CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)Modeling Theory– CIS 331.docx

CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)
Modeling Theory– CIS 331
(Prerequisite: MAT104 and CIS105)CIS 331 Section
#004VA016 (v1138)
CIS/331: “Modeling Case” – RESEARCH PAPER
Requirements:
Select a Case Study from “Modeling Cases” on page #479.
Complete the following:
· Submit 3-5 page paper (at least 500 words) in Microsoft Word
explaining the following:
· Formulated Problem Statement(s);
· Decisions, outcomes, and relationships to the problem;
· How you can simplify the problem;
· What modules you will build to help solve the problem;
· Key relationships in the problem;
· Graphs you will draw;
· Formulas you will use;
· Influence Chart relationships;
· Submit Spreadsheet Model in Microsoft Excel:
· Spreadsheet Design (Sketch + Final Model)

· At least one (1) graph
· One (1) Influence Chart
· Additional Requirements:
· References & Citations: Minimum of two (2) required
· Cover Sheet & Table of Contents: Required
· Length: 3-5 pages with at least 500 words (including
illustrations, cover page and works cited page)
· Margins & Spacing: 1" inch ---left, right, top, and bottom;
double-spaced for normal text, single-spaced for long quotes
· Font Style: 12 point (Times New Roman or Courier)
Points: 120
RUBRIC for WRITTEN RESEARCH PAPER
Criteria
4- Exceptional
3 - Satisfactory
2 - Marginal
1-Unsatisfactory
Intro & Title Page Included (Organization)
Title page included; The introduction is inviting, states the main
topic and previews the structure of the paper.
Title Page included, and the introduction clearly states the main
topic and previews the structure of the paper, but is not
particularly inviting to the reader.

Title Page included, but the introduction states the main topic,
but does not adequately preview the structure of the paper nor is
it particularly inviting to the reader.
There is no clear title page and introduction of the main topic or
structure of the paper.
Sequencing (Organization)
Details are placed in a logical order and the way they are
presented effectively keeps the interest of the reader.
Details are placed in a logical order, but the way in which they
are presented/introduced sometimes makes the writing less
interesting.
Some details are not in a logical or expected order, and this
distracts the reader.
Many details are not in a logical or expected order. There is
little sense that the writing is organized.
Transitions (Organization)
A variety of thoughtful transitions are used. They clearly show
how ideas are connected.
Transitions clearly show how ideas are connected, but there is
little variety.
Some transitions work well; but connections between other
ideas are fuzzy.
The transitions between ideas are unclear or nonexistent.
Accuracy of Facts (Content)

All supportive facts are reported accurately.
Almost all supportive facts are reported accurately.
Most supportive facts are reported accurately.
NO facts are reported OR most are inaccurately reported.
Support for Topic (Content)
Relevant, telling, quality details give the reader important
information that goes beyond the obvious or predictable.
Supporting details and information are relevant, but one key
issue or portion of the storyline is unsupported.
Supporting details and information are relevant, but several key
issues or portions of the storyline are unsupported.
Supporting details and information are typically unclear or not
related to the topic.
Focus on Topic (Content)
There is one clear, well-focused topic. Main idea stands out and
is supported by detailed information.
Main idea is clear but the supporting information is general.
Main idea is somewhat clear but there is a need for more
supporting information.
The main idea is not clear. There is a seemingly random
collection of information.

Margins, Font Size, Word Count (Conventions)
Writer meets all requirements in these area;
Writer meets most of these requirements
Writer marginally follow requirements in these areas
Writer does not meet any of the requirements in these areas
Capitalization & Punctuation (Conventions)
Writer makes no errors in capitalization or punctuation, so the
paper is exceptionally easy to read.
Writer makes 1 or 2 errors in capitalization or punctuation, but
the paper is still easy to read.
Writer makes a few errors in capitalization and/or punctuation
that catch the reader's attention and interrupt the flow.
Writer makes several errors in capitalization and/or punctuation
that catch the reader's attention and greatly interrupt the flow.
Grammar & Spelling (Conventions)
Writer makes no errors in grammar or spelling that distracts the
reader from the content.
Writer makes 1-2 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the
Writer makes 3-4 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the
Writer makes more than 4 errors in grammar or spelling that

distract the reader from the content.
Sources (Content)
All sources used for quotes and facts are credible and cited
correctly.
All sources used for quotes and facts are credible and most are
cited correctly.
Most sources used for quotes and facts are credible and cited
correctly.
Many sources used for quotes and facts are less than credible
(suspect) and/or are not cited correctly.
CIS 331 - Section #004VA016 (v1138)
1
Laboratory
Project
1
Diabetes
and
Hypertension
in
Patients

