Investigating the popularity of Television series
In the age of user ratings (airbnb, trip advisor) more of our decisions are based on the views of 'the crowd' and those in the industry being rated will be increasingly interested in what it takes to get good ratings. As such this project falls in to a very relevant area and the candidate will not have been the first to search for the criteria of a good IMDB rating. The topic was the students idea and it was great that he was able to pursue it. Whilst the idea was relevant and there was rich potential, I had hoped the student would take it further and produce a more insightful piece of work than this. As such the mark is limited to 13 when I apply the criteria.
View the project Television Series Click the hidden box icon to see a preview or download directly from the link.
The marks explained
|A||Introduction||2/3||Page 1 offers a clear title, statement of task and a plan that sets the tone for the student is setting out to do.|
|B||Information||2/3||The candidate has gone through a labour intensive data collection exercise to get a significant amount of data needed to answer the question. They made good use of a systematic sampling technique to deal with the large amounts of 'TV series' that they could have considered, but that was not practical to do so. Whilst there is certainly enough useful data to work with, I have some question marks about its 'Quality' that stopped me from awarding 3/3|
|C||Mathematical Processes||3/5||The student completes a correct and relevant scatter graphs and has relevantly used technology to test for correlation. There is a relevant, correct box plot showing the spread of 'years running' and a bar chart that shows the average rating for each of the genre. These all relate to the original question. The candidate has tried to calculate a PMCC for Number of seasons and IMDB rating, although it is incorrect. I considered the award of 4 for that attempt but did nit feel there was enough explanation or demonstration of understanding to do so. 3/5 was the best fit here, the candidate has used technology (thus simple) to perform simple relevant processes.|
|D||Interpretation||2/3||The scatter graphs on pages 3 and 4 are correctly interpreted. There are some other correct interpretations.|
|E||Validity||1/1||On page 7 the candidate recognises the limits of systematic sampling in this case. 'Possibly a whole category was left out'|
|F||Structure and Communication||2/3||The project does follow a logical structure that answers the questions set out at the beginning. It is simple and I would need to have seen a lot more discussion and depth to consider anything more. The candidate showed the commitment associated with this mark.|
|G||Notation and Terminology||1/2||It is limited but there is 'some' correct notation and terminology through out the project.|