| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | |  |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| No. | 6 |Group | 7 |Timeline | 8 |Folder | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 |Hello World | 13 |14 | | |
15 |
| 2 | 18 |Pirate King | 19 |20 | | |
21 |
| 3 | 24 |Power Ranger | 25 |26 | | |
27 |
| Subject | 14 |Subject : Database (SECD2523) | 15 |
| Section | 17 |18 | |
| Task | 20 |Phase 2 (P2) – Database Conceptual Design (ERD) (5%) | 21 |
| Due | 23 |WEEK 10 (10 Dec – 16 Dec 23) | 24 |
| No | 34 |Task | 35 |Deliverables (Items in Database) | 36 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 39 |
40 |
|
48 |
49 | DB conceptual design
50 |
|
58 |
| Criteria | 88 |High (4) | 89 |Average (3) | 90 |Low (2) | 91 |Unsatisfied (1) | 92 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document the whole process of designing the ERD | 95 |Documented ALL reports on the construction of the database design. Shows FULL understanding of the requirement based on the case study. | 96 |Documented MAJOR reports on the construction of the database design. Shows a GOOD understanding of the requirement based on the case study. | 97 |Documented MINIMAL reports on the construction of the database design. Shows MINIMAL understanding of the requirement based on the case study. | 98 |LITTLE evidence that the documents are based on the given case study. | 99 |
| Criteria | 107 |High (4) | 108 |Average (3) | 109 |Low (2) | 110 |Unsatisfied (1) | 111 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produces the necessary primary keys (PK) and/or foreign keys (FK) | 114 |Correctly choose ALL the PKs and FKs, with regard to the naming convention | 115 |Correctly choose MOST of the PKs and FKs, with regard to the naming convention. | 116 |Correctly choose SOME of the PKs and FKs, with regard to the naming convention. | 117 |WRONGLY choose the PKs and FKs. | 118 |
| Relates the entities and determines the multiplicity of each relationship using UML notation | 121 |Correctly interpreted ALL business rules with a CLEAR idea on the entities and multiplicity of relationship involved in the design using UML notations. | 122 |Correctly interpreted MOST of the business rules with a GOOD idea on the entities and multiplicity of relationships involved in the design using UML notations. | 123 |INACCURATELY interpreted the business rules with the WRONG idea on the entities and multiplicity of relationships involved in the design using UML notations. | 124 |UNABLE to interpret the business rules with NO IDEA on the entities and multiplicity of relationships involved in the design using UML notations. | 125 |
| Illustrates the database design in a complete ERD using UML notation | 128 |A COMPLETE populated the tables with CORRECT data elements as outlined in the ERD design. | 129 |Populated the tables with MAJORITY data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with MINIMAL errors. | 130 |Populated the tables with MINIMAL data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with MINIMAL errors. | 131 |Populated the tables with MINIMAL data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with NUMEROUS errors. | 132 |
| Identifies all the basic concepts in ERD (entity, attribute, relationship) | 135 |COMPLETE understand the basic concepts in ERD | 136 |ALMOST complete understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | 137 |Exhibit MINIMAL understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | 138 |UNABLE to show understanding of the basic concepts of ERD. | 139 |
| Represents the main entities and attributes based on the given case study | 142 |Completely and accurately use of names, definition in entities and attributes – ALL table names are appropriately used in regard of its data elements | 143 |Some MINOR inaccurate use of names, definition in entities and attributes - MOST table name is not clear in regard of its data elements | 144 |INACCURATE the use of names, definition in entities and attributes - table name DID NOT correlate with its data elements | 145 |WRONG the use of names, definitions in entities and attributes. Shows NO understanding in identifying the tables based on the case study. | 146 |
2 | 
3 | 
4 | 
5 | 
6 | 
7 |
8 | # Welcome to Database subject!
