finally authorized by the Dean Only after Dean’s sign-off does the RPS become official and is disseminated to students and other faculty. This review process ensures the RPS is consistent with the curriculum design and institutional quality standards. The RPS must also be updated periodically to stay current with new developments in the field and feedback from course evaluations Implement, Evaluate, and Refine: With RPS in hand, instructors conduct the learning activities throughout the semester. There should also be a mechanism to monitor that the teaching/learning process follows the RPS and achieves the outcomes. BAN-PT’s accreditation criteria emphasize having evidence of a system to monitor the consistency of delivery with the RPS and to improve the process . After or during implementation, the program collects feedback – e.g., student results on assessments tied to CPMK, surveys, etc. – to evaluate if the CPL are being achieved. This feeds into periodic curriculum evaluation. Stakeholders (internal and external) are involved in reviewing and updating the curriculum to ensure the CPL remain relevant and are attained (often done in curriculum workshops or through feedback loops each few years) . At the S2 level, this may include reviewing thesis quality, graduate employability, etc., and then possibly revising CPL, courses, or RPS accordingly. Thus, the process is cyclical: design -> implement -> evaluate -> revise, in line with continuous quality improvement. Input Data and Reference Documents
Several key references and inputs guide the development of CPL, CPMK, and RPS in a Master’s program:
SN-DIKTI (National Higher Education Standards): These standards (currently regulated by Permendikbud No. 3 of 2020, which updated the 2015 version) provide the framework for curriculum design. They specify that a curriculum must include certain categories of learning outcomes (attitudes, general skills, specific skills, knowledge) and detail the required elements of an RPS Compliance with SN-Dikti ensures that, for instance, a Master’s graduate meets at least the competencies outlined for KKNI Level 8. Universities refer directly to the law/regulation text or the Ministry’s curriculum development handbook for these requirements. KKNI (Indonesian National Qualifications Framework): The KKNI provides level descriptors for qualifications. For S2 (Level 8), it emphasizes the ability to develop new knowledge, apply advanced skills, and manage research with professionalism. When formulating CPL, programs use the KKNI descriptor for level 8 as a baseline to ensure the outcomes are at the correct level of complexity . For example, a Level 8 descriptor might state that graduates can make “new innovations and science development through research,” and this would be mirrored in the CPL of the program University/Faulty Curriculum Guidelines: Many universities have internal guidelines or handbooks for curriculum development (often developed by the university’s Academic Affairs or Quality Assurance offices). For instance, Universitas Mulawarman’s curriculum guide or a faculty-specific guideline outlines the stages of curriculum design and provides templates for mapping CPL to courses, writing CPMK, etc. These often adapt national guidance to the local context and may include examples. Accreditation Instruments (BAN-PT or LAM): The accreditation criteria serve as important inputs/benchmarks. BAN-PT (or relevant LAM for the field) provides detailed rubrics for evaluating curricula. For example, the accreditation instrument for Magister programs expects to see a curriculum map linking CPL and courses, complete RPS documents, evidence of CPL-CPMK alignment, etc. . Programs design their outcomes and documents to meet these criteria. The language of accreditation rubrics (e.g., requiring that all CPL are supported by course outcomes and that RPS are available for all courses) often guides what content must be prepared. Professional/Scientific Guidelines: Especially in fields like Informatics, global or national professional bodies’ recommendations can be inputs. For instance, a Master’s in Informatics might consider the ACM/IEEE curriculum recommendations for computing or refer to the Body of Knowledge in computing. These can influence course content (bahan kajian) and outcomes. Similarly, for fields with professional certification or standards, those are taken into account. Stakeholder Input: As mentioned, data from tracer studies (survey of graduates), employers, industry partners, and academic experts inform curriculum development. For a Master’s program, input from research partners or alumni pursuing PhDs might also be considered. This ensures the CPL align with real-world needs and opportunities for graduates. Existing Course Materials and Expertise: When writing CPMK and RPS, instructors draw on the state of the art in their subject. They consider what specific knowledge and skills their course should teach. Any prior syllabus or materials from an older curriculum can be referenced and updated. If the course existed in a previous curriculum, its outcomes are adjusted to fit the new CPL. If it’s a new course, the content is designed afresh to fill a gap required by the CPL. Institutional Vision and Specialization: The unique vision or focus of the university or faculty can shape outcomes. For example, if a university emphasizes local wisdom or entrepreneurship, some CPL might reflect that (and thus some courses will address it). In the case of S2 programs, sometimes a portion of outcomes relates to research and publication (aligning with a university’s goal to boost research output). All these documents and data points serve as inputs to ensure that the developed CPL and CPMK are comprehensive and the RPS are well-informed and compliant with standards.