with
CKF
Abstract
From
previously
working
with
dialysis
patients,
I
wanted
to
know
how
many
people
with
Chronic
Kidney
Failure
(CKF)
had
diabetes
and/or
hypertension
(high
blood
pressure).
With

my
hypothesis
I
intended
to
prove
that
patients
with
CKF
were
more
likely
to
have
either
disease.
I
started
my
project
by
contacting
two
dialysis
clinics
that
I
previously
worked
for
to
gather

information
and
establish
a
control
group.
I
wanted
to
know
how
many
patients
assigned
to
the
clinics
had
diabetes
alone,
how
many
had
hypertension
alone,
and
how
many
had
both.
After
receiving

the
numbers,
I
was
able
to
conclude
that
Clinic
1
had
a
total
of
62.5%
of
patients
with
diabetes,
and
55%
of
patients
with
hypertension
(this
is
combining
the
number
of
patients
with
diseases

alone
and
diseases
combined),
and
Clinic
2
had
66%
of
patients
with
diabetes
and
57%
with
hypertension.
The
results
were
relatively
close
to
each
other
and
correlated
well
with
the
results
I
gathered
from

the
National
Kidney
Foundation’s
website,
which
stated
that
diabetes
and
hypertension
are
responsible
for
up
to
two-‐thirds
(66%)
of
cases
of
Chronic
Kidney
Failure
(CKF).
I
feel
that
my
findings
were
somewhat
accurate
and

could
be
better
with
more
research
and
statistics
from
other
clinics.
I.
Statement
of
problem:
It
seems
that
most
people
on
dialysis
require
blood
glucose
monitoring
and
all
require
monitoring

of
blood
pressure.
How
many
people
suffering
from
CKF
have
diabetes
and/or
hypertension?
II.
Statement
of
working
hypothesis:
If
people
are
diagnosed
with
CKF
then
they
are
most
likely
to
be

diabetic
or
hypertensive.
III.
Experimental
designs
and
methods:
I
contacted
a
two
dialysis
clinics
in
two
separate
states
from
which
I
was
previously
employed
to
obtain
information
from
a
controlled
group.

This
allowed
me
to
collect
data
only
from
patients
diagnosed
with
CKF.
The
nurses
from
each
location
pulled
the
patients
charts
and
tallied
patients
with
diabetes
alone,
hypertension
alone
and
those
with

both
and
reported
the
results
to
me.
I
was
able
to
conclude
that
the
remaining
patients
had
neither
disease.
Once
the
data
was
collected
from
the
clinics,
I
compared
my
findings
to

the
statistics
found
from
the
National
Kidney
Foundation
website.
IV.
Results:
From
clinic
1,
7/40
(17.5%)
of
patients
were
diabetic
alone,
4/40
(10%)
were

hypertensive
alone,
18/40
(45%)
had
both
diabetes
and
hypertension,
and
11/40
(27.5%)
were
not
affected
by
either
disease.
In
clinic
2,
out
of
56
total
patients,
16/56
(28.6%)
had
diabetes

alone,
11/56
(19.6%)
had
hypertension
alone,
21/56
(37.5%)
were
both
hypertensive
and
diabetic,
and
8/56
(14.3%)
were
unaffected
by
either
disease.
17%
10%
45%
28%

Clinic
1
CKF
PaNents
Diabetes
Alone
Hypertension
Alone
Diabetes
and
Hypertension
Unaffected
29%
20%
37%
14%

Clinic
2
CKF
PaNents
Diabetes
Alone
Hypertension
Alone
Diabetes
and
Hypertension
Unaffected
According
to
the
National
Kidney
Foundation,
diabetes
and
hypertension
are
responsible
for

up
to
two-‐thirds
(66%)
of
cases
in
CKF,
which
correlates
to
my
study
from
the
two
clinics.
Clinic
1
had
62.5%
(combined)
diabetic
patients
and
55%
(combined)
hypertensive
patients,
and
Clinic
2
had
66%

(combined)
diabetic
patients
and
57%
(combined)
hypertensive
patients.
V.
Conclusion/future
directions:
It
appears
that
my
findings
from
the
two
clinics
fall
within
the
two-‐
thirds
category
and
presents
my
hypothesis

to
be
plausible.
I
feel
that
with
more
extensive
research
and
statistics
from
other
clinics,
I
could
gain
a
much
more
accurate
result.
VI.
References:
"About
Chronic
Kidney