9 |
10 | 
11 |
12 | # Table of Content
13 |
14 | ## **_Course Information_**
15 | - [Course Synopsis](CI.md#course-synopsis)
16 | - [CLO/PLO/T&L](CI.md#mapping-of-the-course-learning-outcomes-clo-to-the-programme-learning-outcomes-plo-teaching--learning-tl-methods-and-assessment-methods)
17 | - [Details on Innovative T&L practices](CI.md#details-on-innovative-tl-practices)
18 | - [Transferable skills](CI.md#transferable-skills-generic-skills-learned-in-course-of-study-which-can-be-useful-and-utilised-in-other-settings)
19 | - [Student learning time (SLT) details](CI.md#student-learning-time-slt-details)
20 | - [Special requirements](CI.md#special-requirements-to-deliver-the-course-eg-software-nursery-computer-lab-simulation-room)
21 | - [Learning Resources](CI.md#learning-resources)
22 | - [Main references](CI.md#main-references)
23 | - [Additional references](CI.md#additional-references)
24 | - [Online](CI.md#online)
25 | - [Academic Honesty and Plagiarism](CI.md#academic-honesty-and-plagiarism-below-is-just-a-sample)
26 | - [Disclaimer](CI.md#disclaimer) | No. | 35 |Module | 36 |File | 37 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40 |SQL 1: DDL | 41 | |
42 |
| 2 | 45 |SQL 2: DML 1 | 46 | |
47 |
| 3 | 50 |SQL 3: DML 2 | 51 | |
52 |
| 4 | 55 |SQL 4: DML 3 | 56 | |
57 |
| No. | 64 |Module | 65 |File | 66 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 69 |SQL 1: DDL | 70 | |
71 |
| 2 | 74 |SQL 2: DML 1 | 75 | |
76 |
| 3 | 79 |SQL 3: DML 2 | 80 | |
81 |
| 4 | 84 |SQL 4: DML 3 | 85 | |
86 |
| No. | 93 |Lab Exercises | 94 |File | 95 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 98 |Lab Exercise 1 | 99 | |
100 |
| 2 | 103 |Lab Exercise 2 | 104 | |
105 |
| 3 | 108 |Lab Exercise 3 | 109 | |
110 |
| 4 | 113 |Lab Exercise 4 | 114 | |
115 |
| Phases | 126 |Description | 127 |Links | 128 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 131 |Phase 1 | 132 | |
133 |
| 2 | 136 |Phase 2 | 137 | |
138 |
| 3 | 141 |Phase 3 | 142 | |
143 |
| No. | 150 |Phases | 151 |File | 152 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 155 |Phase 1 | 156 | |
157 |
| 2 | 160 |Phase 2 | 161 | |
162 |
| 3 | 165 |Phase 3 | 166 | |
167 |
| Subject | 14 |Subject : Database (SECD2523) | 15 |
| Section | 17 |18 | |
| Task | 20 |Phase 1 (P1) – Project Proposal & Database Requirement (5%) | 21 |
| Due | 23 |WEEK 6 (12 Nov – 18 Nov 23) | 24 |
| No | 34 |Task | 35 |No Task Deliverables (Items in Proposal) | 36 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 39 |
40 | Conduct problem background
41 |
|
46 |
47 |
|
55 |
| 2 | 57 |
58 | System boundaries
59 |
|
64 |
65 |
|
70 |
| 3 | 72 |
73 | Project Plan
74 |
|
80 |
|
84 |
| 4 | 86 |Gather more details on the user views by describing in detail the data CURRENTLY held in the database and how they are used. | 87 |
88 | A report containing the following:
89 |
|
95 |
| 5 | 97 |Gather general requirements for the database system by describing any CURRENT features included in the database system (e.g.: performance requirements, levels of security required). | 98 ||
| 6 | 100 |Describe how to manage user views of the CURRENT database system | 101 |
| Criteria | 135 |High (4) | 136 |Average (3) | 137 |Low (2) | 138 |Unsatisfied (1) | 139 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explains Issues and Clear Content Organization | 142 |CLEARLY identifies and summarizes main issues and successfully explains why/how they are problems or questions; and identifies embedded or implicit issues, addressing their relationship | 143 |SUCCESSFULLY identifies and summarizes the main issues, but does not explain why/how they are problems or create questions. | 144 |IDENTIFIES main issues but does not summarize or explain them clearly or sufficiently | 145 |FAILS to identify, summarize, or explain the main problem or questions. 146 | Represents the issues inaccurately or inappropriately. 147 | | 148 |
| The method of an organization is WELL-SUITED to the assignment; clear intro, body, and conclusion with effective transitions. | 151 |Organization SUPPORTS assignment and purpose; sequence of ideas could be improved | 152 |SOME SIGNS of logical organization. May have abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flows of ideas | 153 |POORLY organized OR demonstrates serious problems with the progression of ideas; a written form of speech | 154 ||