Outputs: Curriculum Maps and RPS Documents
By the end of the development process, several tangible outputs are produced:
CPL Documentation: A list of the Program Learning Outcomes for the Master’s program, typically numbered or coded (e.g., CPL-1, CPL-2, …). This is often published in curriculum handbooks or on the program’s website. The CPL list usually categorizes each outcome by the domain (Attitude, General Skills, Knowledge, Special Skills) as per national standard. For example, a Magister Informatika program might publish outcomes like “CPL-05: Mampu melakukan analisis dan pemodelan persoalan yang kompleks… (able to analyze and model complex problems…)" and “CPL-06: Mampu mengembangkan solusi Informatika melalui penelitian… (able to develop informatics solutions through research…)” Curriculum Structure & CPL-MK Mapping: Often presented as tables or matrices, this output shows how the CPL map onto the courses. One common representation is a table with CPL on one axis and courses on the other, with marks indicating which course contributes to which CPL. Another representation lists each course with the CPL codes it addresses. For instance, a row might show “Research Methodology – contributes to CPL-5 and CPL-6”. The matrix ensures coverage: ideally each CPL is addressed by multiple courses and each course addresses specific CPL. Accreditation documentation will include this mapping to demonstrate outcome alignment . An example from guidelines: each CPMK in a course might be annotated with the CPL code in parentheses , and these can be summarized in a mapping table per course. RPS Documents for Each Course: The RPS is the primary output for each course. It’s typically a written document (several pages) that may include tables for the week-by-week plan. Each RPS clearly lists the course’s CPMK and how they tie to the program CPL. For example, an RPS might include a section like: “CPL addressed: [CPL-5, CPL-6]; Course Learning Outcomes: 1) Able to formulate research problems (supports CPL-6), 2) Able to apply statistical methods to data (supports CPL-5)”, etc. It will also detail session-by-session topics, assignments, and assessment weights. According to SN-Dikti, the RPS must cover all the elements described earlier (outcomes, content, methods, timeline, assessment) . These RPS documents serve as contracts/guides for lecturers and students. They are often required to be accessible to students (e.g., via the learning management system or printed syllabus) and kept on file for quality audits Assessment Plan and Instruments: While not always separate from the RPS, another output of this process is the set of assessment instruments aligned to the CPMK. Step 10 in the curriculum design cycle is developing assessment instruments for formative and summative evaluation of each outcome . Lecturers will prepare exams, project rubrics, or other tools that measure each CPMK. In some documentation, there may be a CPMK assessment matrix showing which assessment (quiz, test, assignment, thesis, etc.) evaluates which CPMK. Curriculum Handbook or Report: At the program level, a compiled curriculum document is often produced, especially if this is a new curriculum or an update to be approved by the university Senate or evaluated by accreditors. This compiles the CPL list, the rationale (including analysis and stakeholder input), the curriculum map, and sample RPS. For example, an S2 program might produce a Curriculum Book that includes all CPL and a synopsis of each course with its CPMK, to be submitted to university authorities or BAN-PT. Mapping Diagrams/Tables: Some programs also create visual diagrams (e.g., flowcharts of course sequences or diagrams illustrating how outcomes flow from program level to course level). These help communicate the alignment to stakeholders. A simple example is a flowchart showing: Graduate Profile -> CPL -> Course Matrix -> CPMK -> Learning Activities/Assessment, illustrating the golden thread of outcome-based education. In summary, the main expected outputs are the mapping tables and the RPS documents that collectively demonstrate the alignment of the curriculum with the intended learning outcomes. These outputs are used in internal quality assurance and external accreditation to show that the curriculum is outcome-based and systematically documented
.
