UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
THE MATRICULATION EXAMINATION
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
COMPUTING
May 2015
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS BOARD
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2015
Computing
Intermediate Level
May 2015
Part 1: Statistical Information
A total of 102 students applied for the May 2015 Intermediate Computing examination session. One
candidate did not present his/her coursework exercise while two were absent for the written paper.
The weight of the written component is 80% of the global examination mark while the remaining
20% is carried by the coursework exercise. For this session, the mean mark for the written paper
was 46.6 while that of the coursework amounts to 16.3.
Chart 1 and Table 1 below show the distribution of the global marks (written paper plus
coursework) as scored by the candidates.
Chart 1
No. of
candidates
Class intervals
Table 1
Class intervals
Frequency
0–9
10 – 19
20 – 29
30 – 39
40 – 49
50 – 59
60 – 69
70 – 79
80 – 89
90 – 100
0
1
1
10
12
19
13
25
13
7
2
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2015
Table 2 below shows the grades obtained by the candidates and the percentage of each grade.
Table 2
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
Absent*
Number of candidates
7
17
31
23
11
12
1
Percentage of candidates
6.8%
16.7%
30.4%
22.5%
10.8%
11.8%
1.0%
Total
102
100%
* Candidate who did not present his/her coursework AND did not turn up for the written paper.
The Coursework Component
During the coursework moderation exercise, the moderators visited all the colleges that prepared
students for this examination session. The moderators’ feedback was that, in all colleges, the marks
allotted by the tutors were fair and therefore these marks were retained.
All private candidates were asked to attend for an interview regarding the coursework they
presented to the board.
Item Analysis of Written component
Table 3 below shows the Maximum mark that could be scored for each of the 12 items in the
written paper, the Mean mark scored and the Standard Deviation for each item. The table also
shows the Facility Index for each item – the index may range from 0, for an item in which
candidates obtained 0 marks, to 1.0 for an item in which all candidates scored full marks.
Item
Number
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
B1
B2
Maximum
Mark
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
20
20
Mean
3.2
3.6
3.5
2.0
3.0
4.5
3.7
3.6
4.4
3.4
13.6
12.3
Standard
Deviation
1.6
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.2
4.7
4.8
Facility
Index
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
Choice
Index
0.2
0.8
Table 3
The Choice Index given in the table above is a measure of the popularity of an item – an index of 0
indicates that an item was not chosen by any candidate; while an index of 1.0 shows that an item
3
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2015
was selected by all candidates. The choice index only applies to the two items in Section B because
the items in Section A are compulsory.
Chart 2 below shows the Facility Indices in graphical format.
Chart 2
0.8
0.7
0.6
Fac. index
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
B1
B2
Item number
Table 4 below shows the items in decreasing order of facility, together with the topic that the item
tested.
Table 4
Item
Number
A6
A9
B1
A2
A3
A7
A8
A10
B2
A1
A5
A4
Facility
Index
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
Topic tested
Network topologies
Systems analysis and crossover
OOP and coding
Truth tables and Boolean algebra
Logic circuits and simplifications
Network communication
Number systems
Programming concepts and coding
Computer architecture and assembly lang.
Memory management and processing modes
OS scheduling
Relational database concepts
4
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2015
Part 2: Comments regarding candidate’s performance
The markers’ comments on individual items are being reproduced below:
A1
Most candidates answered correctly the first part and the part regarding the type of OS,
however some could not distinguish between logical and physical address and the task of
memory store protection.
A2 & Candidates who had sound knowlegde of Boolean algebra faired very well in both
A3
questions. On the other hand those with poor understanding of computer logic were
penalised.
A4
Very few candidates were able to mention three important considerations when designing
the structures of tables. The same may be said regarding normalisation.
A5
Many candidates knew about scheduling however few were able to name the objectives
and to mention criteria that may be adopted to avoid conflict.
A6
Candidates generally responded correctly to this question. Questions ‘b’ and ‘c’ were
more likely to be answered accurately.
A7
A few candidates gave incorrect answers to ‘a’ and ‘b’ as they seemed to equate IP address
with URL. Respondents were more likely to give accurate replies to the other three parts
of the question.
A8
Candidates tended to give correct replies to this question. The most challenging seem to
have been question ‘b’ as quite a few respondents gave wrong ranges.
A9
While the absolute majority of respondents could mention the points required in ‘a’ and
‘b’, a sizeable number failed to describe them.
A10
Many candidates gave adequate replies to this question. Some however had issues with
handling arrays in part ‘c’ and a few less with managing the loop in ‘b’. A sizeable
number failed to correctly declare an array in ‘a’. A handful of candidates failed to answer
this question altogether.
B1
An overwhelmingly small number of candidates opted for this question, however those
who did tended to fare quite well in it. In part ‘b’, candidates failed to mention that unlike
String, int is a primitive type. Answers to the coding questions ‘e’ and ‘f’ tended to be
relatively well-answered. However in this question candidates tended to fare particularly
well in questions ‘a’,’c’,’d’ and ‘g’.
5
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2015
B2
The answers to this question varied drastically – from those who knew well the topic of
‘computer architecture and assembly language’ and those who had very limited knowledge
on the subject.
As regard question ‘a’, most candidates answered this correctly. For question ‘b’, answers
varied – those scoring low marks seemed to try and guess the answer.
Very few candidates gave valid reasons why a programmer may opt to use assembly
language. Regarding questions ‘d’ and ‘e’, most candidates answered this part correctly.
Regarding the fetch-decode-execute cycle, some candidates tried to use the referenced
terms to create an answer.
Chairperson
2015 Examination Panel
6