| Content Development & Writing | 157 |Content is somewhat ACCURATE AND CLEAR; offers SOLID AND ACCURATE reasoning; contains appropriate details and/or examples | 158 |Content is somewhat ACCURATE AND FAIRLY CLEAR; offers SOLID BUT LESS ACCURATE reasoning; contains some appropriate details and/or examples | 159 |Content is somewhat VAGUE OR only LOOSELY RELATED to the writing task; at times may be OFF TOPIC OR TOO BROAD with limited support | 160 |Content UNCLEAR; LAPSES IN COHERENCE OR NO RELATION to writing task; offers simplistic, undeveloped support for ideas. | 161 |
| Written works has NO MAJOR ERRORS in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and capitalization. | 164 |Written works is RELATIVELY FREE OF ERRORS in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and capitalization | 165 |Written work has SEVERAL MAJOR ERRORS in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and capitalization | 166 |Written work has SERIOUS AND PERSISTENT ERRORS in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and capitalization | 167 ||
| Complete System boundaries | 170 |COMPLETE description of scope and boundaries of database application and the major user views. Able to ACCURATELY identify all user views for the proposed database application. | 171 |PARTIAL description of scope and boundaries of database application and the major user views. Able to identify all user views for the proposed database application with MINIMAL ERRORS. | 172 |MINIMAL description of scope and boundaries of database application and the major user views. Able to identify all user views for the proposed database application with MAJOR ERRORS. | 173 |NO description of scope and boundaries of database application and the major user views. UNABLE to identify all user views for the proposed database application. | 174 |
| Complete Project Plan | 177 |Complete, precise, and clear task description. 178 | Time allocation for each task is HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE. 179 | | 180 |The task description is FAIRLY COMPLETE AND CLEAR. 181 | Time allocation for each task is ACCEPTABLE. 182 | | 183 |The task description is vague and unclear. 184 | Time allocation for each task is FAIRLY ACCEPTABLE. 185 | | 186 |Unclear and incomplete task description. 187 | Time allocation for each task is UNLOGIC and UNACCEPTABLE. 188 | | 189 |
| Criteria | 196 |High (4) | 197 |Average (3) | 198 |Low (2) | 199 |Unsatisfied (1) | 200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify the database requirement based on the case study. | 203 |Correctly interpreted ALL business rules with a CLEAR idea on the entity, attribute, and relationship. | 204 |Correctly interpreted MOST of the business rules with GOOD ideas on the entity, attribute, and relationship. | 205 |INACCURATELY interpreted the business rules with WRONG ideas on the entity, attribute, and relationship. | 206 |UNABLE to interpret the business rules with NO IDEA entity, attribute, and relationship. | 207 |
| Produce data requirements for information stored | 210 |ACCURATE use of names in entities, attributes, relationships, and user view – ALL data types are appropriately used in regard to its requirement. | 211 |Some MINOR errors in the use of names in entities, attributes, relationships, and user view – FEW data types are not clear/suitable with its requirement. | 212 |INACCURATE use of names in entities, attributes, relationships, and user view – the data type DID NOT correlate with its requirement. | 213 |WRONG use of names in entities, attributes, relationships, and user view. Shows NO understanding in identifying the data type used in regard to its requirement. | 214 |
| Produce a set of transaction requirements for the current/manual system based on the case study. | 217 |GOOD understanding of the business rules and able to produce ACCURATE and SUITABLE set of transaction requirements. | 218 |PARTIAL understanding of the business rules and having MINIMAL ERROR in producing a set of transaction requirements. | 219 |INCORRECTLY understand the business rules and produce an INACCURATE set of transaction requirements. | 220 |FAIL to understand the business rule and produce WRONG set of transaction requirements. | 221 |
| Subject | 17 |Subject : Database (SECD2523) | 18 |
| Section | 20 |21 | |
| Task | 23 |Phase 3 (P3) – Database Logical Design & SQL (20%)/td> 24 | |
| Due | 26 |WEEK 14 (07 Jan – 13 Jan 24) | 27 |
| No | 37 |Task | 38 |Deliverables (Items in Database) | 39 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 42 |
43 |
|
51 |
52 | A report containing the following:
53 |
|
65 |