Roles and Responsibilities in the Development Process
Developing and implementing CPL, CPMK, and RPS at the Master’s level involves multiple stakeholders, each with clear roles:
Curriculum Development Team/Committee: This is usually a team of faculty members within the study program (Prodi) tasked with designing or revising the curriculum. At the S2 level, it often includes senior lecturers/professors in the program, the Program Chair, and sometimes faculty leadership. Their role is to carry out the initial stages: analyzing needs, formulating or updating the CPL, deciding on course structure, and ensuring alignment. They may organize workshops and involve external experts or stakeholders in this process. Stakeholder involvement (internal lecturers, students, alumni, industry representatives) is especially important during curriculum evaluation and CPL formulation . The curriculum team is responsible for producing the curriculum design document and mapping. They ensure that the CPL are in line with KKNI and SN-Dikti and that the curriculum will meet accreditation standards. Once the curriculum design is drafted, it often requires approval by a higher academic body (e.g., Faculty Board or University Senate), especially if it’s a major revision or new program. Lecturers / Subject Matter Experts: Lecturers play a dual role. First, as members of the curriculum team they contribute to formulating CPL and defining courses (particularly in their area of expertise). Second, as course owners they are chiefly responsible for writing the CPMK and RPS for their courses. Typically, each course is assigned a lecturer or a team of lecturers who will develop the RPS . Lecturers ensure the course content and outcomes remain up-to-date and relevant. In doing so, they draw on their academic expertise and perhaps benchmark similar courses elsewhere. They must also integrate any compulsory elements (like generic skills or attitudes) that the program requires them to cover. After teaching, they provide feedback on how well the CPMK were achieved, which can inform future revisions. In short, lecturers are the architects of the course-level implementation of the curriculum. Program Study Chair (Kaprogdi) and Curriculum Coordinator: The head of the study program (or sometimes a specific curriculum coordinator) oversees the entire process. They coordinate meetings, align the contributions of different lecturers, and ensure consistency. When lecturers finish drafting RPS documents, the program chair typically reviews them for alignment and completeness . The Program Chair is usually the one to officially propose the curriculum or changes to the faculty dean and is responsible for maintaining the curriculum documentation. They also schedule periodic reviews of CPL and course syllabi (for example, many programs review RPS annually or at least every few years). Faculty and University Leadership: The Dean of the faculty (or School of Postgraduate Studies, if the program is under that) often provides final approval for RPS and curriculum documents. For example, as noted, RPS are often ratified by the Dean via a formal decree . The Dean and academic vice-rectors ensure that the program curriculum adheres to university policies and strategic goals. They might not be involved in micro-level outcome writing, but they set expectations (e.g., that all programs must incorporate certain general outcomes like entrepreneurship or must integrate the Merdeka Belajar–Kampus Merdeka policy where students can take external courses). Quality Assurance Unit (LPM or similar): Universities in Indonesia typically have an internal Quality Assurance Unit (Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu, LPM) and sometimes a faculty-level quality assurance team (Gugus Kendali Mutu or Gugus Jaminan Mutu). These units provide guidance, templates, and training for outcome-based curriculum development. They ensure that the CPL and RPS comply with SN-Dikti standards. Quality assurance personnel may conduct audits: for instance, checking each semester that all courses have a valid RPS in the required format and that they are being updated. They might use checklists derived from accreditation criteria to review RPS (e.g., verifying that each RPS lists CPL, has appropriate assessment methods for each CPMK, etc.). They also facilitate the periodic review process – making sure stakeholder feedback is collected and improvements are implemented. In an accreditation preparation, the QA unit helps gather the evidence (the mapping tables, sample RPS, etc.) to demonstrate compliance . Essentially, QA plays a supervisory and supportive role to keep the curriculum outcome-oriented and documented. Students: While students are the recipients of the curriculum rather than developers, their role is worth noting in the feedback loop. At the Master’s level, student feedback on courses (through evaluations or representation in curriculum committees) can influence adjustments to content or teaching methods in RPS. Also, students must be informed of the RPS and expected outcomes; their awareness of CPMK can help them focus on achieving those outcomes. External Accreditation Bodies: Though not “internal” roles, external evaluators (from BAN-PT or a field-specific accreditation like LAM – Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri) are the ones who will assess the effectiveness of this development. They expect to see that all the above roles have been performed properly (evidence of curriculum committee meetings, stakeholder workshops, approved RPS, etc.). A successful accreditation visit often validates that the curriculum was developed collectively by the faculty (not just one person) and that the implementation is monitored. Knowing this, institutions assign these roles carefully to meet the standards. In summary, the curriculum team designs the “what and why” (CPL and course structure), the lecturers design the “how” at course level (CPMK and RPS), the program leadership and QA ensure consistency and compliance, and external stakeholders (including accreditors) provide input and oversight. The process is collaborative: “The process of curriculum formulation involves all lecturers of the study program and is then determined by the program”
, ensuring buy-in and shared responsibility for the outcomes.