Disease."
The
National
Kidney
Foundation:
Kidney
Disease.
National
Kidney
Foundation,
Inc.,
2013.
Web.
02
Feb.
2013.
• Statistical
analysis
collected
from
Carolina
Dialysis
LLC,
Spartanburg,
SC
&
Scott
&
White
Dialysis,
Killeen,
TX

BI108
–
AIR
POLLUTION
LAB
The
air
contains
tiny
particles
of
dust,
soot,
and
pollen
(known
as
particulate
matter),
which
can

be
seen
with
a
hand
lens.
It
may
also
contain
particles
of
lead
and
mercury,
which
are
too
small
to
see.
Some
particles
come
from
faraway
volcanic
eruptions
and
soil
that
has
been
blown

into
the
air.
Other
sources
are
coal-‐
and
oil-‐
powered
electricity-‐generating
plants
along
with
factories,
exhaust,
and
forest
fires.
Some
is
released
from
cars.
Because
of
its
small
size,
particulate
matter
can
travel
great

distances
and
contribute
to
haze
in
cities.
Particulate
matter
also
presents
a
very
troubling
human
health
concern.
The
small
particles
can
lodge
in
the
lungs,
causing
asthma,
wheezing,
and
chronic
bronchitis.

Children
and
the
elderly
are
at
the
greatest
risk
of
suffering
from
respiratory
problems
due
to
particulate
matter
inhalation.
Particulate
matter
is
also
a
suspected
carcinogen.
Other
air

pollutants
we
won’t
be
measuring
in
this
lab
including
hydrocarbons,
nitrogen
oxides,
ozone,
smog,
carbon
monoxide,
and
carbon
dioxide.
Hydrocarbons
or
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC’s)
occur
when
fuel
does
not
burn
completely.

Many
hydrocarbons
are
both
toxic
and
carcinogenic.
Also,
hydrocarbons
react
with
nitrogen
oxide
and
sunlight
to
form
ground-‐level
ozone,
which
damages
the
lungs,
eyes,
and
respiratory
tract
and
forms
one
of
our

nation’s
most
widespread
urban
air
pollution
problems.
In
this
lab
we
will
measure
and
compare
the
particulate
matter
we
can
see
both
inside
and
outside.
These
will
be
the
two
treatments

–
categories
within
the
experiment
that
you
control.
Below
you
will
find
the
materials
you
need
and
the
methodology
that
you
will
follow.
The
data
you
collect
will
be
the
number
of
particles

you
can
see
on
the
sticky
ends.
You
will
analyze
this
data,
make
graphs
to
show
the
averages
of
your
two
treatments
and
then
turn
in
a
lab
report
(see
below
for
format)
in

which
you
present
your
data
and
describe
what
it
means.
1.
MATERIALS
• Roll
of
white,
plastic
furniture
repair
tape
(or
duct
tape
will
work

fine)
• Ten
paint
stirrers
or
foot
long
rulers,
each
labeled
with
a
number
(1-‐10)
• Scissors
• Ten
paper
cups
• Masking
tape
• Sharpie
• Hand
lens
(magnifying
glass)

• Note
cards
(if
needed
to
prevent
disturbance)
2.
METHODS
• For
each
stick,
cut
a
strip
of
furniture/
duct
tape
~5
inches
(~13
centimeters)
long
and
tightly

wrap
one
end
of
each
stick
so
the
sticky
side
is
facing
out.
Overlap
the
ends
of
the
tape
to
hold
it
in
place.
Try
not
to
touch
the
surface
of
the
tape
except

at
the
back
where
the
ends
will
overlap.
• If
you
live
someplace
where
the
sticks
are
likely
to
be
disturbed,
make
a
card
for
each
that
says
“Experiment
in
progress
–
please
do

not
disturb”
• Place
a
paper
cup
on
the
taped
end
of
each
stick,
but
don't
touch
the
sides
of
the
cup
to
the
front
of
the
tape
(where
the
ends
don’t
overlap.
(You're

using
the
cups
to
keep
particles
off
the
tape
until
you
put
the
sticks
where
you
need
them.)
• Five
of
the
sticks
will
be
taped
to
signs
somewhere
outside
(a
parking
lot

or
somewhere
near
the
street
if
possible).
The
other
five
should
be
attached
somewhere
inside.
Place
all
where
they
will
be
exposed
to
normal
air
flow
for
where
they
are,
but
where
they

are
unlikely
to
be
disturbed,
bumped
into,
etc.
Attach
your
sticks
so
that
the
side
without
the
over
lapping
ends
(the
‘front’)
is
unobstructed
and
so
that
they
will
remain
where
you
put
them.