| Criteria | 96 |High (4) | 97 |Average (3) | 98 |Low (2) | 99 |Unsatisfied (1) | 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document the whole process of designing the ERD | 103 |Documented ALL reports on the construction of the database design. Shows FULL understanding of the requirements based on the case study. | 104 |Documented MAJOR reports on the construction of the database design. Shows a GOOD understanding of the requirements based on the case study. | 105 |Documented MINIMAL reports on the construction of the database design. Shows MINIMAL understanding of the requirements based on the case study. | 106 |LITTLE evidence that the documents are based on the given case study. | 107 |
| SQL documentation | 110 |The student provides THOROUGH documentation for their SQL code, including comments explaining the purpose of the code, any complex logic, and the structure of the database. | 111 |The student provides ADEQUATE documentation for their SQL code, but it may lack some details or clarity in explaining complex logic | 112 |The student provides MINIMAL documentation for their SQL code, making it challenging to understand the purpose and logic | 113 |The student provides NO documentation for their SQL code, making it nearly impossible to understand the purpose and logic | 114 |
| Criteria | 121 |High (4) | 122 |Average (3) | 123 |Low (2) | 124 |Unsatisfied (1) | 125 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Follow the instructions to draw the logical ERD and derive the relations | 128 |COMPLETE understanding of how to draw ERD and derive relations | 129 |Exhibits a GOOD understanding of how to draw ERD and derive relations | 130 |Exhibits MINIMAL understanding of how to draw ERD and derive relations. | 131 |UNABLE to follow the instructions on how to draw ERD and fails to derive relations. | 132 |
| Identifies all the basic concepts in normalization (relational schema) | 135 |COMPLETE understanding of the basic concepts in ERD | 136 |Exhibit a GOOD understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | 137 |Exhibit a MINIMAL understanding of the basic concepts in ERD. | 138 |UNABLE to show understanding of the basic concepts of ERD. | 139 |
| Represents the dependency diagram (and relational schema) based on the given case study | 142 |COMPLETELY and ACCURATELY use of names, definitions in entities, and attributes - table name is appropriately used in regard to its data elements | 143 |Some MINOR inaccurate use of names, definition in entities and attributes - FEW table name is not clear in regard to its data elements | 144 |INACCURATE the use of names, definitions in entities, and attributes - table name DID NOT correlate with its data elements | 145 |WRONG the use of names, definitions in entities and attributes. Shows NO understanding in identifying the tables based on the case study. | 146 |
| Differentiates the keys in the dependency diagram | 149 |COMPLETE understanding of the dependencies and normal-form levels | 150 |Exhibit a GOOD understanding of the dependencies and normal-form levels | 151 |Exhibit a MINIMAL understanding of the dependencies and normal-form levels | 152 |UNABLE to differentiate the dependencies and normal-form levels | 153 |
| Label the necessary transitive and partial dependencies | 156 |Correctly choose ALL of the PKs and FKs, with regard to the naming convention | 157 |Correctly choose MOST of the PKs and FKs, in regard to the naming convention. | 158 |INCORRECTLY choose the PKs and FKs. | 159 |WRONGLY choose the PKs and FKs. | 160 |
| Illustrates the normalization steps - from 1NF --> 2 NF --> 3NF -->BCNF (if applicable) | 163 |A COMPLETE populated the tables with CORRECT data elements as outlined in the ERD design. | 164 |Populated the tables with ALL data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with MINIMAL errors. | 165 |Populated the tables with MINIMAL data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with MINIMAL errors. | 166 |Populated the tables with MINIMAL data elements as outlined in the ERD design - with NUMEROUS errors. | 167 |
| Criteria | 174 |High (4) | 175 |Average (3) | 176 |Low (2) | 177 |Unsatisfied (1) | 178 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness to target user | 181 |Prototype uses terms and symbols APPROPRIATE to target user. Look and feel APPROPRIATE to the target user. Usability APPROPRIATE to target user. 182 | |
183 | Prototype designed for a WELL-DEFINED target user.
184 | 185 | Usability is APPROPRIATE to the target user. 186 | |
187 | Prototype designed WITHOUT well-defined target user in mind.
