UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
THE MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
HISTORY
May 2007
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 HISTORY
May 2007 Session
Examiners’ Report
Table 1: Distribution of grades for IM Level History − May 2007 session
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
7
19
16
14
8
N
10.45
28.36
23.88
20.90
11.94
%
F
1
1.49
Abs
2
2.99
Total
67
100.00
General Remarks
A good percentage of candidates performed well in this session: 42 out of 67 students placed in the A to C
range of grades. Seven candidates obtained a grade A, while a further 19 candidates obtained a grade B. At
the other end of the scale, 14 candidates only managed to obtain a grade D, with a further 8 obtaining a
grade E. One candidate obtained an F, while two were absent from the exam.
The examination panel noted a degree of personal effort reflected in signs of selective reading and in a
choice of language, which indicates that the better-performing candidates had come to terms with the
various topics in the syllabus. The importance of personal reading and studying apart from the regular
attendance for lectures and the formal training of the classroom has to be underlined; it is a process
conducive to the formation of a personal opinion on the themes examined in the History Intermediate level
examination. It was also noted that students who were relatively confident in language and essay writing
skills, and in the techniques of textual analysis, could articulate their ideas well. It must also be reiterated
that the practice of memorizing class notes and model essays should be completely discouraged.
Question 1: Students did reasonably well in answering any of the three questions since the questions tested
fundamental syllabus areas which are generally covered in quite some depth in the classroom.
1 (a): This question tested the students’ ability to relate the Language Question with the local political
situation between 1880 and 1940. About 35% of the students opted for this question. A common
shortcoming in answering this question was that a number of students stopped short at around 1903 and did
not further elaborate on the issue as was expected of them.
1 (b): This was the most popular choice with some 40% opting for it. It was quite well answered on the
whole, particularly with regards to the description of the different political ideologies. It was generally less
well answered particularly regarding different political strategies used.
1 (c): This was the least popular choice, with some 25% opting for it. While competently answered by
many students quite a number had difficulty in going into some detail and often ended up repeating the
fortress-economy characteristic which was required, but not exclusively so.
Question 2: Candidates did reasonably well in answering these essay questions on European history.
2 (a): There were 25 answers in all. Most of the answers given obtained relatively average to good marks,
with the candidates showing a basic knowledge of the workings, and the political European-wide function,
of the Congress system. They showed capability of conceptualizing the main Congresses which took place.
2 (b) Most of the candidates attempted to answer this question which was very straight forward. While, on
average, candidates showed a good knowledge of Garibaldi’s role in the unification of Italy, it was
surprising to note that 12 of them wrote on Count Cavour instead of Mazzini. This reveals the extent to
which students are led to memorize ‘model answers’ and go the exam ready to jot them down even if this
does not answer the question.
2 (c): Only two candidates attempted to answer this question and one of them showed a lack of chronology
and failed to trace and place in context event the main events of the Greek War of Independence. Both
take a prejudiced view of the ‘Turk’.
In this question students generally did rather less well than in the essays. Answers were roughly divided
equally for the two choices.
2
Question 3: This question tests the candidate’s ability to analyze historical texts and answer related
questions.
3 (a): The main difficulty here was for the students to see the relation between Maltese political claims and
the ‘no taxation without representation’ dictum. Many students also did not know who Chamberlain was.
The latter, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, was of fundamental importance in the Maltese political
system during the period.
3 (b): A number of students opted for this question but did not seem to fully understand what was required.
Others confused the 1836 Royal Commission with later ones or with the Keenan mission of 1878.
Otherwise answers were usually correct and quite exhaustive.
Question 4: (a) This question attracted 18 answers in all. Although most of the candidates seem to have
heard of the Communist Manifesto, about half of them were very shaky in answering (i), referring to the
Bolshevist Revolution and the influence the Manifesto had on the Russian Bolshevists instead of answering
the question. Most of the answers, again, mentioned the connection with the Russian Bolshevist revolution
and a portion of them did not even mention the ‘effects left on the revolutionary movements’. There was no
answer referring to any country ‘beyond’ Europe. On average, students were well prepared to answer
question (iii), providing some discussion of the reasons behind the outbreak of the 1848 Revolution. Most
of the answers to (iv) showed a very basic knowledge of the communist principles as expressed in the
Manifesto. Five of the questions completely deviated from answering (iv)(a) – providing unrelated answers.
Most candidates wrote down the basic explanations to all three terms though some of them did not make
out the difference between communists and proletarians.
4 (b): The majority of candidates answered this question which tested their understanding of the passage
from Giuseppe Mazzini’s writing on Giovine Italia. Candidates did relatively well in answering (iii) which
required an understanding of the general background leading to the formation of the Young Italy
organization. Nevertheless, several candidates were unable to write convincing answers to (i) and (iv)
which demanded a specific knowledge of events. Moreover, several candidates were in clear difficulty in
accounting for the emphasis placed by the author on ‘the republic and unity’, despite the fact that they
should have been thoroughly familiar with the implications of these concepts in the process of Italian
Unification. The same difficulty relating to factual knowledge of the subject was evident in answers to (v).
The Chairperson
Board of Examiners
July 2007
3