Example: Informatics (Magister Informatika) Program Alignment
To illustrate these concepts, consider an example from a Master’s in Informatics (Magister Informatika). Informatics is a field where outcomes often emphasize both advanced technical skills and research. Let’s say a university is developing an S2 Informatics curriculum:
Formulating CPL: The curriculum team defines program outcomes such as: (a) an ability to analyze and model complex computing problems using advanced informatics methods, and (b) an ability to develop innovative informatics solutions through independent research. Indeed, at Telkom University’s S2 Informatics, for example, CPL-05 expects graduates to “mampu melakukan analisis dan pemodelan persoalan yang kompleks… dengan mengembangkan metode informatika lanjut…” (able to analyze and model complex problems with advanced informatics methods) and CPL-06 to “mampu mengembangkan solusi… dengan mengaplikasikan tahapan-tahapan penelitian” (able to develop solutions in informatics by applying research processes) . Additionally, standard outcomes on professional ethics and lifelong learning are included (e.g., having a high ethical standard and ability to continue self-development, which might align with SN-Dikti attitude/general skills). Mapping CPL to Courses: They create a curriculum with, for instance, core courses like Advanced Algorithms, Data Science, Distributed Systems, Research Methodology, and a Master’s Thesis. Each of these courses is assigned relevant CPL. For instance, Advanced Algorithms might be mapped to the CPL about analyzing complex problems (since it builds those analytical skills), whereas Research Methodology and the Thesis are mapped to the CPL about conducting research and developing solutions. There may be a mapping table such as: This ensures, for example, that CPL-05 is covered by two courses (Algorithms and Data Science) focusing on advanced technical analysis, and CPL-06 is covered by the research-oriented courses. Deriving CPMK for a Course: Take Research Methodology course. From CPL-06 (research ability), the lecturers derive several CPMK: e.g., CPMK-1: Mahasiswa mampu merumuskan masalah penelitian dan menyusun hipotesis (Students are able to formulate research problems and hypotheses), CPMK-2: Mahasiswa mampu memilih dan menerapkan metodologi penelitian informatika yang tepat (Able to select and apply an appropriate informatics research methodology), CPMK-3: Mahasiswa mampu menganalisis data penelitian secara benar (Able to analyze research data correctly), and CPMK-4: Mahasiswa mampu menyusun dan mempresentasikan proposal penelitian (Able to compile and present a research proposal). Each of these CPMK is tied to the program outcome CPL-06. In the RPS or course description, they might annotate these as “(supports CPL-06)” next to each CPMK. In the example from Unmul’s guide, a similar course had CPMK like “M5: Mahasiswa mampu menyusun proposal penelitian dan mempresentasikannya (S9, KU2, KU9)”, indicating that this CPMK addresses certain CPL in the categories of Sikap (S9) and Keterampilan Umum (KU2, KU9) . This tagging shows the linkage explicitly. Developing the RPS: For Research Methodology, the RPS would list those four CPMK and then lay out the semester’s plan. For example, week 1-2 might cover “Research problem identification” with a task for students to draft a problem statement (addressing CPMK-1). Weeks 3-4 might cover “Literature review and hypothesis formulation” (addressing CPMK-1 and CPMK-2), and so on. The RPS will specify teaching methods (perhaps lectures, group discussions on case studies, and proposal writing workshops) and the assessment – maybe a mid-term exam focusing on research design (covering CPMK-1,2) and a final project where students produce a proposal (covering CPMK-3,4). The RPS also references guidelines like SN-Dikti (for general format) and might refer to sources such as research methodology textbooks, as well as the university’s thesis handbook as references. Quality Check: The program coordinator ensures that in this RPS, all CPMK align with the CPL and that, for instance, no required element is missing. If the RPS draft lacked an assessment for one of the CPMK, it would be sent back for revision. In our example, if “analyzing research data” (CPMK-3) was an outcome, they must include an activity or assignment to