IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2006
UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
THE MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
MARKETING
May 2006
EXAMINERS’ REPORT*
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS BOARD
*[NOTE: The following is a summary of the examiners’ full report.
The original can be consulted at the Matsec Office.]
1
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2006
IM MARKETING
May 2006 Session
Examiners’ Report
Statistics
Table 1: Distribution of grades for IM Level Marketing – May 2006 session
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
21
39
56
35
30
35
N
9.6
17.7
25.5
15.9
13.6
15.9
%
Abs
4
1.8
Total
220
100.0
Contents
The majority of candidates showed that they were well versed on the main concepts related to marketing. It
can be stated that, in this session, answers were more often than not to the point and kept to an average
length. The candidates that excelled most were those who showed an excellent balance between
description, analysis, length and application. Their responses amplified most if not all of these qualities.
These candidates stood out from the rest by means of applying practical examples of personal readings as
well a general observations they made when being exposed to different media such as press articles or
television advertising.
In certain cases, candidates demonstrated that although they understood the marketing concepts, they
produced more descriptive essays and refrained from supporting their analysis with clear examples.
Furthermore, it was noted that when candidates were asked to apply their answer to a specified
situation/example, many simply resorted to a general narrative essay form.
A small number of answers were clearly out of point. In some scripts it was evident that this was due to
insufficient knowledge of the subject in question. In other cases, their way of expression left much to be
desired. Basic marketing theory was completely omitted in certain scripts. Other answers indicated that
basic concepts were misunderstood.
Other students struggled with Question 8. Many could not pin-point the differences between the two roles.
There was plenty of overlapping in the roles and very little distinct descriptions.
The Organisational DMU or decision making Unit is one question many students did not know. Some came
up with answers which were totally out of point. Most thought the M referred to ‘Marketing’.
Structure
In this regard, a large spectrum of candidates did structure their essays well. Many produced answers that
were memorised to the letter and could not amplify further. It is important to note that many candidates did
plan their answers and gave proportional weight to the priorities which their answers were meant to
emphasise. On the other hand, there were cases whereby students allocated too much time and energy to
questions that required brief answers.
Time Management
Overall, all questions were answered and, in most cases, the same standard of answers was reached for all
the essays produced. Where it was evident that candidates did not complete the paper due to lack of time, it
was clearly visible that too much time was allocated to former questions that required less laborious
answers.
2
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2006
Graphical Illustrations
Many of those candidates that replied to Question 1c did not illustrate graphically the Product Life Cycle
and were penalised. Few included a graphical illustration of the PLC.
Conclusion
As an overall comment on this examination session, the scripts show that the majority of candidates did
prepare for the examinations and the subject was understood. However, it was also observed that students
still found difficulty to apply their answers to specified industry sectors or situations, beyond the examples
they were used to. This was evidenced by the fact that the examples produced by the candidates were
common.
The Chairperson
Board of Examiners
July 2006
3