188 | 189 | SOME usability is NOT appropriate for the target user. 190 | |
191 | Prototype designed WITHOUT well-defined target user in mind.
192 | 193 | MOST usability is NOT appropriate for the target user. 194 | |
195 |
| Prototype's Interaction Usability | 198 |The user interface uses a SIMPLE and NATURAL interaction style.
199 | 200 | INTUITIVE, EASY to learn and use. |
201 | The user interface uses a SIMPLE interaction style.
202 | 203 | EASY to use once you learn it. 204 | |
205 | SOME user interface is COMPLICATED and HARD to use. | 206 |HARD to figure out how to even get started using the prototype. | 207 |
| Mapping SQL statements to the appropriate functions | 210 |Demonstrates an EXCEPTIONAL ability to map SQL statements to appropriate functions, showing MASTERY in this skill.
211 | 212 | CONSISTENTLY and INNOVATIVELY maps SQL statements to appropriate functions, optimizing performance and accuracy. 213 | |
214 | CONSISTENTLY and ACCURATELY maps SQL statements to the appropriate functions.
215 | 216 | CONSISTENTLY maps SQL statements to appropriate functions. 217 | |
218 | ABLE to map SQL statements to APPROPRIATE functions but still needs IMPROVEMENT.
219 | 220 | INCONSISTENTLY maps SQL statements to appropriate functions. 221 | |
222 | Demonstrates a BASIC understanding of SQL statements and functions but STRUGGLES to map them effectively.
223 | 224 | UNABLE to efficiently map SQL statements to appropriate functions. 225 | |
226 |
| Criteria | 235 |High (4) | 236 |Average (3) | 237 |Low (2) | 238 |Unsatisfied (1) | 239 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriateness and Accuracy of Design | 242 |The student has created an EXCELLENT Database design that includes ALL or the
243 | MAJORITY (above 90%) of the following
244 | characteristics:
245 |
|
253 | The student has created a GOOD Database design that includes MOST (above 50%) of the following characteristics:
254 |
|
261 | The student has created an ACCEPTABLE Database design that includes SOME of the following characteristics:
262 |
269 | there are misconceptions/mistakes within the data, query, or reports that significantly alter their appropriateness of them. 270 | |
271 | The student has created a SIMPLISTIC Database design that includes some of the following characteristics either superficially or is missing major components. The database is NOT suitable for the intended purpose.:
272 |
|
278 |
| School/Faculty: | 6 |Faculty of Computing | 7 |
| Program name: | 10 |SECD2523 | 11 |
| Course code: | 14 |SECD2523 | 15 |
| Course name: | 18 |Database | 19 |
| Credit hours: | 22 |3 | 23 |
| Academic Session/Semester: | 26 |20232024/01 | 27 |
| Pre/co requisite (course name and code, if applicable): | 30 |None | 31 |
| Course coordinator (if applicable) | 61 |Dr. Izyan Izzati Kamsani | 62 |||||
| Course lecturer(s) | 65 |Name | 66 |Office | 67 |Contact no. | 68 |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 72 |SECBH | 73 |Dr Haslina binti Hashim | 74 |75 | | 76 | | 77 | |
| 02 | 80 |SECRH | 81 |Dr Izyan Izzati binti Kamsani | 82 |83 | | 84 | | 85 | |
| 03 | 88 |89 | | 90 | | 91 | | ||
| 05 | 94 |SECJH | 95 |Dr Haslina binti Hashim | 96 |97 | | 98 | | 99 | |
| 06 | 102 |Dr Izyan Izzati binti Kamsani | 103 |104 | | 105 | | 106 | | |
| 07 | 109 |Dr Nur Eilliyah @ Wong Yee Leng | 110 |111 | | 112 | | 113 | | |
| 08 | 116 |Dr. Noor Hidayah binti Zakaria | 117 |118 | | 119 | | 120 | | |
| 09 | 123 |SECVH | 124 |Dr Sharin Hazlin binti Huspi | 125 |126 | | 127 | | 128 | |
| 10 | 131 |Pn Rozilawati binti Dollah @ Md Zain | 132 |133 | | 134 | | 135 | | |