Once
you
have
attached
your
sticks,
remove
the
paper
cups
to
expose
the
tape.
Attach
your
“do-‐not-‐disturb”
signs
(if
needed)
under
each
of
your
sticks.
• After

3
days,
recollect
your
sticks
and
re-‐cover
them
with
the
cups
to
protect
them
in
transit
back
to
wherever
you
will
look
at
them
(again,
take
care
not
to
contact
the
front
of

the
tape
with
the
cup).
• On
the
squared
off
ends
of
each
stick,
use
a
sharpie
or
pen
to
draw
lines
2
and
3
cm
from
the
top
of
the
stick.

• Use
a
strong
magnifying
glass
to
count
the
number
of
visible
particles
on
the
front
side
of
the
tape
(the
side
without
the
overlapping
ends)
between
the
sharpie
marks
you
made.
Anything

on
the
tape
counts
as
a
particle
–
pollen,
specks
of
dirt,
bugs,
etc.
Making
the
marks
makes
sure
you
count
particles
from
the
same
area
for
all
sticks
(so
you
can
compare
between

them),
but
will
allow
you
to
look
at
a
smaller
overall
area
(might
be
nice
in
case
you
have
lots
of
particles
from
one
location.
• IF
YOU
FIND
THAT
NONE
OF

YOUR
STICKS
HAVE
MANY
(OR
ANY)
PARTICLES
between
the
marked
lines,
count
from
the
rest
of
the
front
of
the
tape
to
see
if
you
will
pick
up
anything,
BUT
if
you
do
this

from
one
stick,
you
have
to
do
them
from
all
of
them
–
we
need
to
compare
apples
to
apples,
so
you
can’t
compare
the
number
of
particles
in
1
cm
from
a
few

sticks
and
from
5
cm
from
the
others.
• Take
a
picture
of
your
sticks
to
attach
to
your
lab
report.
• Record
your
observations
in
the
table
provided.
Having
multiple

sticks
from
each
place
gives
you
REPLICATES,
will
give
you
a
better
idea
of
what
is
really
going
on
in
each
place.
After
all,
if
you
wanted
to
know
how
tall
the
average

man
was,
you
wouldn’t
just
measure
one!
• Calculate
an
average
for
each
location
and
record
it
in
the
table.
• Make
a
graph
showing
the
AVERAGE
number
of
particulates
for
each
location.

With
the
data
you
collected,
you
will
write
a
lab
report
and
submit
that
through
Blackboard.
I
have
posted
an
example
of
a
properly
formatted
report
from
another

class
to
use
as
a
guide.
In
your
report,
you
should
have
the
following
sections:
An
Abstract:
this
is
a
summary
and
should
speak
in
general
terms
about
the
purpose
of

the
experiment,
the
methods,
the
findings
and
what
they
mean.
It
should
be
SHORT
and
GENERAL
–
the
bottom
line
on
each
of
the
sections
that
follow,
so
a
reader
will
have
a
general

idea
of
what
you
did,
what
you
found
and
what
it
means.
I.
Statement
of
problem:
What
is
the
question
that
you
are
addressing
and
why
is
it
interesting/
important?

II.
Statement
of
working
hypothesis:
a
statement
that
can
be
falsified
such
as
“I
hypothesize
that
there
will
be
more
particulate
matter
collected
on
the
inside
sticks.”
III.
Experimental

designs
and
methods:
this
is
what
you
did
to
conduct
the
experiment,
including
the
materials
you
used
but
IT
SHOULD
NOT
READ
LIKE
A
LIST!!!
This
section
should
be
in
SENTENCES
and
in

PAST
TENSE
(you
did
the
experiment
before
you
sat
down
to
write
the
report
after
all).
It
should
contain
enough
detail
that
the
person
reading
your
lab
report
would
understand
what
you
did,

but
you
don’t
have
to
tell
us
every
time
you
sneezed.
This
section
should
contain
NO
RESULTS
–
that
comes
later.
IV.
Results:
this
is
where
you
present
your
results,
including
the

averages
for
your
two
treatments
(indoors
&
outdoors).
You
can
and
should
include
your
table
and
any
graphs
you
make,
BUT
YOU
SHOULD
HAVE
SENTENCES
THAT
PRESENT
YOUR
RESULTS,
independently
of
tables
and

graphs.
The
rule
of
thumb
is
that
I
should
be
able
to
understand
your
results
just
from
reading
the
sentences
of
the
results
section
but
I
should
also
be
able
to
understand
the
results

if
I
ONLY
look
at
your
graphs
and
tables.
In
this
section,
present
the
results,
but
SAVE
INTERPRETATIONS
of
what
those
results
mean
for
the
next
section.
V.

