A methodology for teaching database design based on a four-component instructional design model
https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2022-37-4-46-53
Abstract
Based on the analysis of relevant literature, the article highlights the difficulties of teaching a relational database course in higher educational institutions. Such problems are mainly associated with the lack of simple and at the same time formalized methods to teach the basics of this academic discipline. The research illustrates the importance of the correct choice of the instructional design model while developing the course. The article also provides a comparative analysis of the existing instructional design models performed with regard to their application to the development of a database course. The study has revealed the advantages of choosing a four- component model of instructional design (4C/ID). Such a model served as the basis for developing a methodology for teaching database design. On the one hand, this methodology makes it possible to avoid deep immersion in the mathematical foundations of the discipline. On the other hand, it is strictly formalized and fully consistent with these foundations. Formalization has been achieved through a cognitive strategy and cognitive rules that are clearly expressed in natural language. The cognitive strategy and rules are universal for database design in any subject area. The fact that students quickly go on to solve real practical problems in professional activity proves the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.
About the Author
E. G. LitvakRussian Federation
Elena G. Litvak, Candidate of Science (Economy). Assistant Professor at the Department of Information Technologies
Donetsk, The Donetsk People's Republic
References
1. Hamzah M. L., Rukun K., Rizal F., Purwati A.A. A review of increasing teaching and learning database subjects in computer science. Espacios. 2019;(40(26)). Available at: http://www.revistaespacios.com/a19v40n26/19402606.html
2. Mitrovic A., Suraweera P. Teaching database design with constraint-based tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2015;26(1):448–456. DOI: 10.1007/s40593-015-0084-6
3. Svetlov A. V. Essentials of the teaching the database for undergraduate students in applied informatics. Vestnik VolGU. Seriya 6. University Education. 2012;(13):74–79. (In Russian.)
4. Titovskaya N. V., Titovsky S. N. Technique of teaching design and development of databases to future information technology experts. Bulletin of Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafyev. 2019;(4(50)):75–87. (In Russian.). DOI: 10.25146/1995-0861-2019-50-4-164
5. Garcia-Molina H., Ullman J. D., Widom J. Database systems: The complete book. Moscow: Williams; 2017. 1088 p. (In Russian.)
6. Karpova I. P. Databases. St. Petersburg, Piter; 2013. 240 p. (In Russian)
7. Khramov V. Yu. Algorithm for synthesizing a relational database schema based on functional dependencies. Information and Space. 2009;(1):93–101. (In Russian.)
8. Brown A. H., Green T. D. The Essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. 3rd ed. New York, Routledge; 2016. 232 p.
9. Francom G. M. Principles for task-centered instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.). Instructional design theories and models: The learnercentered paradigm of education. New York, Routledge; 2017;(4):65–91. DOI: 10.4324/9781315795478
10. Richards J. C. Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal. 2013;44(1):5–33. DOI: 10.1177/0033688212473293
11. Wiggins G., McTighe J. The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, Virginia USA, ASCD; 2011.
12. Frerejean J., Van Merriënboer J. J. G., Kirshner P. A., Roex A. Designing instruction for complex learning: 4C/ID in higher education. European Journal of Education. 2019;54(4):513–524. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12363
13. van Merriënboer J. J. G., Kirschner P. A. Ten steps to complex learning. a systematic approach to four component instructional design. 2nd ed. London, Routledge; 2012. DOI: 10.4324/9780203096864
14. van Merriënboer J. J. G, Kester L., Paas F. Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2006;(20):343–352. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1250
15. van Merriënboer J. J. G., Gros B., Niegemann H. Instructional design in Europe: Trends and issues. In R. C. Reiser, J. V. Dempsey (Eds.). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. 4th ed. 2018:192–198.
16. Kirchner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist. 2006;41(2):75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
17. Marcellis M., Barendsen E., van Merriënboer J. J. G. Designing a blended course in android app development using 4C/ID. The 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research; 2018:1–5. DOI: 10.1145/3279720.3279739
18. Pontes T., Miranda G., Celani G. Algorithm-aided design with Python: Analysis of technological competence of subjects. Education Sciences. 2018;8(4). DOI: 10.3390/educsci8040200
19. Chen P. The entity-relationship model — toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 1976;1(1):9–36. DOI: 10.1145/320434.320440
20. Codd E. F. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 1979;(4):397–434. DOI: 10.1145/320107.320109
Review
For citations:
Litvak E.G. A methodology for teaching database design based on a four-component instructional design model. Informatics and education. 2022;37(4):46-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2022-37-4-46-53