practice data analysis. Another Course Example: Consider Advanced Algorithms. Its relevant program outcome was CPL-05 (complex problem analysis). The CPMK might be: CPMK-1: Able to analyze the time and space complexity of advanced algorithms, CPMK-2: Able to apply algorithmic techniques to solve new computational problems, CPMK-3: Able to evaluate algorithm performance on complex inputs. These outcomes all support CPL-05. The RPS for Advanced Algorithms would detail topics like NP-complexity, optimization algorithms, etc., and have assessments like problem sets and a project. Each CPMK is mapped to specific weeks (e.g., analysis of complexity in early weeks, applications in later weeks). Thesis as a Course: The Thesis (often a 6+ credit course spanning two semesters) is a crucial component addressing research and often communication outcomes. Its CPMK might include “producing an original research work in informatics,” “writing a scientific report/thesis,” and “defending the work orally.” Those map to CPL-06 (research) and also to any CPL about communication or ethical research practice. The RPS for thesis is more like a guideline since it’s an independent study, but it still exists – it might outline the steps (proposal, research implementation, thesis writing, defense) and criteria for evaluation. Outcome Mapping Verification: At the end, the curriculum map for this Magister Informatika will show that for each CPL, there are one or more courses ensuring it. For instance, CPL-05 (complex problem analysis) might be fulfilled by Advanced Algorithms, Data Science, and partially by some project in another course. CPL-06 (research ability) is fulfilled by Research Methodology, a Seminar course, and the Thesis. This satisfies the accreditation criterion that “capaian pembelajaran lulusan dipenuhi oleh seluruh capaian pembelajaran matakuliah” – the graduate outcomes are collectively covered by the course outcomes . Moreover, no course is aimless: every CPMK of every course can be traced up to a CPL, thus avoiding any course outcome that “tidak mendukung capaian pembelajaran lulusan” (does not support a graduate outcome) Continuous Improvement: Suppose after a year, feedback shows that students struggled with formulating research problems. The program might decide to reinforce CPL-06 by adding a workshop or adjusting the RPS of Research Methodology to spend more time on that skill. Or if industry feedback suggests adding a new skill (e.g., data security knowledge), the team might integrate a new CPMK in an existing course or introduce a new course, then update the mapping. All changes would again go through documentation and approval. This Informatics example demonstrates how CPL provide the target, CPMK break the target into course-sized pieces, and the RPS is the actionable plan to hit those pieces. The process ensures that a Master’s program is coherently constructed so that by the time a student graduates, through completing each RPS-guided course, they will have achieved the intended program outcomes.
Conclusion
In Indonesian S2 programs, developing CPL, CPMK, and RPS is a carefully orchestrated process aligned with national standards and accreditation demands. Whether using manual methods or digital tools, universities ensure that program outcomes (CPL) are well-defined and mapped down to each course, that each course has clear outcomes (CPMK) contributing to the program goals, and that each course is delivered according to a comprehensive RPS. The involvement of curriculum teams, lecturers, and quality assurance units – guided by documents like SN-Dikti, KKNI, and internal guidelines – is critical for creating a cohesive outcome-based education experience. The example from Informatics highlights how these layers come together in practice. Ultimately, this alignment process aims to guarantee that graduates of the Master’s program truly acquire the competencies that the program promises, thereby meeting both academic and industry expectations
.
Sources:
Kemdikbud Dikti – Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Pendidikan Tinggi (2020) BAN-PT – Magister Program Accreditation Guidelines Universitas Mulawarman – Curriculum Development Guide Untag Surabaya – RPS Preparation Guide (2022) Telkom University – S2 Informatics CPL (Learning Outcomes) SEVIMA Academic System – OBE Management Module 