Conclusion/future
directions:
this
is
where
you
say
what
your
results
mean,
especially
in
terms
of
your
original
hypothesis
(remember
your
hypothesis?!).
If
there
were
any
problems
with
the
experiment
(your
cat
attacked
one
of

the
stick
and
it
was
covered
with
tabby
fur),
this
is
the
place
to
mention
them
and
how
they
may
have
affected
your
results,
but
you
don’t
want
to
dwell
too
much
on
the

various
problems.
This
is
also
where
you
put
forward
ideas
about
WHY
you
got
the
results
you
did
and
any
questions
your
results
bring
up
(if
you
saw
this
when
you
did
X
(in

this
experiment),
what
would
happen
if
you
did
Y
(a
variation
on
the
experiment)?
VI.
References:
any
sources
from
which
you
collected
background
information
or
information
you
used
to
interpret
your

results.
OUTSIDE
INSIDE
Location
description
#
particles
Location
description
#
particles

AVERAGE:
Sheet1Initial Assets$167,000AgeSalaryRetirement
ContributionsPost-retirment NeedsSS IncomePost-retirement
TaxesRetirement AssetsYear
Assets=0AgeSalary$115,00047$115,000$25,300$0$0$0$167,00
0047Savings
Rate12%48$120,750$26,565$0$0$0$207,3300048Salary
Growth5%49$126,788$27,893$0$0$0$252,5550049Inflation2.50
%50$133,127$29,288$0$0$0$303,1780050Investment return
pre-
retirement9%51$139,783$30,752$0$0$0$359,7520051Investme
nt return post-
retirement5%52$146,772$32,290$0$0$0$422,8820052Retire
date6653$154,111$33,904$0$0$0$493,2310053Post-retirement
withdrawal
rate50%54$161,817$35,600$0$0$0$571,5260054Post-retirement
tax rate30%55$169,907$37,380$0$0$0$658,5630055SS Income
at
retirement$30,00056$178,403$39,249$0$0$0$755,214005657$1
87,323$41,211$0$0$0$862,4310057Last
Salary$266,00058$196,689$43,272$0$0$0$981,2610058Initial

post-retirement
income$133,00059$206,523$45,435$0$0$0$1,112,8460059Year
assets=08060$216,850$47,707$0$0$0$1,258,438006061$227,69
2$50,092$0$0$0$1,419,404006162$239,077$52,597$0$0$0$1,5
97,243006263$251,031$55,227$0$0$0$1,793,591006364$263,5
82$57,988$0$0$0$2,010,241006465$276,761$60,887$0$0$0$2,
249,151006566$0$0$133,000$30,000$30,900$2,361,609006667
$0$0$136,325$30,750$31,673$2,345,789006768$0$0$139,733$
31,519$32,464$2,325,831006869$0$0$143,226$32,307$33,276$
2,301,444006970$0$0$146,807$33,114$34,108$2,272,32000707
1$0$0$150,477$33,942$34,961$2,238,136007172$0$0$154,239
$34,791$35,835$2,198,547007273$0$0$158,095$35,661$36,730
$2,153,192007374$0$0$162,048$36,552$37,649$2,101,6860074
75$0$0$166,099$37,466$38,590$2,043,626007576$0$0$170,25
1$38,403$39,555$1,978,585007677$0$0$174,508$39,363$40,54
3$1,906,111007778$0$0$178,870$40,347$41,557$1,825,728007
879$0$0$183,342$41,355$42,596$1,736,934007980$0$0$187,9
26$42,389$43,661$1,639,198008081$0$0$192,624$43,449$44,7
52$1,531,960008182$0$0$197,439$44,535$45,871$1,414,63100
8283$0$0$202,375$45,649$47,018$1,286,588008384$0$0$207,
435$46,790$48,193$1,147,172008485$0$0$212,620$47,960$49,
398$995,693008586$0$0$217,936$49,158$50,633$831,4180086
87$0$0$223,384$50,387$51,899$653,578008788$0$0$228,969$
51,647$53,197$461,361008889$0$0$234,693$52,938$54,526$2
53,911008990$0$0$240,561$54,262$55,890$30,3250090
Sheet2
Sheet3

CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)Modeling Theory– CIS 331.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)Modeling Theory– CIS 331.docx

Similar to CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)Modeling Theory– CIS 331.docx (12)

More from joyjonna282

More from joyjonna282 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CIS 331 – Syllabus (Fall 2013)Modeling Theory– CIS 331.docx