Comparing Top-down with Bottom-up Approaches: Teaching Data Modeling

Conceptual database design is a difficult task for novice database designers, such as students, and is also therefore particularly challenging for database educators to teach. In the teaching of database design, two general approaches are frequently emphasized: top-down and bottom-up. In this paper, we present an empirical comparison of students’ performance between these two approaches in a conceptual data modeling exercise. Our results indicate that, while prior database education had a significant effect on the quality of design performance, the chosen approach did not. The findings suggest that database educators should integrate both top-down and bottom-up approaches in database design showing the differences and similarities between the two approaches to improve students’ learning of data modeling.

[1]  Ryan T. Wright,et al.  IS 2010: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Cognitive complexity in data modeling: causes and recommendations , 2007, Requirements Engineering.

[3]  Arturo I. Concepcion,et al.  Expert DB: an assistant database design system , 1990, IEA/AIE '90.

[4]  Toby J. Teorey,et al.  ER model clustering as an aid for user communication and documentation in database design , 1989, CACM.

[5]  George C. Philip,et al.  Journal of Information Technology Education Teaching Database Modeling and Design: Areas of Confusion and Helpful Hints Teaching Database Modeling and Design , 2022 .

[6]  Thomas Connolly,et al.  Database Solutions: A Step by Step Guide to Building Databases (2nd Edition) , 2003 .

[7]  Heikki Topi,et al.  Modern Database Management , 1999 .

[8]  Arnon Rosenthal,et al.  Tools and transformations—rigorous and otherwise—for practical database design , 1994, TODS.

[9]  I. T. Hawryszkiewycz,et al.  Database analysis and design , 1984 .

[10]  E. F. CODD,et al.  A relational model of data for large shared data banks , 1970, CACM.

[11]  Ron Weber,et al.  Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams , 1999, ICIS.

[12]  Laurian M. Chirica,et al.  The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data , 1975, SIGF.

[13]  Venkataraman Ramesh,et al.  Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Comparing a rule-based approach with a pattern-based approach at different levels of complexity of conceptual data modelling tasks , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Andrew Gemino,et al.  A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[16]  Marin Fotache,et al.  Why Normalization Failed to Become the Ultimate Guide for Database Designers , 2006 .

[17]  Akhilesh Bajaj,et al.  The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: an empirical study with data models , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[18]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Hierarchical entity-relationship diagrams: the model, method of creation and experimental evaluation , 2004, Requirements Engineering.

[19]  Philip A. Bernstein,et al.  Synthesizing third normal form relations from functional dependencies , 1976, TODS.

[20]  Peter Rob,et al.  Database systems : design, implementation, and management , 2000 .

[21]  Dinesh Batra,et al.  Novice errors in conceptual database design , 1994 .

[22]  Ray Welland,et al.  Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..