UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
THE MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
COMPUTING
May 2010
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE
EXAMINATIONS BOARD
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2010
IM Computing
May 2010 Session
Examiners’ Report
Part 1: Statistical Information
Table 1 shows the distribution of grades for the May 2010 session.
Table 1: Distribution of Grades awarded in May 2010
A total of 134 students applied for the May 2010 Intermediate Computing examination session. Two of
these were private candidates. Three candidates were absent for the written paper while nine candidates did
not present their coursework exercise. One candidate did not present the coursework and was also absent
for the written examination.
GRADE
Number
% of Total
A
B
6
4.48
C
23
17.16
D
43
32.09
E
30
22.39
F
18
13.43
Abs
13
9.70
1
0.75
Total
134
100
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 50.3 while
that of the coursework amounts to 15.6. Thus the average for the examination is 65.9, an increase of 12.8
marks when compared to the mean of the previous year.
Chart 1 and Table 1 below show the distribution of the global marks (written paper plus coursework) as
scored by the candidates.
No of candidates
Distribution of marks
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
0-9
2 10-193 20-294 30-395 40-496 50-597 60-698 70-799
10 90-100
80-89
Class intervals
Chart 1
2
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2010
Item Analysis of Written component
Table 1 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.
Maximum
Mark
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
20
20
Item Number
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
B1
B2
Standard
Deviation
1.1
1.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.6
2.9
5.9
Mean
5.3
5.4
1.4
4.1
3.3
2.4
5.0
2.7
2.4
4.9
13.7
12.1
Facility
Index
0.88
0.90
0.23
0.69
0.55
0.40
0.83
0.46
0.41
0.82
0.69
0.61
Choice
Index
0.9
0.1
Table 1
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 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.
Facility index
Facility Indices
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
B1
B2
Question Number
Chart 2
3
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2010
Table 2 below shows the items in decreasing order of facility, together with the topic that the question
tested.
Item
Number
A2
A1
A7
A10
A4
B1
B2
A5
A8
A9
A6
A3
Facility
Index
0.90
0.88
0.83
0.82
0.69
0.69
0.61
0.55
0.46
0.41
0.40
0.23
Topic tested
Computer architecture
Computer peripherals
Database application
Networks
Programming concepts
eLearning computer application
Network communication
System development
Digital logic
Process Control and security
Database concepts
Assembly language translation
Table 2
Markers’ Comments on the written component
The markers’ comments on individual items are being reproduced, ad verbatim, below:
A1
The majority of students got this question correct with typical answers being:
a) Barcode reader as an input device at a supermarket
b) Display screen or receipt printer as an output device at a petrol station
c) Portable memory disk to save contraventions by a warden.
To point a general misconception. The actual petrol station delivery machine is not an output
device.
A2
Nearly all the students answered this give-away question correct. However few got the second
part about the different buses incorrect.
A3
Half the students got this question correct, with the other half giving all types of answers.
What was expected is simple and straight forward, namely:
Assembling: Translate each command into machine code.
Linking: Inserting any pre-translated code.
Loading: Passing code over to CU to execute the code.
A4
This question about Loops was very well answered by all students with the exception that the
If…then…else statement was considered a Loop by some students when in reality it’s a
Conditional statement and not a loop.
A5
Nearly half the students were caught out on this matter because they have the misconception
that System Development ends once the testing and deployment is over, thereby thinking that
maintenance is not part of it. Only a few proceeded to give the correct answers namely, that
Maintenance can be Adaptive, Corrective and Perfective.
A6
A considerable number of candidates could identify two advantages between relational and flat
database, many did not show knowledge of what is a flat file system. As regards normalization
very few knew the main purpose for normalization. Most students did not identify O-O model
as another model and answered flat database.
4
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2010
A7
Most of the students answered this question on the library system correctly, especially parts (a)
and (b). Some candidates could not identify the use of the third table as asked in part (c).
A8
Although no method was specified how to simplify the Boolean expression, very few came out
with the correct simplification. Most of the students managed to answer part (b) correctly and
correctly proved De Morgan’s law using truth tables.
A9
Few candidates showed understanding of what process control is, and so they proceeded to
incorrect situations of how process control is used. As regards precautions of files and two
characteristics for a secure password, most candidates answered this part correctly.
A10
Most candidates had a clear idea what is the difference between LAN, MAN and WAN. Some
students did not know the meaning of the acronym MAN, but still knew the difference between
MAN and WAN.
B1
The majority of students went for this question. Some misconceptions were evident like an
educator making using of a projector is considered eLearning. Few students even considered
the simple use of the Internet to be eLearning. All the candidates could give discrete examples
of eLearning and similarly the distinction with face-to-face was very obvious for all too.
The part of the question dealing with VLEs was not very popular as around 75% of the
students struggled to give a correct answer, while very few could give examples like WebCT,
Blackboard and Moodle. It is quite obvious that the majority of the candidates are not
knowledgeable enough about this area as very few gave good examples of material that a VLE
can present like Podcasts, tutorial videos, interactive notes, etc …
B2
A very small number of candidates attempted this question. Most of the students who
answered this question had a very good concept about networking and communication. From
those who answered this question, some could not definitely differentiate the four layers in the
TCP/IP model and gave the Network and Internet layer as separate layers leaving out the Data
Link layer.
As regards the questions on IP most of the students answered correctly the three related items.
Although some students could not remember what DNS stand for, still they knew its function.
Most students answered correctly the difference between the three switching techniques.
Chairperson
Board of Examiners
July 2010
5