UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
THE MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
COMPUTING
May 2011
EXAMINERS’ REPORT
MATRICULATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS BOARD
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2011
IM Computing
May 2011 Session
Examiners’ Report
Part 1: Statistical Information
A total of 127 students applied for the May 2011 Intermediate Computing examination session.
Eight of these were private candidates. Two candidates did not present their coursework exercise
while one candidate was 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 49.3 while that of the coursework amounts to 15.1. Thus the average for the examination is
64.4, a decrease of 1.5 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.
Frequency of marks
35
25
20
15
10
5
Class intervals
Chart 1
Class intervals
0–9
10 – 19
20 – 29
30 – 39
40 – 49
50 – 59
60 – 69
70 – 79
80 – 89
90 – 100
Table 1
2
Frequency
0
1
0
11
20
23
19
32
18
3
80-89 90-100
10
70-79
9
60-69
8
50-59
7
40-49
6
30-39
5
20-29
4
10-19
3
0-9
2
0
1
No. of candidates
30
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2011
Table 2 below shows the grades obtained by the candidates and the percentage of each grade.
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
Absent*
Number of candidates
8
23
37
27
19
13
0
Total
Percentage of candidates
6.3%
18.1%
29.1%
21.3%
15.0%
10.2%
0.0%
127
Table 2
100%
* Candidates who did not present their coursework AND did not turn up for the written paper.
The Coursework Component
During the moderation of project exercise, the moderators visited all the schools/colleges that
prepared students for this examination. An overview of the moderators’ comments is the following:
In most cases the marks awarded by the tutors for the projects were acceptable. However in a
particular school/college, the moderator reduced a couple of marks across the board. The
moderators noted that most schools/colleges conduct an interview with each individual candidate to
confirm the authenticity of the work presented. This is to be commended. In a handful of cases the
tutors noted that the project showed clear signs of plagiarism and the tutors rightly penalised the
candidates accordingly.
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
Standard
Deviation
1.3
2.2
2.3
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.3
3.9
3.5
Mean
4.6
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.0
3.3
4.3
3.6
3.4
3.0
14.8
12.3
Table 3
3
Facility
Index
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
Choice
Index
0.3
0.7
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2011
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 Indices
0.9
0.8
Facility index
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
Table 4 below shows the items in decreasing order of facility, together with the topic that the
question tested.
Item
Number
A1
A2
A4
A7
B1
A3
A6
A8
A9
B2
A5
A10
Facility
Index
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Topic tested
Logic circuits and function of
Simplification of Boolean expressions
CPU architecture
Computer applications
System design
Operating systems
Software and checking
Number systems and data protection act
Networks
Networking and communication
Sorting algorithms
Database concepts
Table 4
4
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2011
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 giving a
complete and correct truth table. Very few students got a couple of rows
wrong while even fewer did not understand it completely and gave a
completely wrong answer. The same applies to the second part of this
questions which should have been ‘half adder’. Around 80% of students got it
right and around 10% said full adder, while the other 10% had no idea.
A2
Nearly all the students (85%) gave this give-away question correct. Only a
very few (10%) did not get to the correct answer of A+B and eventually drew
the corresponding circuit getting marks just the same. The last 5% of students
had no clue of what needed to be done.
A3
The majority of the students (80%) got this question correct and the rest were
divided by either a misconception of giving examples like Windows, Mac, etc
... ànd others who did not know the answer at all..
A4
This question about the CPU was very well answered by all students with the
exception that very few students left minor details missing losing few points in
the process.
A5
Even though the majority of students know what sorting is all about, some 25%
failed to give a practical example of where a sort is applied in reality. When
students had to explain how Insertion and Bubble sort work half the students
knew exactly that Insertion sort introduces an item at a time ensuring it’s
correct place while a Bubble sort compares neighbouring items and swaps
them if necessary. The other half failed to give a simple explanation.
A6
Most candidates answered part (a) correctly, with only few who could not
identify the two major categories of software. As regards part (b), quite a few
did not provide good test data to validate the entry of an examination mark.
A7
Most candidates answered this question well. Some did not know what a VLE
is or could not remember an example of a VLE.
A8
Many candidates did not know the range in decimal for an 8 bit register, and
although nearly all knew how to convert a positive decimal to binary, quite a
few did not know how to convert a negative number. Many candidates could
not differentiate between the data protection commissioner and the data
controller.
A9
Few candidates could not identify the difference between the Internet and
WWW. As regards part (c), many could not identify the real function of a
server and proxy server.
A10
Most candidates could not list 4 effective advantages, or they gave the same
advantage using different wording. As regards part (b), some candidates
confused a flat database with a hardcopy database.
5
IM EXAMINERS’ REPORT MAY 2011
B1
Less than half of the candidates selected this question and only a few got it
perfectly correct. The idea that a well-established methodology that has been
proven over and over and that its been tested to offer a sequential and
incremental development was not known to all. Even more the top-down and
bottom-up approaches was given by half the candidates who attempted the
question, with the other half giving a wrong reply. The rest of the question was
well replied to with majority of candidates knowledgeable in modular designs
as well as the other steps within the life-cycle. Still around 10% failed to give
a correct answer.
B2
As regards part (a), most of candidates provided adequate descriptions togther
with examples of LAN, MAN and WAN.
Very few answered incorrectly the questions about network topology.
While many knew what the OSI model is and knew the names of the seven
layers, very few could describe correctly each layer. None of the candidates
could identify the data units for each layer and most candidates left this part
unanswered.
Chairperson
Board of Examiners
July 2011
6