| No. | 145 |CLO | 146 |PLO (Code) | 147 |*Taxonomies and **generic skills | 148 |T&L methods | 149 |***Assessment methods | 150 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLO1 | 153 |Apply the fundamental database (DB) principles in DB system lifecycle. | 154 |PLO1 (KW) 20% | 155 |C3 | 156 |Lecture, KWL Chart, Think-pair-share. | 157 |Weekly task (10%) Mid-Term Exam (5%) Final Exam (5%) 158 | |
159 |
| CLO2 | 162 |Develop a logical database design using entity-relationship diagram (ERD) and normalization techniques. | 163 |PLO2 (AP) 35% | 164 |C5 | 165 |Lecture, KWL Chart, Think-pair-share, cooperative learning, problem-solving, PoBL | 166 |Mid-Term (10%) Final Exam (15%) Project Report (10%) 167 | |
168 |
| CLO3 | 171 |Construct Structured Query Language (SQL) statements for database manipulation using a database management system (DBMS). | 172 |PLO3 (PS) 35% | 173 |C5 | 174 |Lecture, Lab work, PoBL | 175 |Lab Exercise (10%) Final Exam - SQL (10%) Mid-Term Exam (5%) Project Report (10%) 176 | |
177 |
| CLO4 | 180 |Develop the database component for a database application solution using learned designing techniques, DB language, DBMS, and development tools. | 181 |PLO5 (TH) 10% | 182 |TH3 | 183 |PoBL | 184 |Project Report (10%) | 185 |
| Refer *Taxonomies of Learning and **UTM’s Graduate Attributes, where applicable for measurement of outcomes achievement | 188 ||||||
| No. | 197 |Type | 198 |Implementation | 199 |
| 1. | 202 |Active learning | 203 |Conducted through in-class activities | 204 |
| 2. | 207 |Project-based learning | 208 |Conducted in a group project assignment. Students, in a group of 3 or 4, are required to develop a database application system for a selected company. Students are required to go through the database system development methodology starting from determining the database requirements until developing the database application system. Students shall apply all relevant knowledge acquired throughout the semester on the project. Students are assessed on their ability to deliver a creative database design solution that will be able fulfill the requirements identified. | 209 |
| Distribution of Student Learning Time (SLT) Course Outline | 224 |Guided Learning (Face to Face) | 225 |Guided Learning (Non-Face to Face) | 226 |Independent Learning (Non-Face to Face) | 227 |SLT | 228 ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLO | 231 |L | 232 |T | 233 |P | 234 |O | 235 |236 | | 237 | | 238 | |
| CLO 1 | 241 |4 | 242 |4 | 243 |244 | | 245 | | 246 | | 7.5 | 247 |15.5h | 248 |
| CLO 2 | 251 |4 | 252 |253 | | 8 | 254 |255 | | 5 | 256 |18 | 257 |35h | 258 |
| CLO 3 | 262 |4 | 263 |4 | 264 |4 | 265 |266 | | 5 | 267 |13.5 | 268 |30.5h | 269 |
| CLO 4 | 272 |273 | | 274 | | 10 | 275 |276 | | 4 | 277 |10 | 278 |24h | 279 |
| Total SLT | 282 |12 | 283 |8 | 284 |22 | 285 |286 | | 14 | 287 |52 | 288 |105h | 289 |
| Continuous Assessment | 298 |PLO | 299 |Percentage | 300 |Total SLT | 301 ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 304 | | Weekly task | 305 |PLO 1 CLO1 | 306 |10 | 307 |3.5h | 308 |
| 2 311 | | Lab Exercises | 312 |PLO3 CLO3 | 313 |10 | 314 |6h | 315 |
| 3 318 | | Project | 319 |PLO2 CLO2 PLO3 CLO3 PLO4 CLO4 |
320 | 10 10 10 |
321 | As in CLO 2, 3, 4 | 322 |
| Assessment | 325 |326 | | Percentage | 327 |Total SLT | 328 ||
| 1 331 | | Final Exam | 332 |PLO1 CLO1 PLO2 CLO2 PLO3 CLO3 |
333 | 5 (MCQ) 15 (Structured) 10 (SQL) |
334 | 3h | 335 |
| 2 338 | | Lab Exercises | 339 |PLO1 CLO1 PLO2 CLO2 PLO3 CLO3 |
340 | 5 (MCQ) 10 (Structured) 5 (SQL) |
341 | 2.5h | 342 |
| Grand Total | 345 |100 | 346 |347 | | ||