Week 4 Lab 2 Submission ✓ Solved

Week 4 Lab 2 Submission

Use the application or pen and paper to: 5. Modify the database diagram from Lab 1 with the entities and attributes that the scenario identified (i.e., a college tracking students, courses, and instructors). 5. Create the appropriate relationships between each entity within the diagram. 2. Submit your modified diagram. Section 2: Design Summary (Microsoft Word or equivalent) 3. Write a one to two (1-2) page paper in which you: a. Discuss the degree to which you believe your diagram reflects the database design. a. Describe any assumptions that you had to make about the business rules to in order to create the diagram and the associated relationships. Section 2 of your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: . Submit the design summary as a Microsoft Word file. Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. . Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page is not included in the required assignment page length.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The development of a comprehensive and accurate university database is crucial for efficient management of academic, administrative, and student-related information. For this assignment, I have modified the initial database diagram to incorporate the specific entities and attributes outlined by the college, ensuring that the system effectively captures all necessary data points about students, courses, and instructors. This paper discusses the process of diagram modification, reflects on the fidelity of the design with the business rules, and elaborates on the assumptions made during the design process.

Modified Database Diagram

The diagram features three primary entities: Student, Course, and Instructor. The Student entity includes attributes such as Student ID, Name, Address, Start Date, Phone Numbers & Types, Email Addresses & Types, Gender, and Birth Date. The Phone Numbers and Email Addresses are modeled as associated entities or multi-valued attributes based on the design tool used, capturing various contact options for each student. The Course entity encompasses Course ID, Name, Department, Quarters Offered, Sections, and Instructor ID. The Instructor entity comprises Instructor ID, Name, Address, Phone Numbers & Types, Email Addresses & Types, Gender, Birth Date, and the set of Courses they are qualified to teach.

The relationships between these entities reflect real-world associations: students enroll in courses, and instructors teach courses. A many-to-many relationship exists between students and courses, indicating that students can enroll in multiple courses, and each course can have multiple students. This relationship is managed through an Enrollment associative entity, which also stores the final grades for each student in each course. The instructor-course relationship is one-to-many, where an instructor can teach multiple courses, but each course has a single instructor assigned. However, given the possibility of team teaching, flexibility was incorporated to allow multiple instructors per course if needed.

Relationship Design

Care was taken to define clear foreign keys and referential integrity constraints to ensure consistency. For example, the Student ID is a primary key in the Student entity, and is a foreign key in the Enrollment entity. Similarly, the Instructor ID links to the Course entity through the instructor assignment. These relationships are represented with appropriate crow's foot notation to reflect the cardinality. The design aligns with the college’s business rules, supporting efficient data retrieval and updates regarding student progress, instructor assignments, and course offerings.

Reflection and Assumptions

Overall, I believe the diagram effectively captures the core aspects of the college's data management needs. It allows tracking students' personal and contact information, course details, instructor data, and final grades. To develop this diagram, certain assumptions were necessary about the nature of course offerings and instructor assignments. For instance, I assumed that each course is assigned to a single department, and that course sections are uniquely identified within a quarter. I also assumed that students can have multiple phone and email contacts, which resulted in modeling these as related entities rather than multi-valued attributes, enhancing normalization.

Furthermore, I presumed that the grading system is integrated within the enrollment process and that final grades are associated with the student-course relationship. The possibility of instructors teaching multiple courses and courses being taught by multiple instructors was considered to accommodate various teaching arrangements, though in the diagram, the primary assumption was a one-to-many relationship for simplicity. These assumptions helped clarify the relationships and attributes necessary for an accurate database design that adheres to the business rules while maintaining normalization principles.

Conclusion

The revised diagram provides a robust foundation for the college’s database system, emphasizing clarity, normalization, and flexibility. It encompasses all critical entities and relationships, supporting the college’s operational and reporting needs. The process of modifying the initial design involved careful consideration of real-world requirements and assumptions, ensuring that the database will function effectively in managing student, course, and instructor data.

References

• Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S. B. (2015). Fundamentals of Database Systems (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Hoffer, J. A., Venkataraman, R., & Topi, H. (2016). Modern Database Management (12th ed.). Pearson.
• Rob, P., & Coronel, C. (2018). Database Systems (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.