N. Lohgheswary,A. S. Fatin Nur Diana,A. Wei Lun,



Analysis,Computational and Numerical Analysis,Difficult topics,Final Exam,Rasch model,


Computational and Numerical Analysis is one of the core topics for Computational Mathematics in Engineering Mathematics. Students required to learn different methods of analysis as well as MATLAB programming to solve a given problem. The objective of this paper is to analyze the final exam questions of Computational and Numerical Analysis subject. There are four course outcomes for the Computational and Numerical Analysis subject. Five questions were set for final and each question carries 20 marks. The Bloom Taxonomy for the questions are from comprehension, application, analysis and synthesis level. A total of 115 students from Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering departments took the final examination. To analyze this subject, the results of the final examination of students from Chemical and Mechanical Engineering departments are tabulated in EXCEL and transformed into WINSTEPS. The Computational and Numerical Analysis questions can be categorized into four groups. They are difficult, mediocre, easy and very easy. The ability of the Chemical and Mechanical Engineering students cannot be divided into any group. A misfit item is identified from Point-Measure Correlation, Outfit MNSQ and Outfit z-Standard. Since one item is out of the three measures, therefore there is one misfit question for the Computational and Numerical Analysis final examination. The person-item distribution map showed the questions which belong to difficult, mediocre, easy and very easy group. Generally Course Outcome 1 was difficult for the students. This question is from the analysis level from Bloom Taxonomy. Course Outcome 2 was average and Course Outcome 3 was easy for this batch of students. The Rasch model able to classify the difficulty level of questions versus the Course Outcomes of Computational and Numerical Analysis subject.


I. A. A. Aziz, M. Azlinah, H. A. Hamzah, A. G. Hamzah, Z. Sohaimi, M. Saifudin, “Application of Rasch model in validating the construct measurement instrument”, International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2, pp. 105-112.
II. F. M. Ibrahim, A. A. Azrilah, Y. Z. Zubairi, Z. Azami, “Using the Rasch model to assess examination beyond students’ scores”, Global Engineering Education Conference, 2012.
III. J. M. Linacre, WINSTEPS, Computer Program, Chicago, IL:, 2008.
IV. K. Nuraini, A. A. Azrilah, Z. Azami, S. H. M. Yasin, “Development of objective standard setting using Rasch measurement model in Malaysian Institution of Higher Learning”, International Education Studies, 6(6), pp. 151-160, 2013.
V. L. N. I. Nik, U. nangkula, “Rasch modeling to test students’ ability and questions reliability in Architecture Environmental science examination”, Journal of Applied Research, 8(3), pp. 1797-1801, 2012.
VI. M. N. Zulkifli, I. NurArzilah, O. Haliza, I. Asshaari, N. Razali, M. H. Osman, M. H. Jamaluddin, “Identification on students’ achievement and academic profile in Linear Algebra course: An analysis using the Rasch model”, 3rd International Congress on Engineering Education, pp. 197-202, 2011.
VII. S. A. Osman, S. I. Naam, M. Z. Omar, N. Jamaluddin, N. T. Kofli, A. Ayob and S. Johar, “Assessing student perception on the industrial training program through Rasch analysis”, Seminar PendidikanKejuruteraandanAlamBina, 2012.
VIII. S. A. Osman, W. H. W. Badaruzzaman, R. Hamid, K. Taib, A. R. Khalim, N. Hamzah, O. Jaafar, “Assessment on students’ performance using Rasch model in Reinforced Concrete Design course examination”, recent Researchers in Education, pp. 193-198, 2011.
IX. S. Bansilal, “A Rasch analysis of a Grade 12 test written by Mathematics teachers”, South African Journal of Science, 11(5/6), pp. 1-9, 2015.
X. T. G. Bond, C. M. Fox, “Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human science”, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.

View | Download